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)

Monday, May 28, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 39, Number 4

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

MONDAY, MAY 28, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

RYDER HESJEDAL

Hon. I. Chong: It is with great pleasure that I rise again today to acknowledge a young man from greater Victoria whose accomplishments this past weekend have made history.

Last week I rose in these chambers to congratulate Ryder Hesjedal when he took the pink jersey as the race leader in his leg of the Giro d'Italia cycling race. Well, as we all heard and as we saw on television on Sunday, he was able to come from behind in the final stage in Milan to win by a narrow 16 seconds over his nearest competitor.

Again today it is with distinct honour, and I'm delighted to say, that all of us here in greater Victoria, indeed around the province and across the country, want to pay tribute to Ryder. He has the support of his family and his community — the sporting community in particular. He has done a great honour to all of us by winning with such distinction in his calibre of racing.

Ryder is a greater Victoria native. He is a superb athlete. He is a B.C. Games alum, which is also really important to note, because he continually encourages young people to be involved in athletics. He is the first Canadian to ever win the Giro d'Italia.

[1335]

Greater Victoria, I would like to say, has produced a number of leading athletes. We know a few of them, like Simon Whitfield and Ryan Cochrane, as well. As a local MLA, I know I join with my other colleagues from greater Victoria. We are very pleased with this particular result, and as the Minister of Sport, I'm incredibly proud whenever one of our hometown heroes achieves success on the world stage.

I know that he has received many congratulations. I know they have been pouring in over the course of the last 24 hours. Certainly, I would like to add my voice here today, as I'm sure all members of the House would. On behalf of the province of British Columbia and on the Premier's behalf, I would like to offer, once again, congratulations to Ryder.

J. Horgan: I rise to join with my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head to cheer on Ryder Hesjedal. His family are constituents of mine living in Metchosin. Ryder is a Belmont high school graduate. I know that the Minister of Education will be pleased to hear that. Born and raised in Victoria, he of course in the season is stationed somewhere else. He's in Europe; he's in Hawaii, working on mountain climbs, which you don't get here, other than the Malahat Drive, which the Transportation Minister is quite familiar with.

It's a very exciting time for the cycling community here in greater Victoria and, of course, right across Canada. We have, as a result of the 1994 Commonwealth Games, a legacy in our constituency, myself and the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads. We have a velodrome that is disused, by and large, by the cycling community in greater Victoria but not disused by one Ryder Hesjedal. Were it not for that legacy piece of sporting infrastructure that came from the 1994 Commonwealth Games, we may not have the champion in our midst that we do today.

It's a very exciting time for cyclists in Victoria. Ryder has taken his newfound stardom, with his great performance in the Tour de France last year, and has inspired the Tour de Victoria, which has some 1,500 cyclists expecting to participate. Wheelmen.ca is the website.

Again, with my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, all the members of the south Island and all the members of this House, our warm and fond congratulations to Ryder Hesjedal.

Introductions by Members

L. Reid: Today I have three introductions to make.

Two special guests. One is on the floor of the House — second vice-president of the National Assembly of Quebec, François Ouimet. François has been a sitting member for the constituency of Marquette since the general election in 1994. In the gallery I would like to welcome Richard Daignault, a veteran with the department of interparliamentary and international relations of the Quebec National Assembly and currently administrative secretary for the assembly's delegation for relations with the United States.

Two special guests. One is on the floor of the House — second vice-president of the National Assembly of Quebec, François Ouimet. François has been a sitting member for the constituency of Marquette since the general election in 1994. In the gallery I would like to welcome Richard Daignault, a veteran with the department of interparliamentary and international relations of the Quebec National Assembly and currently administrative secretary for the assembly's delegation for relations with the United States.

I'm also happy to advise the House that we have a visitor from Halifax, Nova Scotia. Dr. Laurie Mireau, who happens to be our sessional Clerk's better half, is joining us. Please give her a warm welcome.

Tributes

AZIZ KHAKI

A. Dix: I just want to recognize that last Tuesday a friend of many people in this House, Aziz Khaki, passed away. There was a service on Friday that brought people from around British Columbia. Aziz was a remarkable
[ Page 12268 ]
leader, I think, of the Muslim community. He headed up since 1982 the Committee for Racial Justice.

He came to Canada from Africa, as many people did, fleeing oppression in the early 1970s. He was a dear friend of many of ours, and he'll be sorely missed. I know the House would want to pass on their best wishes to his family.

Introductions by Members

M. Coell: I have a constituent in the chamber this afternoon, John Davies. I wish the House to make him most welcome.

Tributes

RYDER HESJEDAL AND
TRAINER JUERG FELDMANN

B. Simpson: I want to weigh in on Ryder's victory on the weekend, because it takes a province to raise an athlete. As we sat in Quesnel in the wee hours of the morning and watched Ryder cross the finish line, many of us harkened back to the days when he came into our community because his trainer is from Quesnel.

Juerg Feldmann, an ex-Swiss national speed skater, trains athletes all over the world based out of Quesnel. We have known Ryder since he was a very young man who would come up and go on our mountain bike trails, because that's how he started out. It was a great thrill to watch him do what he does, but I think it's also proof that it does take a province to raise an athlete. So well done to Juerg Feldmann, Ryder's coach and trainer.

[1340]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: From time to time all of us in this House rise to introduce people that are very important in our lives, and when you live in the far-flung corners of the province, we may not get to have them here as often as we would like.

I'm delighted to have my husband, Bill, in the gallery today. He has been a patient supporter, after almost 20 years in elected office, in our home, and I always appreciate the fact that he's always there. I'm very glad to have him here in the gallery. I hope you'd make him feel welcome today.

S. Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two visitors in the gallery today. My sister is visiting all the way from Ottawa. Gail Fraser Tessier is here today in the gallery. Joining her is my daughter Emma Fraser, who is off work today. Will the House please join me to make them feel very welcome.

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to rise today and make two introductions. In the gallery from the Comox Valley I have two visitors. We have Donald Taylor, who is attending. He is a very well-known community-involved individual who is pretty much at every event I ever attend. He is incredibly well known. So we have Donald Taylor, and he's accompanied by Mary Catherine Ruel. Would the House please make them welcome.

Also, I understand that here in the gallery today is Steven Costa. His mom, Sarina, works in my office in the Ministry of Agriculture. He is visiting the Legislature with his class and with his grade 10 social studies teacher, Mr. Macri, from Claremont. Would the House please make Steven Costa welcome.

B. Routley: I have with me a wonderful guest and friend, Rosemary Danaher, who is not only an outstanding artist and well known in the Cowichan Valley area but also a wonderful volunteer and vice-president of the Kaatza Art Group in the Cowichan Valley. Please join me in welcoming Rosemary.

G. Hogg: I had the honour today of having lunch with a number of White Rock youth ambassadors. We had wonderful esoteric discussions around such things as how one is happy in their life as opposed to happy with their life.

Would you please welcome Ambassadors Freda Zhang and Sarah Simon, Miss White Rock Alex Barberis, Princess Jane Peng, Friendship Ambassador Christina Howard, Youth Ambassador Krystal Schrauwen and the White Rock youth ambassador coordinators, who have been doing this for a number of years, Donna Beaudry and Debbie Ward. Please make them most welcome.

L. Popham: I would like to join with the Minister of Agriculture and welcome the teacher from Saanich South, from Claremont Secondary School, Erin MacCree, and his 32 grade 10 students. I happen to be, coincidentally, signing the graduation certificates for Claremont Secondary School's 2012 graduation class right now.

Welcome to the House.

M. Mungall: Among our distinguished guests in the gallery today, we have two representatives from the Native Education College. We have Dan Guinan, who is the president, and Keith Henry, who is the board chair. May the House please make them welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 56 — NEW HOUSING TRANSITION
TAX AND REBATE ACT

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act.
[ Page 12269 ]

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

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm pleased to introduce the New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act.

Bill 56 implements the transitional rules for new housing that were announced back in February, just prior to the budget. These rules provide certainty for purchasers and the residential construction industry about the application of tax during the transition from the HST to the PST.

The temporary housing transition measures help to ensure that the amount of tax payable in respect of a new home during the transition, regardless of when construction begins, is comparable to the amount of tax payable in respect of a home fully constructed under the PST.

[1345]

To provide equitable treatment among purchasers of new homes, a temporary housing transition tax of 2 percent will apply to purchases of new housing that are not subject to HST and where construction was at least 10 percent complete prior to April 1, 2013.

To help ensure there is no double taxation, eligible builders will be able to claim a transition rebate if they pay PST on construction materials used in housing that is subject to the temporary housing transition tax.

Bill 56 also requires that builders disclose certain information to purchasers that will help to ensure that they have a shared understanding of the taxes and rebates that apply to new housing in B.C. under the transitional rules.

The temporary housing transition tax and rebate will be in place for two years — from April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2015 — and will be administered by the Canada Revenue Agency on behalf of the government of British Columbia.

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

Bill 56, New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PASSPORT PROGRAM FOR PARKS

D. Horne: British Columbians know just how lucky we are to have such a diverse and rich environment. Our province is home to more than 200 provincial parks, and we are dedicated to their preservation and maintaining nature's gift to British Columbia.

This past Victoria Day weekend was the unofficial kickoff of the camping season for the summer. In celebration, the province relaunched the B.C. Parks passport program, the program started last year as part of our Parks 100 celebration. It proved so popular that we've brought it back for another two years.

Families will be able to take their time in the woods, with even more fun that this interactive and educational program delivers. It's simple. Pick up a free passport at any of our 114 provincial visitor centres or at one of the designated B.C. parks, and then start collecting stamps at one or more of the parks during the 2012 season. The goal is to collect six stamps and earn a collectible Jerry the Moose pin. For every six unique visitor stamps, the passport holder will also get an environmentally friendly water bottle.

Passports are not only a fun way to encourage kids to explore our parks. They offer valuable information, from advice on trip planning to how to build a campsite. The B.C. Parks passport program is made possible by contributions to the park enhancement fund. It provides a wonderful, family-friendly activity. I hope that everyone will take part on their next visit to our beautiful parks in British Columbia.

RYDER HESJEDAL

D. Routley: Today I'm wearing pink, with a pink tie. That's in honour of a person who's already been spoken about today, Ryder Hesjedal. Ryder Hesjedal has given Canadians a great reason for pride. We heard the anthem of Canada played at the end of a grand stage in the world of professional cycling.

Ryder, 33 years old, obviously wasn't born yesterday in cycling either. He spent a long time as a mountain bike racer, having won silver in the world championships under 23 in 2001. On the road he has won the Giro d'Italia. He was sixth in the Tour de France in 2010. He has won a stage in the other grand tour, the Vuelta a España, in 2009. And he has been the mountains leader in the Tour de Georgia.

Cycling is a team sport. Different disciplines — climbing, sprinting and time trialling — all contribute to what makes a champion. Those who support the champion as team members are known as domestiques. They save 30 percent of the team leader's energy as they pace him through the race. But eventually the team leaders are exposed and have to race against each other at the tops of these mountain passes.

If you ride the Malahat, you'll have 1,100 feet of vertical gain. On Saturday alone the riders of the Giro d'Italia gained 20,000 feet of vertical climbing in 60 miles of climbing. This is extraordinary. The last climb started at 5,000 feet and finished at 9,800 feet, the highest finish of any professional bike race in the world.

Mr. Hesjedal adds his name to a roll of many great
[ Page 12270 ]
Canadian cyclists. Victorians Bernie and Martin Willock — Olympians. Torchy Pedon of the '30s, who won 38 of the 126 pro races he entered. Clara Hughes, our great two-sport Olympian. Steve Bauer, silver medalist in 1984; 11 Tours de France, fourth in 1988. Alex Steida from the Lower Mainland. Curt Harnett. These are great Canadians. Now Ryder Hesjedal adds his name to that great roll.

[1350]

PEMBERTON HEIGHTS NEIGHBOURHOOD

R. Sultan: It's not common to find a village within a city, but Pemberton Heights lies within North Vancouver. This community of 600 homes has but two entrances, north and south. Through-traffic, otherwise known as rat-running, is or will be discouraged by district-approved but Pemberton Heights–paid for calming measures.

It's an enclave cherished for its community spirit. Block Watch and neighbourhood patrols are active. Capilano Elementary School's International Baccalaureate program has stabilized the student population. Its well-tended homes are not on the grand scale, but when one comes on the market, families will pay a premium. There are now third-generation families living here.

Every Canada Day about 150 children, average age about five, gather at the Capilano United Church corner store for a bicycle, tricycle, scooter, wagon and baby buggy parade, bedecked in Canadian flags, red and white crepe and balloons. It has been my dangerous assignment to select winners. Fortunately, there are lots of prizes.

Community leaders such as Sheena Capozzi, Tracy Cochrane, Doug Bentley, Colin Metcalfe, Alan Nixon, Lori Chapman and Herman Mah are the guardians of this tightly knit neighbourhood. The Ministry of Transport has helped local residents' quality of life through sound barriers on Highway 1, on-ramp signalling and reconstruction of the approaches to Lions Gate Bridge.

Well done, Pemberton Heights.

ESQUIMALT HISTORY AND
CENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS

M. Karagianis: Esquimalt is a place rich in history and brimming with pride. The Coast Salish First Nations people have called it home for thousands of years, and Esquimalt is an English version of the Salish word that means "a place of gradual shoaling."

Europeans started coming in 1790 and dropped anchor in its sheltered harbour. In the 1800s the Hudson's Bay Co. arrived, farms were established and the Royal Navy set up operations in the harbour. Then came the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway in 1887 and the first shipyard in 1883.

A hundred years ago this September the township of Esquimalt was incorporated. Back then it was a bustling commercial centre, with hotels, general stores, laundries and homes where naval workers and some of Victoria's most wealthy citizens lived. During the Second World War the Yarrows shipyard employed more than 4,300 workers and built dozens of new ships for the war effort. The naval base that began operations in 1865 has grown to become the Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, the largest employer in the region.

It's been an amazing journey for Esquimalt, and this year the community is proud to celebrate its centennial in grand style. The members of the Esquimalt centennial celebrations committee have been working hard to put together a year of fun-filled events and activities. A highlight is sure to be the centennial community celebration, which will be held on September 8, the week that the town was incorporated a hundred years ago. The complete calendar of events can be found on line at esquimaltcentennial2012.ca.

I hope members will join with me in congratulating Esquimalt on its 100th birthday, and I encourage all visitors and residents of the south Island to take in the town's terrific events and activities as it honours the past, celebrates the present and imagines the future.

STERLING AWARDS FOR
NANAIMO BUSINESSES

R. Cantelon: I rise today to congratulate the recipients of the Sterling Awards, hosted by the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce. The not-for-profit organization is the Nanaimo Community Hospice; corporate marketing — Studio Kitchens and Design Ltd. and PI Granite manufacturing; individual customer service — Joe Lewis, Lewis Modern Home Renovations; environmental sustainability — Happy Island Diaper Service Ltd; new business — Tuff City Powersports Ltd.; young entrepreneur — Sheri DeBoer and Robert Muir for ESSCO Solutions.

Service excellence went to Sink or Swim Scuba; economic development — Nanaimo Port Authority; community spirit — the Cottonwood Golf Course; and the junior citizen award — Amy Hsueh of Dover Bay Secondary School. The business leader of the year was Scott Cooper of the Modern Cafe.

These businesses. I was struck at the meeting that many of them are new entrepreneurs, and the nominees were sort of advised that 2008-2009 was maybe a tough time. They were undeterred, and they succeeded. And it's no coincidence that the unemployment rate in Nanaimo dropped from 16.3 percent a year ago. It's now down to 4.8 percent. That's real job creation.

Let's congratulate these young entrepreneurs for their persistence and their success in driving the economy of British Columbia.

[1355]

MANUFACTURED HOME OWNERS

H. Bains: I've had the opportunity over these past several years to work with a group of people that have become very dear to my heart. These people are mostly retired citizens and have invested their lifelong savings into manufactured homes. Manufactured home parks are cozy communities with playgrounds, beautiful gardens, clubhouses for residents to gather in large or small groups.

People are friendly and outgoing. They look out for each other. Many of the residents are seniors. These types of communities really are a viable form of affordable housing. These homes are permanent. They are set on foundations and are very difficult to move.

Living in this setting does not come without concerns, though. People have invested their life savings into their manufactured home, but they do not own the land, and they must rent the pad from the park owner.

Legislation stipulates that the park owner can raise the rent 2 percent per year, plus the cost of living, plus any increase in taxes and utilities. People are at risk of losing their lifetime investment because the pad rental increases are making it difficult to sell their homes and unaffordable for people on fixed incomes to pay the rent.

Manufactured home owners are also susceptible to the real estate market. When the land prices go up, they're vulnerable that the park owners could sell the land for redevelopment.

Under current legislation, homeowners have very little protection or compensation if their park is sold for other users. Manufactured home owners have been asking that we look at finding ways to protect these affordable housing units and provide them with certainty so that they can live to enjoy the remaining years of their lives. These are the people who built this country, and we owe it to them.

Oral Questions

B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
GOVERNMENT ENERGY POLICY

A. Dix: Two weeks ago I asked the Minister of Energy a question. He didn't answer it then. I'm going to ask it to him again. It's a very simple question. Has B.C. Hydro been spilling water over its dams without producing electricity in recent months? If so, how much inexpensive, clean energy has been lost to B.C. consumers?

Hon. R. Coleman: We manage our electrical system in a manner to protect long-term energy needs and energy security for all British Columbians. That means that sometimes we have to manage the system in high-water years, where we have to spill water, which is a situation we faced because of the high snowcap this year.

You can't rely on the spot market for long-term planning, and that's why our dams have always been good for us to be able to shape electricity in B.C. and will continue to be so over the next numbers of years.

At the same time, there are times — seldom, frankly, but it does happen — when levels of water reach a level where we have to spill.

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

A. Dix: Well, I think that the problem is — and the minister well knows this — that we're spilling water out of our dams in British Columbia, where we are paying $68 per kilowatt hour for deals signed by this government. Those are expensive deals. The off-peak price right now is 55 cents. The peak price is $9.98. The government is spending between $68 and $100. Clearly, that's an expensive price per megawatt hour.

I wanted to ask a question to the minister. If the minister is confident about his management of the system, how can he possibly justify the decision to cancel the BCUC hearings reviewing the government's very policies?

Hon. R. Coleman: There were two questions in one there. I'll try and do them both. First of all, to the member opposite: if you think that managing energy in any jurisdiction should be done on the spot market, that would be very bad business, very bad planning, and it would be very bad for the future of people in British Columbia.

With regard to the spot market being the answer, which is what you're talking about, the spot market could reverse by the end of the summer and be a lot higher simply because of drought conditions. To take the fact you want to build your energy policy around that….

On the second question, I know that the NDP, in their comments in the last few days with regard to our decision to give special direction to the B.C. Utilities Commission, want to raise rates for consumers in B.C. by 50 percent over the next five years. We don't believe that's necessary.

[1400]

We believe that the 24,000 pages of work that was done to get to where we are is the right place to go since, with all the work we've done, and we think we can keep rates affordable for British Columbians.

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

A. Dix: For people in British Columbia who believe in B.C. Hydro, this is a very serious issue, and we should have a serious debate. That's why we believe these issues should be before the Utilities Commission.

It's why we think, when the government is overpaying dramatically for power and damaging the long-term
[ Page 12272 ]
future of B.C. Hydro, that that's an important question. It's why we think 27 deferral accounts worth $2.5 billion, according to the Auditor General, more than doubling over the next few years, is a serious question.

Why is the government afraid of oversight of these questions? Why is the government essentially saying…? I'd say that the Premier's comment was: "We are finding a way to pay down the deferral account to $250 million." That's what the Premier said. Now, if the Premier believes that, why doesn't she take that plan and show it to the Utilities Commission?

Hon. R. Coleman: Two things, Mr. Speaker. What the Premier meant to say is that we'd be paying it down by $250 million this year. But, Leader of the Opposition and members opposite, don't think for a second that you can stand up and say that you believe in the B.C. Utilities Commission. I mean, for heaven's sake, you passed legislation in the 1990s to freeze rates, to eliminate the B.C. Utilities Commission altogether.

To be able to stand up and say that all of a sudden you've found religion here is shocking to me, considering the fact that you didn't believe in it when you were government. You don't believe in it now, and all you're interested in is putting a 50 percent increase on rates, on families in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: The Energy Minister raised a couple of interesting issues. First of all, now apparently the official opposition can set rates in British Columbia, and he said that we wanted somehow to see people paying higher rates. It was the B.C. Liberals that forced B.C. Hydro to buy power as if every year was a drought year. The self-sufficiency requirement has put B.C. Hydro in the poorhouse.

It wasn't the opposition. It wasn't the B.C. Utilities Commission. It was B.C. Hydro that asked for a 50 percent increase because of B.C. Liberal policies.

My question to the Minister of Energy is quite simple, and it's this. Last week the Premier said: "The B.C. Utilities Commission decided a 50 percent increase is appropriate. Folks at the Utilities Commission said they wanted a massive rate increase." Will the Minister of Energy take the opportunity to correct the record on behalf of the Premier that that's just plain wrong, and will you, at the same time, direct the commission to open up hearings so that the public can see the light of day on your mismanagement of B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Coleman: We corrected the record last week. Maybe you could just go and do some research before you get up and ask the question.

On the other side of it, I actually don't agree with the member's comment that B.C. Hydro is in the poorhouse. That's insulting to the corporation. It's insulting to its operations. In actual fact, they have found savings to the point that they are actually able to reduce the request for rates out of the work they've done in the last 18 months.

On the other side of it, I actually don't agree with the member's comment that B.C. Hydro is in the poorhouse. That's insulting to the corporation. It's insulting to its operations. In actual fact, they have found savings to the point that they are actually able to reduce the request for rates out of the work they've done in the last 18 months.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Last week the Minister of Energy also said that everyone agreed with him and his colleagues that we should disregard the Utilities Commission. Well, that's not the view of environmental organizations. That's not the view of the working people that represent Hydro. That's not the view of the large industrial users. That's not the view, in fact, of anyone that I've been able to determine except the Minister of Energy and the Premier.

[1405]

The challenge for us on this side of the House, when we look at spot market prices today that are negative…. In fact, Bonneville Power Administration is paying people to take electricity, but not here in British Columbia. Instead, we're paying $68 a megawatt hour because of B.C. Liberal policy.

Would the minister not concede that the most appropriate course of action, after five years of obfuscation, is to allow the Utilities Commission to do a comprehensive review and an integrated resource plan that allows the people of B.C. to understand just what exactly the heck is going on at B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that the member opposite wants to try and find one piece of the total power package in B.C., pick it out and say that's not a good thing because we don't want to average anything across the board. We don't want to have any long-term investments. We don't want to make anything that might be a smart investment for the long term on behalf of British Columbians. We'd rather sit in the spot market and hopefully say: "Gee whiz, maybe that spot market will stay that low for the next ten years or 15 years or 20 years or 25 years."

It's just not the case. We haven't had a high-water year this year. That's what's happening. The fact of the matter is that five years from now you could see the situation that happened in California just five years ago and how the demand for power can change. You'd better have a company that's making long-term investments for long-term security for power supply for British Columbians, or what you'll end up doing is not being able to attract
[ Page 12273 ]
the investment and the jobs that are needed for the future of B.C.

PRIVATIZATION OF
LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION

S. Simpson: The minister continues to make vague references about improved efficiency through liquor privatization without a shred of evidence to support his rhetoric. The Liquor Distribution Branch in its most recent service plan compared their efficiency against ten comparable public and private sector operators across Canada. The analysis showed the LDB as No. 1 when it came to overall operating efficiency, and in the top half of cost per case for distribution.

The reality is that we have an ill-conceived plan with no business case, no industry support and internal evidence that shows a very high level of efficiency with the current system, a system that is endorsed by the private sector. Can the minister provide any empirical evidence that will support his privatization scheme, since none seems to exist?

Hon. R. Coleman: Read the RFP. It says right in there that if it's not cheaper, we're not doing it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: We know there's no business case for the sale of the liquor distribution system. We know that across the industry there is opposition to this privatization, whether it's private liquor stores and bars through ABLE-BC, whether it’s the Craft Brewers Guild or the vintners. They all have a great concern about not being consulted and not being provided with any evidence to support this privatization.

In fact, the executive director of ABLE-BC said: "We can't support this. We're absolutely perplexed why they're doing it. If they could give us some documents or a business case to show how exactly this will work or justify it, that might give us some assurance. All we're told is: 'Sorry, we can't consult with you because we're on a tight timeline.'"

There is no business plan, but we do know that there is a Treasury Board submission, one that we've received a highly redacted version of. Will the minister release an uncensored version of the Treasury Board submission so that we can get some idea of what he and the B.C. Liberals were thinking when they came up with this irresponsible idea?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know that in the world of the members opposite, no change should ever take place. I know that they would rather that somebody had to go to build a brand-new warehouse somewhere to get to more efficiency in it, to be able to handle how we would do things, at a significant capital cost to taxpayers. Or you could go out to the marketplace and find out whether they can do it better and cheaper and if they can, pass that on to the consumers of British Columbia. I think they'd be pretty happy if we could do that in B.C.

I know the member opposite would prefer we didn't go look at anything to see if we could find any savings. He'd just like to keep paying blindly without ever having gone out and asking the market what they might have to offer.

[1410]

M. Karagianis: Well, you'd think that if you're about to privatize something as significant as liquor distribution, you'd actually go out and consult with the industry, if you're going to make those big changes in the province.

On liquor privatization, Matt Phillips, the owner of Phillips Brewing said: "We pay twice as much in Alberta for that service as we do in B.C." Tod Melnyk of Penticton from the B.C. Craft Brewers Guild said: "We are definitely opposed to it." Raechelle Williams, the executive director of the Alliance of Beverage Licensees, said: "We believe that this initiative is replicating the Alberta distribution system and, without doubt, that privatization monopoly has experienced many challenges and has led to increased costs to the consumer level."

So if the minister and the B.C. Liberal government are not consulting with industry, then who stands to benefit? What is this all about? Where is the business plan and, if not the business plan, the Treasury Board submission that supports this?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the members opposite, first of all, they should understand that this is not replicating the Alberta model, not in any way whatsoever, because in Alberta, first of all, they sold all their liquor stores. Our liquor stores aren't up for sale. They're part of negotiations and collective agreements, so how could we be replicating something that happened over in Alberta?

They have a completely different distribution system in Alberta because, first of all, they're not big suppliers of wine with 100 percent B.C. grapes that have a certain distribution opportunity in B.C. that has built a world-class tourism and job base in both the wine industry and in tourism in the Okanagan and other regions across the province, which is how we do it. That isn't going to change. That's not changing, hon. Member.

The only thing is that today we happen to warehouse and distribute some of the alcohol in British Columbia through the LDB. The pricing will stay the same. It'll stay in the same hands of the people who are pricing it today, and they'll be doing the work exactly the same as they did in the past.

All we're saying is: is there a more efficient way to warehouse and distribute alcohol in B.C. to save the consumer some money and perhaps get some dollars in that might help the fiscal plan and maintain our triple-A credit rat-
[ Page 12274 ]
ing so we can do things for health care and education? We should be looking at this, and that's exactly what we're doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, not according to the industry. They're not in any way buying into what the minister is telling us right here. Raechelle Williams — who represents more than a thousand pubs, bars and private liquor stores — also said: "We were advised that given the tight time frame to have this project completed, there's just not time for consultation with the industry."

Hmm, no time for consultation with the industry. You'd think if we're going through this kind of big change that the minister would consult with the industry. She says: "Licensees are concerned that government is going down this path without presenting a business case, without presenting how this will impact provincial revenues, industry or consumers."

So no consultation, no business case. This government has been in power for 11 years, and we've seen nothing until this impetuous drive here to have this privatization done. I would like the minister to show us either the business case or the Treasury Board submission, because if the industry doesn't believe what the minister is saying, why would anybody else in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, the industry wants to know if they get the liquor that they need at the appropriate time at a wholesale price that they can retail it out to the consumer at a fair price so that they can actually make a markup. That's what they're interested in. This doesn't change any of that.

The fact of the matter is that relative to this particular issue, all you have to do is read the RFP. If you read the RFP, you'll see a clause in there that says that if this isn't beneficial to the savings for consumers in British Columbia, we're not doing it.

I know you're afraid of privatization, but you weren't, by the way — and I'll remind you one more time — at the end of the 1990s. You wanted to sell B.C. Hydro. You had a private memo in government to say, "We want to sell some big-ticket items," and on the table were B.C. Hydro and another Crown corp. Without any research, without any opportunity, you were going to do that.

[1415]

Today we're taking something as simple as warehousing and distribution that doesn't necessarily need to be a core business for the ability to sell liquor in the province of British Columbia and seeing if there's a better way to do it. I'm not ashamed of that. I think we should be looking at things like this.

CATALYST MILL
OPERATIONS AND WORKERS

C. Trevena: For months the opposition, along with workers, community leaders and industry, have all been asking for the Liberals to do something to help keep Catalyst from failing. Some 1,700 jobs are at stake on Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast, and thousands of pensioners are worried about their future.

Only now, after the latest effort to save the company has fallen short, has the Premier decided to meet with the company. Can the Minister of Forests explain why his leader waited so long to get involved in the crisis at Catalyst?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question. You know, Mr. Speaker, it's always a difficult and challenging time for any company that's undergoing the kind of financial challenges that Catalyst Paper is undergoing. It's been a very, very difficult pulp and paper market, as the members would well know, with the decline in newspaper readership and other challenges in the magazine sector. This has clearly affected the viability of not just this company but many others around the world.

We have long held the position that anything government can do to try and be helpful in this process we will certainly look at — short of, of course, getting into the business of subsidizing business directly. The fact that we've eliminated the corporate capital tax, which was a huge barrier to investment — introduced, in fact, by the member opposite's party while in government in the 1990s — the fact that we've reduced business tax rates by 40 percent over the last decade, and the fact that we have created a climate that encourages investment in business, I think, is exactly the kind of thing government needs to do to ensure that all business will have an equal opportunity to succeed in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: The Finance Minister has also ignored the fact that this government has created a climate which has killed the forest industry. The loss of thousands of jobs in mills…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Trevena: …across B.C., including, already, the closure of the Catalyst mill in Campbell River, where the government refused to get involved…. We lost a couple of thousand well-paying family jobs in the city which I represent.

Last week his colleague the Jobs Minister said: "It isn't the end of the world if the decision over Catalyst goes the
[ Page 12275 ]
wrong way." But for the workers, the pensioners and their families, and the communities that Catalyst works in, it is pretty close to the end of the world if this company fails.

I'd like to know exactly what specific actions are going to be taken to ensure that those communities can survive and the pensioners are not just thrown on the wayside?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, as I've said before, everyone, I am sure, sympathizes with the challenge and the uncertainty that the Catalyst Paper situation creates for employees, for pensioners, for communities. We're equally concerned, which is one of the reasons why the Premier will be meeting with folks from Catalyst this week. The member is correct to point that out.

These are always challenging issues for government to deal with. I acknowledge that. But the member opposite should know that when the member wants government to take action, you have to be careful about what kind of action you're expecting the government to take.

The members know from their own experience in government in the 1990s, when they poured over $400 million into Skeena Cellulose and wrote off the entire amount on behalf of taxpayers — when even that major investment did not solve the problem and save the jobs, ultimately.

We think a prudent, thoughtful approach to dealing with challenges like this is appropriate. Meeting with them and discussions are underway to ensure that we can take whatever responsible steps government can prudently take to try and deal with these challenges without getting into the situation the NDP got involved with in the '90s where we become part of the business operations and lose hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers.

D. Routley: On May 24 the Minister of Jobs and Innovation told the local radio station in the Cowichan Valley that the government would not get directly involved. It wouldn't be appropriate.

[1420]

Under pressure, on May 26 the Premier finally said she would be meeting with Catalyst, the union and community leaders — finally. The CEO of Catalyst has wondered why the Liberals have been twiddling their thumbs. CEO Kevin Clarke said in a letter to the Premier: "Provincial, national and international investors are understandably concerned that there has been no formal action from the B.C. government." Thousands of workers, pensioners and their families are concerned.

Why has the government been missing in action while this crisis has played out in our communities?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is incorrect when he says the government has been missing in action. In fact, the superintendent of pensions, on behalf of government, has been working with Catalyst to try and smooth out some of the challenges that they're facing with respect to their unfunded pension obligations. We've been meeting regularly with the groups representing pensioners within Catalyst Paper, and of course, as we mentioned, the Premier will be meeting with Catalyst this week.

The fact of the matter is there are a lot of discussions that take place. Not all of them take place in public, for good reason. It's a very sensitive time. There are obviously a lot of moving parts to the situation. But I can assure the member that this government is as concerned about Catalyst Paper as we are about any company that is struggling in British Columbia.

Companies — unfortunately, not all are successful. They are facing a very challenging international environment. There's no question about it.

I applaud the Premier for taking the leadership of sitting down and seeing what, if anything else, government can do short of not getting involved in making direct investments that put taxpayer dollars at risk.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, after the vote has been taken to sell the assets, the Premier wants to ride in on a horse and save things? The investors in that company voted without seeing the government of British Columbia as a partner doing everything it could to help this situation.

The people of Crofton, of Powell River, of Port Alberni have all watched while their government has been absent. These communities' futures hang in the balance, and the Liberals have been completely absent from this file. Even the CEO of Catalyst said that investors must be wondering why the government has been absent.

These jobs are the lifeblood of our communities. These are my friends and neighbours. These are the coaches of the sports teams. These are the people of these communities in this region.

Why does it take communities to be on the absolute brink of disaster before this government shows even the slightest interest in saving these good, well-paying, family-supporting jobs?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, as I've mentioned a number of times, government, of course, is watching the situation very carefully and engaged in discussions to see where we might be helpful in a responsible way — respecting the fact, of course, that we are not going to engage in actions that are going to put taxpayer dollars at risk.

From the nature of the member's question and his demand that government do something, it sounds suspiciously like the member opposite has not learned anything from their disastrous reign in government when they invested and lost over $400 million of taxpayer dollars trying to save a sawmill, Skeena Cellulose. That was spectacularly unsuccessful in saving those jobs.

What it did do is…. Not only did it not save the jobs, but it actually wasted $400-million-plus of taxpayer dol-
[ Page 12276 ]
lars. It sounds like the NDP have yet to learn a single lesson from the misadventures that they were involved with in the 1990s.

TRANSFER OF RCMP OFFICER TO B.C.
AND RCMP CONTRACT WITH GOVERNMENT

K. Corrigan: Last week we learned that Sgt. Don Ray, a disgraced senior officer in Alberta with a history of sexual misconduct, won't be kicked out of the RCMP. Instead, Sergeant Ray is being transferred to B.C. While the Premier and the Justice Minister have expressed concern, they've said there is nothing they can do. A new 20-year contract with the RCMP, and the province is helpless.

[1425]

To the Justice Minister, everyone agrees this is unacceptable, but the question is: what does she intend to do to ensure that this disgraced RCMP officer does not end up in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: It is unacceptable that an officer with the background of this nature is being transferred to British Columbia, but the member opposite is wrong. I never once stated that there was nothing that we could do. In fact, there is plenty we can do, and it started with a call to the commissioner of the RCMP, making it very clear to him that this officer would not be on the payroll of the provincial government or the municipal police force in this province.

In fact, what we are going to do is hold the commissioner and deputy commissioner to their word. They have said they are going to change the culture of the RCMP. Action is long overdue — we made that clear — and we will continue to work to ensure that changes are made so that we stop recycling police officers, and remove them when appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, with the ongoing Missing Women Inquiry and the widespread harassment allegations within the force, the last thing that should happen is that Sergeant Ray should be transferred here at all. It's offensive to female RCMP officers and, I think, to women across this province.

The Justice Minister promised that when we had a new contract, there would be accountability. So my question is: where is the accountability today? What is the minister going to do, and will she admit that the so-called accountability in the new contract isn't worth a hill of beans if it can't prevent somebody like Sergeant Ray coming to British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: Because we actually negotiated a contract that allows us to have that kind of input, for the first time in British Columbia we have a contract management committee who have now been directed to actually go to Ottawa and tell them that it is unacceptable that there is a transfer policy instead of a policy that allows for the removal of officers with this kind of conduct.

It is time that the culture of the RCMP changed. I can assure the member opposite that not only am I offended by that kind of behaviour, but that message was clearly conveyed to the commissioner of the RCMP.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 2, 2012-2013, Crown Agency Board Governance.

H. Bains: Petition to present, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

H. Bains: I have 324 petitions signed by the manufactured home owners of British Columbia, asking us to amend the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act to better protect manufactured home owners if the landowner sells the land for redevelopment.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this chamber this afternoon we will continue second reading of Bill 54, intituled the Provincial Sales Tax Act. That will be followed by Bill 51, intituled the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act — I think we should get smaller titles, Mr. Speaker — and follow that with second reading of Bill 53, intituled the Family Day Act. If there's time, we would then move to the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act and the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room this afternoon we will do the committee stage to start with on Bill 39, which is intituled the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, and Bill 43, intituled the FNCIDA Implementation Act. The intent is to follow that with the Pension Benefits Standards Act, Bill 38; and Bill 45, intituled the Income Tax Amendment Act.

Those will follow should the debates of second reading complete in here in an appropriate time so that the minister and the critic would be able to move to the other chamber. If not, we would move up the committee stage of Bill 35, intituled the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

In estimates this afternoon we will be doing the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General, and it is expected that after dinner tonight we would start the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

[1430]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 54 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ACT

(continued)

R. Austin: Once again, I'd like to continue with my remarks where I left off when the House last sat about ten days ago, with regards to Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. I just want to speak to a few more points.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This Bill 54 removes the low-income tax credit that was available under the HST and replaces it with a smaller low-income tax credit to help families to cope with the PST. There was quite a lot of debate around the efficacy of this income tax credit or HST credit because, of course, it was the view of the government, the B.C. Liberals, that by bringing in this credit, it would satisfy the extra costs that would be burdened on families around the HST. Of course, what it turned out to be is that it never came anywhere close to being able to cover the extra costs.

Even though the PST tax credit will be considerably smaller, the fact that there are far fewer items that are covered by the PST makes this a fairer thing for working families and especially for those of low income or those who have a fixed income, such as people on pensions. So this is just another way in which this bill makes it easier for families than the burden of the HST.

I also just want to comment around the notion of paying commissions to small businesses. I think it's probably fair to say that of all the people in British Columbia who are a little bit nervous about removing the HST and bringing in the PST, it's those small business people who have to spend hours every day — every week, certainly — to comply with all of the reporting involved in going back to separate sales taxes, one for the province and one for the federal government.

I am happy to see that the government is going to be recognizing those efforts by paying a commission to those who are taking this burden upon themselves to be, ultimately, the collectors of this tax. I think it's also noteworthy that in Bill 54 there are changes made that are different from the old PST that make it easier for those small business people who have to now undergo collecting the tax, the PST — for example, moving the dates and making that easier, so it's one filing instead of two separate sets of paperwork.

I think, also, that some of the software changes that are going to be made will alleviate some of the burden and worry that small businesses have in terms of the amount of paperwork that they have to do.

A lot has been made about this bill not putting in place through legislation some of the regulations around the PST and what it will cover. As we can see, there's this debate between what is legislated and what will be regulated in future through OICs by the government as it moves forward.

In legislation here today the government is making sure that food, fuel, business inventories and manufacturing inputs will still not be covered by the PST. They say that they're going to regulate lots and lots of other items — such as bicycles, electricity, home and heating fuel and school supplies.

I think some people have come to my office saying that, with all that has gone on with the HST and going back to the PST, they're a little bit nervous to think that this is not going to be in legislation. My own view is that, with all that this has cost the B.C. Liberals in terms of their political credibility, I don't feel too nervous about them not doing the right thing and making sure that they regulate all of these changes between now and the date when the PST comes into force.

Quite frankly, if they were to not honour their commitment made in this House by the Finance Minister and by others, then they would be committing a certain death wish in terms of the election that's going to be taking place in 11 months' time.

[1435]

So I would imagine that they will fulfil their obligations in regulation and bring back all of the original exemptions that were a part of the PST — exemptions that, frankly, enabled us to create policy here in British Columbia, provincial policy, which is one of the reasons why it's important for us to have a provincial sales tax.

Finally, I'd like to just make some comments around the whole notion of taxation, and how we go about it. I think something that we can all draw from with regards to the HST and the way it was handled — and I say all of us on both sides of this House — is to recognize that we do not in our politics have very meaningful debates around taxation.

Very often taxation policy is reactive. The government of the day goes in. It does its budget, naturally, in secret. It then presents it here in the House as a fait accompli, and they hope that they've got the right balance — having sufficient government revenues to cover those services that British Columbians deem necessary and indeed want.

I think the way the HST was brought in has shown all of us here that we need to be more forthcoming and have a proper debate around taxation policy, around revenue-gathering in British Columbia. It is very clear that if you speak to many constituents — and they come into our offices on both sides of this House — very often they'll come in and say, "Well, I really like the fact that we've got lower taxes here" or lower fees or whatever. But at the same time that constituent will come in six months later and ask us why it is that their mother cannot get space in a seniors home, because now they need it.

I think we need to have a better debate in this Legislature and around the province — not just here but generally speaking. We need to have a better way of de-
[ Page 12278 ]
bating the whole notion of taxation so that people understand that you can't have it both ways. You can't have lower taxes and better services.

I know for a fact when I hear some members on the other side of the House and certainly those of us who come from the opposition…. Obviously, we are endorsed by lots of people coming and saying: "Why is it we can't get this, this and this?"

And the reality is that government has, through their own ideological reasons, decided to lower taxes. We heard it today in question period, where the Minister of Finance got up and said very proudly that they had reduced corporate taxes by 40 percent. Well, at the same time we're not providing adequate services for kids with special needs in our public education system.

I would think that most British Columbians — whether they have a child in the education system or not, whether they are grandparents looking after the interests of their children, whether you be somebody who's never had children — recognize that we need to have a proper debate that recognizes the amount of revenue that needs to come into the province of B.C. through a variety of means: through corporate taxes, through provincial income taxes, through fees, from resource rents.

We need to ensure that we bring enough revenue into British Columbia to provide enough public services, sufficient in a way that an average British Columbian feels that they're not living in some country that's too poor to give adequate services. Certainly, I think that that balance has reached a point of being out of whack. I hope that in the near future we can have a debate about this, because clearly we need to make sure, moving forward with Bill 54 and others, that governments have the revenue in place to provide adequate health care, education and all the other services.

Often in this House all we talk about is health care and education, but we don't talk about all the officers who have been let go in terms of environmental protection. There are a whole slew of things which government has an obligation to provide beyond the two big ones of health care and education.

I think that Bill 54 and the whole debacle of the HST will focus people's minds on recognizing that you can't have quality public services without government revenue. I hope that any government that is here in British Columbia in the future will learn from the lessons of the B.C. Liberals' fiasco around the HST.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place and speak to Bill 54, which is an important piece of legislation that's before the House. It's the Provincial Sales Tax Act. It really is, I think, a remarkable piece of legislation.

You know, the government says that it's just about sales tax. It's more than that. It's about democracy in action. It's about who we're here to represent. It's about the public of British Columbia. It's about listening to the public of British Columbia. It's about respecting the public of British Columbia.

[1440]

It's about recognizing that the public of this province are right. They are not dumb. They are not stupid. They are right when they make a decision. This particular piece of legislation is here on this table because the government forgot that.

The government thought that it knew best. The government felt that it didn't have to listen to people. The government felt that it could operate by diktat, that it could impose, that it did not need to consult, that it did not need to do anything. As the government and as members, they feel that they have an unparalleled right to rule without, one would even suspect sometimes, the consent of those whom they're supposed to govern. But they do not. They have to listen to the public, and that's why this particular piece of legislation is here.

I'm talking to Bill 54 because it makes some significant changes in the tax system in the province of B.C. We will be replacing the HST and bringing back the old PST system that was in place on the 22nd of July, 2009, before that fateful day, the 23rd of July, 2009, when the government — without warning, without consultation, without any hints during the election that it would do this — dropped a bombshell on British Columbians. That was the HST.

During the election campaign, in response to questionnaires from industries, such as the restaurant association, the government said that it would not bring in the HST. Then, on the 23rd of July, 2009, it broke that promise. It reneged on its word, and it introduced the HST.

As people got to know what it was about, the uproar at the grass-roots level in communities right across this province was something that we have not seen in British Columbia in decades. People stood up and said: "Enough is enough. We are not going to take it anymore. This government is wrong, this government is out of control, and we are going to make this government listen. We are going to make this government accountable to the people of British Columbia."

Over six weeks that's exactly what they did. They went to see the MLAs of the government, and did they get a response? No, they did not. Were government MLAs being accountable for the decision of the government, of the executive council? No, they were not.

The public said: "What can we do? What tools do we have available to us?"

Deputy Speaker: Member, the contents of Bill 54.

M. Farnworth: Exactly, hon. Speaker. That's what I'm talking about — Bill 54 and why these changes are taking place, why we are changing the provincial sales tax back to what it was. It's important that we understand that so that when we look at each of the sections in this
[ Page 12279 ]
particular bill and the regulations that the public expects to see and to know what they're about, we have to have that context. So I am speaking to Bill 54 and the contents of the bill — the fact that we're putting back in place the old provincial sales tax. But as is very much the tradition in this House, we have wide-ranging debate at second reading stage.

The public were concerned about what tools they had available to them to change the government's policy, to get the government to see that this was not in the interests of taxpayers of this province. The public wanted the existing PST to stay in place, with all its exemptions. So they used the initiative tools available to them. They used the legislative initiative act, and that meant getting signatures in every riding across the province — 10 percent of those who were registered to vote in the previous election.

Pundits said that it couldn't be done. The government and government members were just dismissive in a way that demonstrated, I think, the arrogance and out-of-touchness of the government.

Well, guess what. More than 700,000 people signed a petition calling for a referendum on the HST — a referendum to send a message to do away with the HST and to bring back what we have before us here today, the details of Bill 54, to reinstate the provincial sales tax.

[1445]

Let me be clear. What are some of those things that people were asking for in that referendum? They were asking for the reinstatement of the PST. What they wanted to see were the exemptions that had been in place prior to July 23 of 2009.

They wanted to see the permanent exemptions that existed on residential electricity and home heating fuel. They wanted to see the exemption on prescription drugs; non-prescription drugs; vitamins and other health care products; children's clothing and footwear; clothing patterns, fabrics and notions; school supplies; magazines, books and newspapers.

They wanted to see the exemptions on basic telephone and cable service. They wanted to see the exemptions on 1-800 and equivalent telephone services. They wanted to see the exemptions on specified safety equipment. They wanted to see the exemptions on labour to repair major household appliances, clothing and footwear. They wanted to see the exemptions on bicycles.

Nothing illustrated the arrogance of this government more than when the HST was brought in and people realized that bicycles would be taxed as well. At a time when we are encouraging people to become more physically active, at a time when communities are investing in bike lanes, at a time when we are trying to encourage alternative forms of transportation…. It is really, actually, somewhat ironic that we are debating this particular piece of legislation this week, which is walk- and bike-to-work week.

Had this particular bill not been here before us today, putting back in place the old PST system, those bicycles would continue to be taxed. That is not what the public wanted. They wanted the old PST.

So what happened? People in ridings right across this province worked. They worked day and night. They didn't care about political ideology. They didn't care whether you were a Conservative, a New Democrat, a Green, a Libertarian, a disaffected B.C. Liberal. They didn't care.

What they cared about was: were you on the same side as the vast majority of the public of British Columbia in fighting to work to defeat the HST? The result was that they were.

I myself sat in the Art Knapp's in beautiful Port Coquitlam, on Dominion Avenue, with other dedicated community activists of all political stripes, gathering signatures. Port Coquitlam passed the test, as did every other riding in this province. The result was that enough signatures were gathered to validate the petition. They were validated by Elections B.C.

A decision was made, the decision that is there in legislation, the tool that exists for the public to tell the government: "No, you are wrong. We don't agree. We don't approve. We want to have our say." The tool that is in place to send a message to a government that is out of touch, that is not listening, was utilized.

The result of that was an overwhelming decision by the public of British Columbia to say: "We want a return to the PST." At election time and at referendum time, when the public makes a decision, they are right, and they are sovereign. It is they to whom we are all accountable in this Legislature.

The result was that the government has been forced to listen to what the public wants. The result of that is Bill 54, which is before us here today and which is what we are debating.

It doesn't matter whether you lived in Fort. St. John, whether you lived in Dawson Creek, whether you lived in Victoria or Port Moody or Chilliwack or Richmond or Anmore or Belcarra or Port Hardy or Port Clements or Port Alice or Prince Rupert or Germansen Landing or any of the myriad of communities across this province. People had their say, and that's important. This legislation is in response to their wishes.

[1450]

Now, what's important about this bill, and what's important that we need to recognize, is that a significant part of it is still to be decided, or to be dealt with, by regulation. What the public hopes is that government follows through on not just the spirit but on the wording of that referendum, which is to return to the situation as it existed on the 22nd of July, 2009. As I have often joked, the 23rd of July, 2009, came and there was a massive tax shift in the province of British Columbia. That also happened to be the day that I turned 50, and I thought: "Oh, so this is what happens. You turn 50, and you get a mas-
[ Page 12280 ]
sive tax shift."

But the bottom line is this. The public want to know that we are going back to what existed. They want to know that bicycles will be exempt in the way they were before. The same tax regime that was in place on the 22nd of July, 2009, will still be there with the passage of this legislation. They want to know that the exemptions regarding livestock for human consumption, and feed, and the seed and fertilizer around agricultural products will continue to be exempt. Production machinery and equipment will be exempt. Insulation to prevent heat or cold loss from hot water tanks, water pipes and duct work will also be exempt.

These are just some of the things still to be determined by regulation that are not currently in this particular piece of legislation but should be. That is one of things about this particular bill. It does give the government a lot of power to be dealt with through the process of regulation.

For people who may not be aware of it — those who are, perhaps, watching our proceedings on the parliamentary network — in this chamber we are currently debating second reading, which is the principle of the bill. In this case, as they will no doubt be aware, it's Bill 54, the restoration of the PST.

After second reading, after this stage, we go through committee stage. That is a clause-by-clause examination of the bill — the detail of each section of the bill and its implications. The Minister of Finance will explain, to the best of his ability, those sections and what they mean in their implications. That is done in this open chamber so that people can read in Hansard the questions and the answers. But a key part of that is to be determined by regulation.

Regulation is something that is decided in cabinet at the executive council. The discussions around regulation are not public in that sense. Their deliberations are not public, but the regulations at some point are published and then come into force at a later date. One of the key things that people have and one of the questions around this government is exactly what the nature of those regulations will be. When will they be implemented? What will they cover, and what will they say?

Now, we will have a chance during committee stage, hopefully, to address some of those questions, but the real challenge is that this bill has come so late in the session that that is going to be a challenge in itself to determine the regulations, the implication of the questions around those regulations and exactly how they will be implemented. But the Minister of Finance, hopefully, will be able to shed some light on that so that we and the public, I think, can have solid confidence that their decision, their vote that took place on the referendum will in fact be acted upon.

One of the interesting areas of the bill that we do know something about, some of the exemptions that won't be there when this particular piece of legislation comes to having its final reading and royal assent, are some of the temporary or the time-limited exemptions that were in place that will not be returning. No doubt there are many who will be disappointed to know that some of these time-limited exemptions will not be there.

[1455]

Those exemptions were part of what was an important part of the government's environmental agenda, such as it was, around climate change and the encouragement of energy-efficient appliances to save energy so that we would have more energy across British Columbia, though as we saw today in question period, much water is still being spilt over the dam when it could be sold to other customers. I just digress there for a moment, hon. Speaker.

What is important is that in Bill 54…. What is clear is that those time-limited exemptions will not be returning. I'll just outline what some of those are, because there are people who have been looking at making or postponing important purchasing decisions until such time as the HST debacle mess is sorted out and straightened out. What it did do was bring significant uncertainty to many parts of British Columbia's economy — whether it's home building, whether it's home renovation, whether it's, for example, major appliance purchases.

I'll just, for the hon. Speaker's edification, let her know that if she or other members of the assembly or people watching at home had been thinking of purchasing a major energy-efficient appliance and wondering whether the tax exemptions that existed in place before the 23rd of July, 2009, would in fact be back in place, I can, unfortunately, tell them that Energy Star appliances, refrigerators, clothes washers and freezers….

The exemption that started in 2008 will not be coming back. Neither will Energy Star windows, doors and skylights or Energy Star residential heating equipment. That was first started in 2005. Energy-efficient residential gas-fired water heaters, energy-efficient commercial boilers, hybrid passenger vehicles — where there was an exemption in place, albeit a time-limited one, those will not be coming back.

That's unfortunate, because they really did provide consumers with a choice. There were many, many people who were hoping that those programs with those exemptions would continue with the reintroduction of this particular piece of legislation. Sadly, that's not to be the case.

So if not those, what about other exemptions? I've covered some of them, and as I've said, we will have to wait to see what the regulations are. We will have to wait for the discussion that takes place in committee stage as to whether or not rental of passenger vehicles for eight hours or less will continue to be exempt, whether biodiesel fuel used for heating will continue to be exempt, whether logging machinery and equipment will continue to be exempt.

Those are some of the questions that we will have
[ Page 12281 ]
within the committee stage of the debate. That's why it's important that we remember, when we are debating this particular piece of legislation, how it got here, why it got here and why it's so important to be able to answer those questions thoroughly in a way that gives people confidence that what they voted on in the referendum is in fact what is going to be put in place by legislation.

Then and only then will the public truly have confidence that what they said loud and clear to this government on that referendum day…. "We will not be ignored. We must be consulted. We must be listened to. Government, you must remember that you work for us. It is not the other way around. The government does not always know best. You govern with our consent, not by your own diktat. What you say before an election matters just as much after an election."

[1500]

Only when we have those questions answered and only when the public truly sees that what they said is reflected in legislation and reflected in the questions that were put during committee stage, will the government finally have listened and finally corrected what was, I think, an unparalleled, egregious error that we have never seen the like of in the province of British Columbia.

No other province in this country went through what we did. I mean, think about it. The fact that we are debating a piece of legislation that reinstates the old provincial sales tax…. Granted, much of the language has been modernized, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think there are some things in this bill that are an improvement. The on-line ability, to file on line, is one of them.

But think about it. This bill is here because of citizen participation, citizen involvement, people getting engaged in the political process, because they realized that by not being engaged, government had taken them for granted.

Government felt that they could do whatever they want and that people would just need to be patted on the head. Trot out a few friends of government to explain why this was all good for them and in their own best interest.

Then like little kids, they'd be sent up the stairs and off to bed. Don't worry because big government and big friends of government are going to make sure that everything is just fine. "You just mind your own business and carry on. We'll take care of the important stuff because, really, you're too uninformed to understand what's taking place, and you're too uninformed to know what's good for you."

Well, the public said: "No thank you. We do know what's in our best interests, and we will let you know that." That's why, when we go through this bill and the particular clauses, we want to make sure that we've got the answers that the public have been asking about.

As I said, I've mentioned around some of the areas that are exempt. I've mentioned around some of the exemptions that will be in place. I have commented on some of the issues that were raised in terms of items that are taxed or whether they will be tax-exempt.

I've commented a bit on some of the changes that have taken place that, as I said, I think are positive. I don't believe that the opposition should always just be negative. It's not our role to just criticize. But it's also to recognize when there are improvements. I know that my colleague from Juan de Fuca…. That's something that he believes in, too.

So when we look at this legislation, and we see that there have been changes that make it easier to file on line for people, as I said a moment ago, and that will result in some significant savings, I say that's a good thing. I think that that is something that we are happy to support and we're happy to see in here.

But you know what? At the same time, it is our role to point out deficiencies in the legislation. Again, I'd like to point out another deficiency in this particular legislation.

One of the fascinating rationales for this particular piece of legislation, one of the fascinating rationales when the government brought in the HST, was that it was going to save people money. People wised up pretty quickly when they said: "Oh, is that right? So what's going to happen to the price of my bottle of wine? Under the HST, it should go down."

That, in theory, is what should have happened, but the government said: "No, no, no. We're going to raise the prices to make sure we don't lose any money." I think that was one of the first things that really twigged people. "Hey, this is not going to make my life any easier. This is not going to make my family's life any easier. In fact, it's going to cost us more, and it's going to make things more difficult."

Another area that I know people will be disappointed with is…. The $5 levy on car batteries was eliminated with the HST, but it's not being renewed. For many people, the levy ensured that batteries were being recycled.

Interjection.

[1505]

M. Farnworth: I thank the Minister of Finance, who's pointing something out for me. I appreciate that because I think that's a good point.

I'll move on to my next point, which is that this particular piece of legislation is one that British Columbians have been waiting for with a great deal of anticipation. It's caused a lot of political debate in this province. It has created a lot of uncertainty in this province.

What it did, I think, was show people — and I think it's one of the unintended consequences of the decision of the government around the HST — that they could get engaged. They could influence government policy. They could force government to back down. It took the use
[ Page 12282 ]
of the Referendum Act, the initiative act, to be able to do that, and I think that that's something that we in this province should be proud of — that there is a limit to the power of government. There is a limit to what government can do without the consent and the licence of the people of the province of British Columbia.

I know that my time will be running out shortly and that I will be making way for other speakers on this particular piece of legislation, but I'd just like to recount, if I may, a story.

While gathering signatures, I had many people coming up, and more than one occasion, someone would come up and say: "I've never been interested in politics before. I've never got involved in a political issue before."

One person said: "I've never even voted before, but I certainly will next time around because I realize my vote matters and that decisions of government do matter." Then they signed the petition, and they got their friends to sign it, and a few days later they were sitting beside me gathering signatures.

That, to me, is what was important about the referendum and initiative process. People got involved and engaged, and the result of that engagement is the bill that we have here before us today. It is the bill around restoring the PST.

It's a complex bill with many sections, a bill that we will look forward to exploring in further detail in committee stage. Or hopefully, as I've said, we will get answers to the questions around the regulations and how those regulations will be implemented, the timeline on those regulations and how those regulations are going to work.

If we do that, and we get satisfactory answers to the questions that we have, then I think this Legislature will have accomplished something important, and that is restore some accountability in this province, and given a real sense of empowerment to the voters of British Columbia — that they can make a difference and they can make a change.

That's why I'm pleased to be able to speak to this legislation, to speak on behalf of the electorate of the community of the city of Port Coquitlam and to let them know that as their MLA, I was proud to campaign along with them to make this day possible.

With that, I take my seat, and I look forward to comments from other members of this House.

Statements

DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER

J. Horgan: This morning during private members' business we had a fairly raucous exchange, myself and others on the government side. During that, I may well have overstepped decorum on my way out of the chamber, and I want to make sure that in your eyes I meant no disrespect to you as Chair.

I meant no disrespect to my colleagues on either side of the House. But I felt very strongly that if we are going to grow as individuals, as legislators, and use this building to its fullest advantage, we all need to have the opportunity to speak freely and unfettered without fear of intimidation. I didn't feel that way today, and if, in the course of my departure from the precinct, I meant any disrespect to you, it was not genuine, and I sincerely apologize.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, Member.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to join debate around Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. For those people who might be watching us today, the purpose of this legislation, really, is to restore the provincial sales tax as we move away from the HST — the failed HST.

[1510]

In order to be able to accomplish that, it's necessary to bring back the provincial sales tax. The purposes of Bill 54 are to in fact bring back the framework, the structure for what that tax, the new or the revised provincial sales tax, will look like.

This tax will come into place with the new or the revised provincial sales tax on March 31, 2013. In a little bit less than a year from now this will be back in place, and it will replace the HST, which will go by the wayside at that time in the form it's in now.

What we know, of course…. I'm sure that most British Columbians know the history well. It was one of the most engaged political discussions that we have had in this province in many, many years — maybe the most engaged political debate that we have ever seen on an issue in this province. That was around, of course, the question of the HST, the tax that Bill 54's intent is to replace.

All members here, of course, will know and the public will recall that a citizens' initiative was put in place. That initiative led to a referendum vote across the province, a referendum where people lined up on both sides of this issue — whether we should have the HST, the PST. We know that the government side lined up in support of the HST, the opposition in support of the PST. But more importantly, the public and all stakeholders across this province in different areas took different positions.

It was a very vigorous debate that was had across the province. The result of that debate was a clear majority telling the government of British Columbia, through the referendum and the Referendum Act, that the HST was not acceptable to a majority of people in British Columbia and that it was necessary to go back to the PST, to restore the PST in some form. The result of that is what we have in front of us today, Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

As others have said before…. I would just note this.
[ Page 12283 ]
Wherever you landed on this issue of HST/PST — which was the best result to go? — I think everybody, and I think it's reflected in the legislation that we have in front of us, has to acknowledge that it was quite a remarkable process that engaged British Columbians in the way that they were and a way that I think we have not seen before in terms of an initiative that led to the public clearly, through a vote, expressing their view on the HST.

Now we have, as a result of that — over a very extended period of time, I would note…. I know that the Minister of Finance has told us, when the questions have been raised to him about the complexity of Bill 54 and getting to Bill 54 and to what we have today and the complexity of moving forward to get rid of the HST and to be able to move back to the PST…. I think that still continues to be a point of some concern, which is the timeline here.

Bill 54 will reinstate the PST as of March 31, 2013. I know that there are many British Columbians who believe that this could have been expedited in a quicker fashion. The minister has certainly defended the view that this was complex and required discussions with the federal government and it was very layered and required the timeline that we have in front of us with Bill 54.

That's a debate that we could have. But the reality is that following the vote on the HST, it has been quite an extended period of time to get to where we are today. And we now know, of course, it will be a number of months before we actually get to dealing with the results of that vote in tangible terms, which will be the return to a provincial sales tax model at the end of this fiscal year.

[1515]

We know that there are challenges around that, and the government will know. I know that there were many industries…. Some of them were particularly more challenged, and the government was put in a place where it was required, ultimately, to look at options to deal with some of these challenges, members of this House would know — areas like the housing industry and particularly the new-housing industry. It was very challenging.

I know, in discussions I had with the Urban Development Institute and people in that sector — their concern, once the decision was made to return to the PST, based on the results of the referendum, of the vote — that it had a very challenging impact on them over that period of time. Mostly, as people who know the industry will know — and I know the minister knows this well — presales in the condominium sector are a very, very big part of how financing happens to allow development to move forward.

The banking and the financial institutions in this province have expectations around levels of presales. In order to qualify new developments for their support and for financing, they require levels of presales that it was getting very, very difficult to accomplish because we had people who were waiting and prepared to wait out the HST until the PST was returned, expecting or anticipating, rightly or wrongly, that they would have a better price at the end of the day if they waited for the PST to return and saw that HST tax removed.

It was very challenging. The government, I know, was put in a place where it was required to in fact put in place some initiatives that would provide some relaxation for that industry so that they could move forward and we could again have some action around that.

Probably more than anything, particularly…. I think in some ways it was probably more challenging for the smaller builders, the homebuilders, than it was for the Urban Development Institute and for the large developers. I know from my discussion with them that much of their biggest concern was certainty.

Certainty was the issue in Bill 54, and what's here has hopefully, in addition to the initiatives that the government obviously put in place to ease pressures for the housing industry…. Bill 54 is there in the hopes of providing some certainty for that sector.

What Bill 54 does is — in large part, as best we can see from the bill — return many of those items back to what might have been. It's not quite status quo but does return much of that back to the old PST model.

There are a couple of clear differences from the old PST. One is a tax that we know will remain. Interestingly, this was not necessarily part of the HST, but it was a tax that was put in place at that time around the tax on designated property.

Under the old PST, hon. Speaker, as you'll know, on things like the private sales of used vehicles, there was a 7 percent tax. When the HST was brought into play, because there was no HST on used vehicle sales — that's the nature of the value-added tax — the government put in place an additional 5 percent, which brought that tax to 12 percent on those sales so that there was a consistency there. Again, this was separate, somewhat, from the HST, but certainly, the motivation for it was the HST, I believe.

So what we had is this 12 percent tax. What we know, what Bill 54 tells us, is that that 12 percent tax will continue in place. It will not be going back to the 7 percent. It will continue in place. The expectation is that this is about a $40 million tax increase across the board that we will see with that tax.

The other thing that we're seeing here is…. A series of time-limited exemptions, many of them for energy-efficient products, were put in place — for example, things like Energy Star appliances. That was put in place, and that exemption has essentially been eliminated.

[1520]

So people know, those time-limited exemptions that we're seeing being eliminated now…. There's quite a list of items that people will now not be able to experience that tax break on.

They would include things like Energy Star refrigerators, clothes washers and freezers; Energy Star windows, doors and skylights; Energy Star residential heating
[ Page 12284 ]
equipment; energy-efficient residential gas-fired water heaters; energy-efficient commercial boilers; devices which reduce idling by commercial vehicles; hybrid passenger vehicles; the alternative-fuel vehicles; conventional fuel-efficient vehicles that received a rebate based on fuel efficiency criteria that was set under federal programs; electric power–assisted two- and three-wheel cycles; electric motorcycles; and hydrogen-fuel-cell passenger buses.

This is just a list of some of the things that were on the time-limited exemptions, and we won't see the return of those with the passing of Bill 54.

The other thing that I think we're going to see with this bill, which does create a bit of a challenge, is that while there certainly are items in the legislation that are incorporated into Bill 54 itself as part of the legislation, as part of the act — for example, the legislation clearly exempts food, fuel, business inventories, manufacturing inputs — it does not impose the tax on real property or services, with some exemptions. So it's clear about that. The challenge that we have, though, is that there's a very long list of items that are going to be required to be put into regulation.

For those people who are following this debate, the difference here between legislation and regulation is, of course, that if these things are included in the act, if they're included in the bill that comes for debate here in this House, if they're passed by this House, then they are part of legislation, and changes can only be made through an amendment to legislation — an amendment to the act, an amendment to the law.

So if there are items in a list, if there's a schedule attached to a piece of legislation and that schedule is passed as part of the legislation, then we have a situation where in fact it is a fixed list, unless the government of the day wants to bring an amendment or bring a change that would change the nature of that list.

If it's passed through regulation, then it really is a matter of cabinet. It's a matter of order-in-council, and it's a matter of the cabinet determining what the list is. That change can happen at the cabinet table. It does not necessarily happen in any transparent or open way. It's a list that is produced, and then it will be presented.

We will all become aware of it at the time that it becomes part of regulation and part of law through regulation. But we won't get a chance to, necessarily, have any discussion about what that list looks like at any time, because it is dealt with at the cabinet table — in private, in secret — and then produced and signed into law by the Premier of the day, the minister of the day or whatever.

To give some sense of what we're talking about when we talk about the list for regulation, the regulatory list, it's quite a long and a broad list of items. We're not exactly sure how they will be affected by this law and whether they will all be incorporated in the Provincial Sales Tax Act as regulations to the act. We're going to have to see.

But to give you some sense, hon. Speaker, of the kind of list we're talking about, it would include residential electricity and home heating fuel; prescription drugs; non-prescription drugs, like vitamins and certain other health care products and appliances; children's clothing and footwear; clothing patterns, fabrics and notions; school supplies.

Also, magazines, books and newspapers; basic telephone and cable services; 1-800 and equivalent telephone services; specified safety equipment; labour to repair major household appliances, clothing and footwear; miscellaneous consumer exemptions — things like used clothes under $100; bicycles; livestock for human consumption and feed, seed and fertilizer; production machinery and equipment.

[1525]

Also, insulation to prevent heat or cold loss from hot-water tanks, water pipes and duct work; production machinery and equipment for local governments for power production and cogeneration; aerodynamic devices for commercial vehicles; equipment to produce energy from ocean currents, 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; mining, oil and gas machines and equipment; and exports.

It's a pretty long list and a pretty broad list that will include a whole lot of our economy and things that are important to our economy. That list isn't here as part of the act. It isn't here as part of a schedule. It isn't a list that we can look at, that the public can look at and say: "Okay, I have an understanding of what's in and what's out."

That is a bit problematic that we have a situation where we have this list without knowing for certain how each one of those matters will be addressed — and others, I'm sure, that may not be included on the list that I provided here, because it's clearly not an exhaustive list. We're going to have to wait to see — after Bill 54 is passed, the Provincial Sales Tax Act — when the minister and the government bring forward the regulations that apply to Bill 54, apply to the Provincial Sales Tax Act, to determine in fact how those regulations affect people in a substantive and meaningful way.

There are a couple of challenges here. One is, of course, that people would like transparency. They would like certainty. I think they would like to know what's on that list. They would like to know how that list is being addressed. That's particularly an issue — and it goes back to comments I made at the beginning of my comments here — that, I think, creates a bit of a challenge, which is that there was anger.

I think many people would say that when the HST was initially brought in, there was a lot of anger over what was seen as a trust issue about in fact what the commitments of government were prior to the 2009 election and then at the point where the HST was introduced in July of 2009,
[ Page 12285 ]
which triggered all of the actions that followed that and ultimately brought us to where we are today with Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act. But over that period of time, a lot of that anger, a lot of that frustration….

It was a significant trust issue for many in the public and for many stakeholder groups with the government over their confidence about how tax initiatives and sales tax were being dealt with. That created a real challenge. I know that the government has spent a lot of time since that time. It has, some might argue, largely preoccupied the government for at least the first couple of years of this term, leading up to Premier Campbell stepping down and initiating or probably being the major motivation in Mr. Campbell, the Premier, making that decision.

So today we have Bill 54, and we have a very long list and a whole lot of things that relate to Bill 54, that will be dealt with through the regulatory regime rather than through the legislative processes that we go through here.

Now, hopefully, we will have an opportunity to have some discussion around this and around what that list looks like, to talk in more depth. I know our Finance critic is looking forward to the committee stage of Bill 54 and the opportunity to discuss these matters in some depth. I'm sure that he will take item after item and drill down to find out exactly what the government's intentions are, and I'm sure he will drill down on items that aren't even on this list to find out what the government's intentions are.

The problem here…. And this is a bigger problem than just Bill 54, but it certainly pertains to Bill 54 and our ability to deal with this legislation in a substantive and meaningful way. I heard the Minister of Finance, when questions were raised with him during question period earlier in this session about when we might expect this bill, what the expectations were about how the bill would come forward, how it would proceed….

[1530]

Then I know the minister and I know the Government House Leader on a number of occasions told this House that probably the single biggest priority for the government was to get Bill 54 done and get it in front of the House. It was the priority piece of legislation, in many ways, for the government in response to the decision of the public through the rejection of the HST, through the citizens' initiative. We have this piece of legislation for reasons….

I would note that this session started back in October of last year, so we've had a session that went through a couple of months last year, and then we were back here this spring without a throne speech. It was a continuation of the same session. It took from last October all the way through till we got, just in the last short while, the minister having Bill 54 ready to introduce to this House and bring forward.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The challenge we have with this — and I know this comment has been made…. We have about 20 pieces of legislation in front of us, with less than four days now to go to deal with these pieces of legislation. Bill 54 is a very substantive piece, but it is hardly the only substantive piece. There are many others.

Now, we have estimates going on in another House, committee stage in another House and second reading going on here. It really does raise questions as to whether we are going to find the time over the next couple of days to be able to have the due diligence on Bill 54, as we will have a challenge to have the due diligence on a number of other pieces of legislation. But will we have the due diligence in committee stage on Bill 54 to really walk through and look at this list of items that will come in under regulation — not in legislation, not a list that we can look at today, as in a schedule attached to this bill, but in fact as a regulation?

When you have so much of the substance of a piece of legislation that is going to be brought forward at a later time through the regulatory process — through regulation and through order-in-council — it becomes additionally important and an additional priority to make sure that the opportunity in committee stage is there so that the critic and any other member in this House that has questions in relation to this….

We all have heard, since July 23, 2009…. We started hearing about this issue when it was the HST, and we've continued to hear about it right up to where we are today. So it would be very, very positive if we had the chance to really walk through all of these items and understand them fully and had the full amount of time to allow the critic and the minister primarily — but every other member of this House, should they choose to engage in that — to have a full conversation about Bill 54 and all those nuances.

This is tax law. Tax law is complicated, and the devil is often in the details when it comes to tax law. It requires that kind of conversation so that people understand where those nuances may be and then can make their own determination as to how they feel about those matters and about the act itself.

My concern is: are we going to have sufficient time to be able to deal with 54 in the committee stage in a way that's satisfactory to the people of the province and to the expected processes of this House and the due diligence that I think everybody in this House would agree should be applied to any piece of legislation that comes forward?

Our obligation as legislators, whether it's government side or opposition side, is to fully canvass every piece of legislation to ensure that we are delving into it, to ensure that as opposition members we have a sufficient sense of the bill and the ability to ask those questions that the public doesn't get a chance to ask and that they expect us as their representatives to advance on their behalf — that we're asking those questions.
[ Page 12286 ]

It's equally important to give the minister the full opportunity to answer those questions in a complete and wholesome way so that the public out there can have confidence as to what this really means. We don't always know that.

[1535]

We have a Finance Minister here who is certainly very capable of doing that and of answering those questions in a complete way and is able to provide pretty full information — if for no other reason, I think, than the public education that goes with that over questions around the HST/PST that all is muddled up in Bill 54. It becomes increasingly important, I think, because it goes back to the question that I referenced before, which was the trust issue that relates to the HST and everything that has unfolded since the summer of 2009, getting us to where we are today with Bill 54.

I have to believe that members on the government side…. I think I've heard the minister say that he would like to have got this done sooner because of the difficulties around this and with the public. I think the minister fully understands the issue of that trust and the importance of the government to be very clear with people on all the questions that the public might have around how this bill will bring us back to PST and what the changes and the adjustments and the differences will be between what the PST was pre-HST and what the PST will be after March 31, 2013.

There are differences. Some of them are important differences. In fact, it appears from the legislation — I expect that the regulations will be as we anticipate them to be — that much of it will be very much the same as it was prior to the HST and the 2009 election. We're going to be looking for that. But again, it has to happen in a way that allows that conversation to go on in a meaningful way around the committee stage.

I think the important thing that I would say, the last point I would make about this is that it is a piece of legislation. Obviously, this side of the House, the opposition, was opposed to the HST. We supported and campaigned for a return to the PST. Bill 54 substantially gets us to that place. There are questions to be asked, but we are supportive of getting back to a different tax regime, a tax regime that is based more on the PST model. This bill — Bill 54, the Provincial Sales Tax Act — will largely take us to that place and to where we need to be.

I look forward to the conversation in committee stage. I do hope that this bill does get fully canvassed in committee stage. We'll just have to see over the next couple of days how that goes. I look forward to March 31, 2013, when this is implemented, and then the next couple of months after that will be a time where we'll see, hopefully, effective change in British Columbia and be able to move forward from there.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close debate.

Hon. K. Falcon: I have appreciated over the last several days of sitting and listening to some of the second reading discussions with respect to Bill 54…. I think it's appropriate that I follow the member for Vancouver-Hastings because the member has said something that goes to the very core of one of the concerns and challenges I've had as the Minister of Finance, listening to much of this second reading debate. That has to do with the member for Vancouver-Hastings' stated concern about not having appropriate time to actually debate the bill in the committee stage.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would have valued the opportunity to actually have gone to committee stage much earlier so that we could get into discussing the details around the bill, but unfortunately the discussion…. I say "unfortunately" because while second reading debate is an important part of passing a bill — it allows members of the opposition, in particular, to have their say and speak to the specifics of the bill — unfortunately, what we heard was a lot of debate and discussion. But sadly, very little of it had to do with the bill before the House today.

It did not have to do with Bill 54, the bill to restore and reimplement the provincial sales tax. It had a lot of discussion about the HST, a lot of discussion about advertising and betrayals and all these other things that were interesting but that have largely been canvassed before.

[1540]

I have to put on the record that I think it is very unfortunate, as I say, that so much opportunity was lost by having repetitive discussions about the HST, which is not actually what's before the House today. It's actually Bill 54, the bill to restore the provincial sales tax.

You know, I get that there needs to be latitude for the politics of a discussion. There's lots of discussion about things having to do with so-called betrayals, etc. Well, "betrayal" is an interesting term. It usually was used by members opposite to suggest that government knowingly, prior to the election, had a plan to introduce HST but decided not to tell anyone until after the election.

That is just patently false. That's been repeated on many, many occasions. I can tell you, as someone who's sat around the cabinet table — and I will absolutely put my entire career and credibility on the line to say — never was there a discussion about it prior to the election. But I get that in the world we live in it's, if you will, grist for the mill.

I would argue that some of the members of the opposition that were making a great deal about this terrible so-called betrayal…. I could wind back the clock and talk about 1991 when they ran for office. I still remember the TV commercials where there was a little piggy bank and
[ Page 12287 ]
the Leader of the Opposition said: "We will not take one penny more than necessary." No new taxes was what they were talking about, and a year later, in 1992, the largest tax increase in B.C. history at that time — $2 billion of increases — was put through.

Certainly, I remember a lot of people at that time talking about that betrayal. The irony was they actually raised PST from 6 percent to 7 percent — the NDP did — and then expanded the PST to include legal services, pay parking, labour services on cars such as engine tune-ups and tire installation, repairs to business equipment, clothing repairs, just to name a few.

But this House, as interesting as that discussion is, is not really the time to even go back in history and talk about what we may decide or interpret as betrayal or not keeping word or any of those other interesting discussions that we could have, because we're actually here to discuss Bill 54. As I say, we listened to three days of discussion that had nothing to do with the bill. In fact, almost every speaker was on more than one occasion asked by the Speaker, whichever Speaker was sitting at the time, to get back to the subject of the bill itself. Again, I think that is very unfortunate.

The other thing I want to touch on, though, is something that is close to my heart because I do think the real betrayal, in some ways, of going back to the PST is on low-income British Columbians. I said this at the time.

Granted, in fairness, we had a public debate, and the public in their wisdom chose to go back regardless of that. But I do think that for the members opposite who often talk about their concern of representing low-income folks, it is very unfortunate that by going back to a tax like the PST, those that will be punished most will be in the low-income scale.

I'll use as an example a single mother making $24,000 a year with three kids, who under the HST receives $920 a year — $230 for each of her children plus herself — in HST credits, so $920 a year. I know I heard the Leader of the Opposition say: "Yes, but they're now going to be relieved of paying PST on haircuts and things like that."

I do think it's important for the public to know that for them to be in a worse-off position, they would have to spend over $13,000 in haircuts and restaurant meals. That's extremely unlikely, as we all know, on a $24,000 salary.

I want to get on the record the difference because, for that same single mother with three kids, going back to the PST system — the system that they campaigned for — means there is zero that goes back to that single mother. There's not even a non-refundable tax credit, because it's cut off at $18,000 of family income.

I suppose they could say: "Well, you should then bring back that portion and fix that piece." But remember, this whole discussion and debate about the HST was going back to the PST as it was. They campaigned to go back exactly as it was. In fact, I've listened to hours' worth of lectures in here about how they want to make sure that every single part of that is going to be exactly how it was.

[1545]

Well, I just want to make sure the record shows that at least on this side of the House, this Finance Minister is extremely disappointed that when it goes back to as it was…. I think it introduces a level of unfairness that I made the argument for during the debate, obviously, and was unsuccessful. I acknowledge that.

By the way, I don't want to, for a second, try and absolve government from responsibility. I have been probably the most forthright member who has said that our introduction of the HST was very poorly handled. There's no question about that.

We deserve all the appropriate criticism for not bringing the public along and explaining why, in the midst of the worst global economic downturn in at least a generation, we felt it was important to mirror what was happening in Ontario and piggyback on a lot of the work that the Ontario government had done with the federal government in terms of transitioning into a value-added tax world.

It is forever to my regret that we did such a poor job because, as I've been very open in saying, I think the benefits not just for low-income British Columbians but for the entire economy are such that a different result would have obviously been preferable, at least in my mind. I've been criticized for continuing to be honest and forthright about what I think about the PST. I consider it a dramatically inferior tax.

Having said that, I totally respect the decision that the public made, and we will go back, through Bill 54, to reintroducing a provincial sales tax — a dramatically improved provincial sales tax, I am pleased to say — that will allow for on-line registration, on-line payment of remittances, and will allow small businesses to deal with it much more easily than the catastrophic old legislation that involved multiple pieces of legislation — dramatic confusion.

It was, in fact, both legislation and regulation under the old act that we were asking the public and small business to comb through with tax lawyers and accountants to try and figure out what actually applied and what didn't apply. It involved enormous amounts of inefficiency and, frankly, outright stupidity in the interpretations that were often being provided in terms of what was going to apply and what wasn't going to apply. I do think the PST that is introduced under Bill 54 is dramatically improved, for sure.

I do want to say that we are looking forward to finally getting to the debate where we can have committee stage discussion and get into the elements of the bill. I wish we could have started two days ago, frankly. I would have been much happier had I heard a lot of debate around the actual bill as opposed to HST, which is not the subject of this bill. It is the provincial sales tax and the reintroduc-
[ Page 12288 ]
tion of the provincial sales tax through Bill 54.

The final thing that I just wanted to respond to a little bit. There was some discussion in a lot of the talk that went on from members of the opposition about various criticisms, of course, and the whole history of HST, and talk about the jobs. Some people referenced the Jack Mintz report and were very highly skeptical and critical, as I recall, of the job projection of 113,000 jobs, etc.

I just think it's probably at least worth getting on the record that we have seen, since July of 2010 and the introduction of the HST, 52,500 new jobs in British Columbia. Jack Mintz had talked about 113,000 potential new jobs by the end of the decade.

I wouldn't even go as far to say that is all to do with the HST. I just think it is interesting to put on the record the fact that there have been some encouraging job numbers. Certainly, the most recent numbers that saw a third of all jobs created in Canada created right here in British Columbia — over 19,000 jobs — were certainly good news for the province of British Columbia. Our unemployment rate dropped to 6.2 percent — in a world, by the way, where most jurisdictions are experiencing unemployment rates double, triple or even quadruple those kinds of rates.

We are in a very blessed position, I would argue. I think the whole range of economic policy around low taxes and reducing business taxes and personal income taxes, ensuring that we have the most competitive possible economy, contributes towards that. But we shouldn't just pretend to ignore the fact that the tax policy associated with the HST may not have had some positive implications.

I conclude by saying that I'm looking forward to moving to the next stage and getting into committee stage. I wish we could have got there a lot earlier. I wish more of the discussion on second reading had something to do with the bill that's in front of the House, but I recognize that sometimes there's an effort made to try and delay things so that you can then make an argument: "Gee, we didn't have time to discuss the merits of the bill."

[1550]

I think we'll hear that a lot in the future, but I will be reminding members opposite, when I start to hear that argument, about all the time that was spent in this House talking about things that were completely unrelated to Bill 54 that's before us today.

With that, I would move second reading of Bill 54.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call second reading of Bill 51, intituled the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012.

BILL 51 — SOUTH COAST
BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

G. Gentner: I rise to speak on Bill 51, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act. I have reserved my right to speak, and I only have a few minutes. I'll try to wrap it up as quickly as I can.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I have to admit that I, too, am a fare evader. I'm still waiting from the ministry my bill for my ride over the Golden Ears Bridge. Therefore, like many people in British Columbia, I do break the law. We all once in awhile find ourselves in a position where we don't drive the posted speed of 50 kilometres an hour.

If you have a souped-up motorcycle, it's tuned up to speed. I'm sure that inadvertently, perhaps, even members in this House may break the law and are therefore chased down for their misdeeds.

We're going through this position here where we're going to see some bills. We're going to see rushing through bills, and there's going to be time allocation. We're trying to expedite that through — the government.

I have spent 25 minutes of my time talking about my personal experience relative to transit operators — those who drive a bus and who are trying to go from A to B, taking people to and from work — and, of course, the difficulties on the job relative to the need to preserve safety on the bus, to chase down fare evaders even though it may only be a few cents. You may be in a situation often enough where you're waiting for a supervisor or transit police to shake out the coinage, so to speak, to continue the fare, and meanwhile many in the bus will be late for work.

It's not as easy as this bill says it is. This is a bill that addresses the fare evasion and fine collection issues with transit, ensuring that drivers with unpaid transit fines cannot renew their driver's licence and registration. That, too, imposes a lot of hardship and, I suppose, issues through ICBC. My understanding is that drivers with outstanding fines will be banned from renewing their driver's licence, or their driver's licence could be suspended until the fine is paid in its fullness.

But the majority of those who ride a bus don't have a driver's licence — up to 70 percent. In some areas in the greater Vancouver area it's probably quite a bit higher. So how do you chase those fare evaders, those who
[ Page 12289 ]
need to go to work every day and those who are in the unfortunate situation of looking for a job, who live day to day? They're between their unemployment insurance and waiting for, perhaps, some Social Development financing. They themselves are evading perhaps a fare, unnecessarily, of course — not that they want to, but in order to chase down a job.

I believe that way back in 2007 the minister of the day, who is now the Finance Minister, suggested that we're going to put turnstiles in all our SkyTrain stations — the Millennium Line and eventually the Canada Line. That was way back in November 2007.

Here we are now, and we're chasing the toll evaders and the fare evaders, whereas if that system was in place like it is in most places in the urban areas…. I've been in New York, and I've been in Toronto. I've been on the Rocket in Toronto. You pay at a station. It's all fenced in, so before you can get on a bus, that security is in place.

[1555]

Now we're chasing people, many of whom are probably negligent without even knowing, who have maybe forgotten. I have to speak about Mr. Rob Gladwin, who is with COPE 378, the transit police. About the bill, he is supportive of ensuring fines collections — that it's enforced. But he and his union expressed concern about the downloading of costs from the provincial government onto TransLink, resulting in more administration costs, and suggested it will be difficult to deal with through a bylaw rather than through a provincial ticket.

It's an interesting concept, because municipal governments see downloading every day from this government. It's something that you deal with when you're in the municipal government — passing the buck, so to speak. It's a great concept to go after the toll evaders and the fare evaders, but implementing it is not that easy.

Before I wrap up — I know I have such limited time — I want to talk basically about the funding. But my time has expired, and I'll take my place.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 51, the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act. It's an interesting piece of legislation arriving here by, I think, almost a tortuous and circuitous route and dealing with a number of issues that the government has wrestled with over the last several years.

We have had numerous changes to governance in TransLink, each one seemingly more complicated than the last and none of them seeming to address the issues that have bedevilled TransLink and its ability to do its mandated tasks around the delivery of transit services and transit planning into the future and the construction of new transit projects, particularly in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

Transit is probably one of the most important issues that faces us as a province, particularly in the Lower Mainland and in my own community of Port Coquitlam, on a number of fronts as we try and provide alternative methods of transportation to the automobile. Transit is key in doing that, whether it's by buses, by SkyTrain, by SeaBus or light rail, for example — not that we have any currently in place. It's the way of the future. As we wrestle with how to control growth and shape growth within in the Lower Mainland, transit is key to being able to do that.

We can go back 30 years and the creation of the livable region strategy of the old GVRD. Central to that plan was transit. I represent, as does my colleague from Port Moody–Coquitlam, one of the fast-growing areas of the Lower Mainland, as do you, hon. Speaker. Ours is an area that has seen rapid growth over the last number of years and will continue to see rapid growth. In fact, we're slated to grow up to around, I think, 250,000 people.

Port Coquitlam, over the next 20 or 25 years, is slated to grow from 55,000 now to around 80,000 people. A lot of that growth is predicated on there being a transit plan in place and there being transit in place for people to access so that we can accommodate this growth. Out our way that means more buses, and it means the extension of the Evergreen line SkyTrain to Coquitlam and, if I had my way, to Port Coquitlam. It's a key part of being able to move people, to free up space on roads to move goods and increasingly, importantly, in our ability to shape land use. One of the great things around SkyTrain is its ability to shape land use and increase density at key nodes.

All of this takes place under the umbrella of the TransLink organization. This is the body that is tasked with the delivery, the management and the planning of transit services in the Lower Mainland.

[1600]

Literally since its inception there have been challenges on that front, whether it is the tools it has to deliver those services to be able to build and plan for the future, or what the right governance model is.

We have seen how, in the past, the government did not like decisions that TransLink was making, did not like the direction that TransLink was taking or felt that they wanted to, in essence, download areas onto TransLink that were or had been, should be, provincial jurisdiction without the commensurate resources going with it.

The result has been gridlock, if you like, at the local level in terms of being able to make TransLink function in the way that I think most people believe it should. And it has led to significant frustration amongst elected officials whose job it has been to deliver transit services in British Columbia.

The government made changes at the TransLink board under the current Finance Minister's tenure, when he was Minister of Transportation, that saw almost a complete restructuring, if you like, of TransLink and the creation of the TransLink board of directors, the Mayor's Council. The result is that you had elected officials who were trying to make a decision but could only make a
[ Page 12290 ]
decision on the recommendations that had been sent to them by the board of directors. So if the board of directors did not send the appropriate decision points, then the TransLink board of the elected representatives couldn't make a proper decision.

One has to look no further than a transit plan of a couple years ago. It completely did not contain what the…. The options it presented to the elected representatives were unacceptable and would not meet the needs of the citizens of the Tri-Cities or, in fact, any other part of the Lower Mainland. The result is that the government has been struggling with how to address a lot of the issues and challenges that TransLink has been facing, particularly around funding.

Recently we have seen how they have sent in another auditor. They want another audit done, even though there was one done a few years ago. They feel that the fault has got to be at TransLink. "So let's go in and send an auditor, and they're going to find all this waste, and that's the source of the problem. It's not the province; it's clearly with TransLink. If we just send in an auditor, they're going to be able to sort things out."

The reality is that's not how it should work, and in fact it's not going to work that way. It will not work that way. What needs to happen is for the government to recognize that it's got to address some of the key issues of TransLink, and it has to do so in a comprehensive fashion. This legislation attempts to do that in a number of areas, and it's got the support of a number of the mayors. But it still has some key areas that need to be addressed.

One of the important areas that this bill does attempt to deal with is the issue of fare evasion. This is something that the government has known about as a real challenge for more than five years, in fact probably even longer. That is, unlike many other transit systems around the globe, our transit system on SkyTrain does not have turnstile fare evasion gates on it.

If you ride the Metro in Montreal or the Metro in Toronto, there are turnstiles. If you go on the Underground in London, there are turnstiles. The system has been built and designed with them in place. Our system hasn't been. But in part, that's the way it was designed back in the mid-80s when Social Credit put in place the first SkyTrain line.

[1605]

Since that time, particularly during the last five years, the government has been aware that there have been significant issues around fare evasion and the resulting revenue losses to the transit system and has demanded that these be addressed.

I guess the expectation is that we'll start to see that for sure on the Evergreen line, when it's constructed. I know members on the government side say: "Yes, it's coming. Yes, it's coming." I could go into a long history on the Evergreen line, going all the way back to 2001 and 2005. It would be in the ground by 2009, and then it would be in the ground by 2011, and we're now into 2012, almost halfway through, and it's still not in the ground. But we are assured that it is going to be coming. We're told that that issue is going to be dealt with. There will be turnstiles on the line, and that's great.

But the problem, as has been so ably pointed out by my colleague from Delta North, is the collection. It's one thing to recognize that there is fare evasion and we're going to take steps to deal with it. It's easy to be able to say, "We will go after your driver's licence," which is appropriate — that you can't renew your licence if there are outstanding fines attached to it. That's done today.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the Minister of Transportation does, but if one rides one's motorcycle at speeds over the speed limit, you get a ticket. Or if you drive your car too fast, you get a ticket. You can either choose to pay the fine when you get the ticket, or you can ignore it, but when you go to renew your licence, you're going to be paying for that fine. Well, if you have a driver's licence, that's great. If you don't have a driver's licence, it's not so easy. So there are going to be some challenges on that front.

The transit police have indicated that they support the provisions in this particular piece of legislation, but again, they recognize that it's not the be-all and end-all. Various mayors in the Lower Mainland — the mayor of Surrey, for example, and the mayor of Langley city — have said that they support this particular piece of legislation but they also have concerns about it.

What particularly, I think, are issues that need to be addressed — and we will be dealing with them, I hope, at committee stage — are exactly how this bill will be implemented and the stages at which it will be implemented and the speed with which the changes proposed in this bill are going to be implemented. That's going to play a big part in how successful this bill is, because there's a significant amount of expectation around some of the changes that are going to be taking place.

I've mentioned issues around fare evasion and collection issues and the issues around drivers — to renew through their driver's licence and registration — and TransLink's ability to use collection agencies and to refuse transit service.

It will also allow TransLink to set fines, the fine amounts, and resolve disputes. So there are going to be some questions that I think need to be addressed at committee stage, such as: how does the government see this actually taking place? Do they have some idea of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable? What kind of notice is going to be required? What type of procedures are going to be followed in terms of assessment of the fines? Is there going to be a review process take place to see how it's being implemented or how things are being done? There's a whole range of questions that need to be addressed.

There are other questions around the additional seats
[ Page 12291 ]
that are being added to TransLink's board. I mean, one of the criticisms is that we have this current TransLink board which is composed of unelected representatives, and then you have the Mayors Council, which is the elected representatives.

[1610]

Now we're saying: "Okay, two additional seats are going to be on the board." So there is ostensibly a voice for elected mayors or an elected representative from local government.

It does raise those key questions again. How are you going to choose which two? Why only two? Why maintain that separation? What about the concept of recognizing that if transit is a local government issue, then the reality is that people who are elected at the local level and are accountable to their electorate are the ones who should be making those decisions? So some rationale, again, from the government on that, I think, is going to be important.

The bottom line is this — and I will be taking my place momentarily to hear….

J. Kwan: Mount Pleasant. I've only known you for 20 years, but whatever.

M. Farnworth: I am hurt. I am hurt, shocked and wounded that you were assuming that I am looking at you to say that I didn't know your riding.

I was looking at my colleague just to give her a hint that I'll soon be taking my seat so that she...

J. Kwan: So I'd be ready.

M. Farnworth: …will be ready.

J. Kwan: All right. Always a gentleman.

M. Farnworth: Thank you.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, which is the second reading of Bill 51 — the point being that there are an awful lot of questions in this bill that we want to have answered at committee stage. There are some key ones around fare evasion and how it's going to be dealt with and exactly how some of the procedures that the government is expecting will be put in place, as well as some questions around the makeup of the board and the issues related to that when it comes to government, governance and the decision-making process.

I know that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is eager to enter the debate, and so I will be happy to take my seat and hear the remarks that she and others have to make.

J. Kwan: I thank the member for Port Coquitlam in giving me a heads-up so that I would be ready to jump right into this debate. I do apologize. I shouldn't have assumed that you didn't know my riding. Of course you would. You've known me for 20 years, and of course, we've worked side by side closely on many, many issues. I do apologize if I was offensive in that way — jumped the gun, wrong assumption.

On Bill 51. Bill 51 is the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act. I'm delighted to enter into debate on this because this act impacts many of my constituents — in fact, the people in the Lower Mainland particularly — and because many people rely on the public transportation system. The bill, as we know, is a 15-page bill, which I have here, that makes changes to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act, along with consequential amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, to come into force by regulation.

I'm going to go into some of the issues related to this bill. Now, as the minister knows, this bill was brought in largely in response to ongoing problems that TransLink was facing and had been facing for quite some time. In fact, local government, local representatives…. And I know that the minister, having been the mayor — although not from the Lower Mainland — would fully appreciate the local representatives' voice on these issues that are so close to their own communities and to the people which the service impacts.

Now, many of the mayors, though, I should note — and I assume that the minister knows this and knows it well — are already on the public record to say that while this act, this Bill 51, is a step in the right direction, it does not actually go far enough to address the real concerns that they have been facing. Let me just go through some of these issues and these concerns one by one.

First and foremost, I think the issue that has been brought up is around the governance model. It has been a huge issue, a sticking point, if you will, for the local elected representatives.

[1615]

The minister knows that this bill does not really address the governance model. It doesn't really fix the problem. It doesn't even look into the problem as well as it should, I would argue.

Now, just by way of history, we should review the governance model and the changes, because I think it's important to know how it's evolved and where we're at today as it relates to this bill and why the amendments in this bill do not address the concerns that have been brought to the table.

The members in this House and the minister will know that prior to the year 2007, if memory serves me correctly, the TransLink board of directors comprised primarily elected mayors and council, to which they themselves were elected through their own mechanism in terms of representation. It was not an appointed board. I think it's an important point to make, because local mayors and council, being the representatives on the ground and
[ Page 12292 ]
ensuring the services are delivered to their own communities, have that direct voice and accountability related to that.

Of course, that changed after 2007, as the minister knows. The former Minister of Transportation, the current Minister of Finance, came into this Legislature and changed that governance structure so that the governance structure was only comprised of representatives appointed by the government.

So the current TransLink board are representatives appointed by the current Liberal government. That is to say that the appointed representatives are essentially the folks who will make these decisions, as opposed to the elected mayors and council. That's a significant distinction here in terms of that.

TransLink's appointed board of directors has complete control, as we know, of the transportation authority's spending. The Mayors Council — as it stands now, where they can provide input into the board's decision — can only approve or reject new or increased funding sources to finance service expansion. Really, they don't get to have that regular input, if you will, into how the system is operating. I think that's a pretty important component of the issue here.

The cost of the board. It's interesting to note, as well, that the cost of the former elected-officials board prior to 2007, to my understanding, was about $126,000 a year. That's the cost structure with that governance model.

The current governance model that the Liberal government brought in with the appointed representatives. The current board costs about $624,000 a year. The chair alone, as I understand, receives $125,000 a year for that service.

That's actually a significant departure from what it was prior to 2007. This is of significance because the model that the former Minister of Finance brought in — the current structure of $624,000 a year for the TransLink board — funds almost half, a little over half, of the cost of the TaxiSaver program.

As we know, that program is being eliminated. That's an issue that impacts many of the people who rely on public transportation. As I understand, that program would cost about a million dollars to run.

Had the government not implemented this policy, those dollars, the $624,000 a year, could have actually gone, in part, into the TaxiSaver program, as an example, which would have serviced many of the seniors who rely on this program and which would have serviced many of the people with disabilities who rely on this program as well.

[1620]

So it is about efficiency and how it's being operated. I know that the Minister of Transportation is taking a look at the TaxiSaver issue. The Transportation critic, along with our seniors critic, has raised the issue, and the minister said he'll take a look at that. I think it is important that he does because that is a component piece, if you will, of our public transportation service for the people in our communities.

Now, going back to the Mayors Council on the proposed changes, the Mayors Council has said that these changes, in fact, don't go far enough. They have some problems with it. Speaking to the issue around the governance model, the mayors have criticized that it is a small step that does not go nearly far enough to address their demands for more control over TransLink spending and priorities.

The mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, has said on the public record that he is "totally opposed" to mayors sitting on TransLink with just two seats. Two seats, Mr. Speaker. He called those seats token seats, calling it a provincial ploy to "divide and conquer" the mayors. He goes on to say that this is a sham, that the government is "attempting to get a couple of members of the Mayors Council on that board who will then validate the decisions being made and put those mayors in a terrible conflict." That's one point of view that's already been expressed on the public record.

Going into another municipality, the city of Surrey, Mayor Dianne Watts, a former chair of the Mayors Council, said that she "doesn't see a huge problem sending the chair and vice-chair to TransLink" but cautioned that "cities must press Victoria for much more meaningful improvements to restore democracy and accountability." She says that there is some value with adding two seats onto this board but "it's not going to fix the governance issue. So that still has to be addressed." That's what she said on the public record. So it goes back to the governance issue around it.

One of the things that the Mayors Council had suggested back on April 12…. In fact, they passed four resolutions calling for governance change, and what they asked for was for the minister to do an in-depth review of the efficacy of TransLink's governance model. But government has refused that request.

I'm not quite sure why the government would not want to go in and do an in-depth review to find out what is the best governance model and then bring in the changes in the legislation. That would have been the proper way of doing it, I think — to consult with the people on the ground who are directly impacted, who hear the voices every single day from their own constituents, from the ratepayers in their community, and be able to reflect those points of view. I think that's a fair comment by them.

But the government is not doing that. Instead, they're bringing in this structure, where they're adding two seats onto the board, in the bill, as being proposed under Bill 51. I think that's one of the reasons why the Mayors Council, many of the mayors, have already expressed this, saying that this bill does not go far enough. It's a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough in terms
[ Page 12293 ]
of addressing that.

Now, it's interesting to note, as well, that the government says there needs to be an efficiency review of TransLink. There have been how many reviews? I think at least three reviews. This is the third one that is ongoing at the moment, right now.

We've already had three reviews. If the government was to do yet another review, why don't we do an independent review? That's what the Mayors Council is calling for. They are arguing that in light of the March 2012 efficiency review of TransLink, another audit of TransLink is not required, but that if there is one, it should be done by the provincial Auditor General.

That's the argument — right? This should be done by the provincial Auditor General — who, by the way, is a completely independent officer of the Legislature — so that people would have full confidence in this review, around what will come forward from this review, and so that we can then look forward to what changes are required and take those recommendations accordingly. But the government, of course, is not doing that, and they've rejected that as well.

[1625]

The issue around another item is that the Mayors Council is calling for opposition to further use of property tax as a funding source for future transportation projects. This is an interesting issue, because ratepayers — or governments, if you will — would have to find a way to fund the service.

But the government has rejected, for example, the carbon tax as an option to fund transit services, which is kind of strange, really, in the sense that you have the transit system that reduces the carbon footprint, and if you allow for those services to be sustained or expanded, then you will be able to further reduce the carbon footprint. Yet the government has rejected using the carbon tax for this. This is a point that I think should be noted as well.

The Mayors Council also called for a two-year, $30 million priority tax funding for TransLink's latest expansion plans to be cancelled until alternate funding sources are determined. This is talking about planning ahead. How do we pay for the services that are required so that we can ensure that TransLink and the services are sustainable over time? That's another issue that the Mayors Council had put on the table.

The other issue that this bill touches on is around the issue of fare evasion. As it is, in March of 2012 the current minister had actually promised to ensure that SkyTrain fare evaders paid a $173 fine that they were issued for evading fares, and currently TransLink has no enforcement mechanism in place to collect those fines. ICBC is currently responsible for fines, but they have no mechanism to enforce people to pay for them, and TransLink can currently only issue fines or a no go or 24-hour ban to frequent fare evaders. That's the system that we have right now.

What's interesting, of course, is that this problem was identified back in 2007 through a performance audit conducted for TransLink by PricewaterhouseCoopers and a TransLink Fare Evasion Internal Audit, which commented that "one reason for the low rate of ticket payment is the inability to link transit fines to other desired government functions." They give the example of utilizing ICBC as a means of collecting fines, but they have no capacity to do that.

Of course, the former Minister of Transportation, the current Minister of Finance, knew about this problem and had said that he was going to fix it, but yet he didn't. When the file transferred over to the current Minister of Transportation, nothing was done, nothing was followed up. I'm not even sure if there was communication between the two ministers so that the current minister would be aware of it and would then be able to follow up on that promise to address the issue.

Maybe the Minister of Transportation in his closing can clarify that point for us and advise us what really happened here, where the gap was, what happened there and why the government didn't act on this when they had known that there was a problem with respect to that back in 2007.

That said, it raises the question now, because I think the current Minister of Transportation has said that this legislation is going to be retroactive in terms of the fare evasion issue, in terms of retroactively going back to collect the fines that weren't collected for as far back as ten years, if I'm not mistaken. I think that's what the Minister of Transportation has said on the record.

I am curious to know how that would be done and whether or not the government has actually done a cost-benefit analysis on this. What would the costs be to go back to try and collect the fares over the period of ten years, particularly where you have to utilize the court system in order to achieve that goal?

[1630]

It may be that for some people who own a driver's licence, you would be more easily and able to collect those retroactive fines, but for people who don't own a driver's licence, I don't know how that would be done and whether or not there's been an analysis of the expenses in going through that effort over ten years in order to do that.

Has there been an analysis on the impact on the court system in terms of the potential backlog that already exists right now in our court system? Would there be policing forces that would have to kick in, in order to utilize the court system, in order to collect these fines? What are the cost implications as they're off-loaded, then, to the local government in terms of policing costs around that? How exactly that would be done I actually don't know.

I know that the minister could very well get up and say how you would…. What normally would happen in this Legislature is that these questions would be can-
[ Page 12294 ]
vassed during committee stage. Now, I'm actually quite concerned that we may not get to committee stage. Why I say that is that, well, this week is the final week of the Legislature sitting. We will only have three more days left by the end of today to complete all of the bills — all of the bills — of which there are still many.

We have a hefty bill with the committee stage on the HST bill that was just debated moments ago. That just finished second reading debate. We still have to go through the clause by clause on that. There are many, many bills that still need to be canvassed here, and I am quite worried that we're not going to get to the committee stage on this bill.

I would love it if the Minister of Transportation would actually get up when he does his closing statements and provide these answers so that we know how this would work in the event that we don't actually get to clause by clause. I will look forward to those answers from the minister, because it would be important to know. I think that it would be important for the taxpayers of British Columbia to know what that analysis has been and what it shows. Better yet, maybe the minister will actually table the analysis so that we can see the information for ourselves.

I'm assuming that the government has done their homework on this, that they have actually done this work and prepared it. I am assuming that there's no secrecy around it, that there's information that we should be able to access on behalf of our constituents in the interests of accountability and transparency. I will look forward to that from the minister when he makes his closing statements with respect to that.

As I said, the current Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Transportation, had said four years ago in that capacity as Transportation Minister…. He had commented publicly that the government was looking for ways to do a better job of collecting fines from fare evaders and that TransLink had been calling for a solution on this issue for some years.

Maybe the current Minister of Transportation could shed some light. What work has the government done during that period? When they said that they were going to look for better ways to deal with this issue, what work was, in fact, done by the former Minister of Transportation when he knew about the issue four years ago? What work did he actually undertake to find a way to better collect these fines?

Maybe the minister will share that information with this House and with the public as well so that we, again, can see the competency level of the government in their promise to pursue this issue when they've made the public statement on the public record and see what homework they do to follow up on those promises or, alternatively, to learn that maybe in fact those promises were just simply empty words. I'll be looking forward to that information from the minister in his response in the closing statement here as well.

Finally, I want to make a comment about this — that is, with the issue around the transit police. There's been much discussion around the transit police. I think that they do actually have a very tough job out there in the work that they're doing. Of course, there is a key issue that they're faced with, aside from fare evasion. It's the real issue of safety at the SkyTrain locations.

[1635]

I think it is important to note the work they're doing in that way because, if we're to encourage people to use the transit system, we need to make sure that people feel it's safe to use the public transit system. I think the degree to which the service that the transit police have been providing has been an important component in adding to the issue of safety.

Now, of course, there's always the issue of personnel and whether or not there are sufficient people to provide for that public protection and the feeling of protection and safety for people. I think it is important to note that. I wonder if the minister has taken that into consideration as well, with respect to encouraging more of the public to utilize the transit system. I think that's key to the success of encouraging people to ride the SkyTrain, especially at nighttime.

My stepson uses the SkyTrain quite often. He travels to Mission, where his mother lives, and back and forth through Vancouver, and I worry about it. He uses the various networks there in our public system. You want to make sure that young people are safe, and you want to make sure that seniors are safe — in fact, that all people who ride the transit system feel that it's safe.

There have been several incidents. I know that the Leader of the Official Opposition has raised the issue in a call for safety measures, especially in the Joyce Street station, where several incidents have occurred. It's scary. It's scary for people when those situations occur, and we want to make sure that our system is indeed safe. I wonder whether or not this bill addresses the issue of safety in that way — in any way, shape or form — to ensure that the public has that kind of confidence in our public transit system.

The final point that I want to make is this. As we come to a close in this discussion, and I think there are a couple of colleagues who still want to speak to this bill, I want to note that the government — I think, and I presume, and I predict — will bring in closure on the bills, or time limitations. That means by the end of day Thursday all the bills that have not been through the debate will be deemed to have been completed and passed.

In that instance, how will the public get the answers they need on questions that are not yet answered or did not get a chance to be canvassed in this House in committee stage, particularly some of the issues I already brought up to the minister's attention? I wonder if the minister will advise this House how the public will have access to
[ Page 12295 ]
try and get that information from the government so that they can have clarity on how this bill and the implementation of this bill will be carried forward by regulation.

I hope that the minister won't get up and say: "Well, you will see it when the OICs, the orders-in-council, are being tabled, and therefore, it will answer your questions." I think that the minister will agree with me that that's not sufficient in terms of providing the answers to the public.

I think that the minister will agree with that, so I'll look forward to the minister's comments when he makes his closing statements, in particular addressing some of the questions I've put to him and also addressing the discrepancy between his predecessor — the former Minister of Transportation, the current Minister of Finance — when he knew that there were issues with fare evasion and has said on the public record that he was going to go and find ways to do a better job of it — what happened there. Maybe he can shed some light so that we can find out.

When exactly did he find out about the problem? I think I heard on the public record that the current Minister of Transportation said that he heard about the problem when it just recently surfaced in the media, as opposed to learning it from his cabinet colleague. If that's the case, it's extremely disappointing. It shows that the government is completely disconnected from each other in their little silos, operating separately, and that when the former minister hands the file over to the next minister, there's simply no communication.

Also, equally important to that point, of course, is the work that has been done during the four-year period in which the former Minister of Transportation said he would look into the issue and address the issue. What work, exactly, was done? The minister would have access to that information now. He would be able to look into it and find out what exactly had been done by his predecessor. I am very confident that the minister will share that information with this House so that we can all get to the bottom of this and fix the problem once and for all.

[1640]

Finally, I would ask the minister to ensure that he continues the consultation with the Mayors Council, because so many of the mayors have already said on the public record that this is only just a baby step to actually addressing the issues. What other plans does the minister have, ultimately, to address the governance problems and issues, for example, that the Mayors Council had brought forward to the minister's attention?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my place. I look forward to the minister's comments and to hear other members in this House speak on this issue.

B. Ralston: I do recall some years ago this bill that created TransLink going through the House. I went back, just out of curiosity, to look at what I had said back then. I was struck by the fact that all the same problems still exist and persisted throughout the time that this corporation in its present incarnation has been in existence. I'm going to quote from a few parts of that speech just to prove that point.

I think it's also significant when we're here before the House at a time when a number of pieces of legislation are going to go through the process of closure — that is, debate will be cut off, ostensibly because the government has run out of time on its calendar, probably in part because it doesn't want to discuss them further — to reflect back that the bill that created TransLink was a bill that went through on closure.

There were several speeches at second reading. There was a hoist motion and some speeches there, and then there was no committee stage. It went through on closure.

I think part of the genesis of the problems of the structure that TransLink has is because it was not properly scrutinized by the Legislature. There wasn't sufficient time to mobilize public opinion, although there was quite a lot of public opinion, and informed opinion, that said that the present governance model would not work.

Let's look back at it. For example, section 170 — and there's an amendment to section 170 in Bill 51 — said, in a very unusual characterization of eligible individuals, that "they must not hold elected…office of any type."

It's very unusual in public transportation, where elected regional officials or municipal officials understand their local community and because transportation is so closely linked with land use and zoning, which is one of the predominant or main powers of a municipality. But this structure set up a board where an eligible individual "does not hold elected…office of any type."

Looking back at what I said, and I think I commented on this, it exhibited a profound contempt for democracy. That strain continues. There's a little bit of back-pedalling in this bill after five years, and two members of the Mayors Council are going to be added on.

Now, there's a division of opinion among the mayors as to what the effect of that will be. I think the wiser decision, or the wiser view, is that this is tinkering with the structure and doesn't remedy the fundamental problem with the flawed structure that was set in place back in 2007. That anti-democratic structure….

Even, unusually, the directors on the Mayors Council, which had a minor role in the governance structure — that has expanded somewhat more recently — were required to swear an oath in section 209: "I will, when exercising my powers and duties under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act as a member of the mayors' council on regional transportation, consider the interests of the transportation service…as a whole."

A profound contempt not only for elections and elected officials but a profound contempt for any confidence in those officials to do their duties in a thoughtful and conscientious way, requiring them to take an oath to look at — as if that weren't obvious — the system as a whole.
[ Page 12296 ]
Most of them, for a great majority of decisions, are deeply concerned about the region as a whole and the transportation system in the region.

That was the legislative genesis of this particular organization, and the problems have continued to plague it. But it's not only simply in the governance structure, which is profoundly flawed; it's also in the financing mechanisms.

[1645]

Back in 2006 Mayor Brodie, who was the TransLink chair and was the mayor of Richmond — was then and is still now, having been re-elected several times — made a presentation to the Surrey and Langley chambers of commerce. He said in here…. I don't want to be accused of misquoting him, so let me quote him again. I quoted this in the speech back five years ago.

"We found efficiencies in many areas, but with demands for more expansion come long-term revenue challenges. As business leaders, you all know that transportation improvements don't come without a cost. Please allow me to explain why TransLink funding options are so limited.

"Our main three sources of revenue are fuel taxes, fares and property taxes. First of all, our share of fuel tax revenue, 30 percent of TransLink's budget, is volatile due to the fluctuating gas prices and consumption. We've already raised transit fares, and there's a danger of increasing them again, since higher fares reduce ridership.

"We've also reached the limit in terms of property taxes that people are prepared to support, with two increases that were approved by the municipalities through the GVRD."

Those are the limitations that he expressed before the legislation came before the House. What did the legislation in 2007, despite that advice…? What were the main three sources of revenue? Fuel taxes, fares and property taxes, with all the inherent limitations and problems that those pose. It's probably no surprise that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant referred to it. The Mayors Council said that they objected back on April 12 of this year: "…opposition to further use of property tax as a funding source for future transportation projects."

The democratic structure is flawed. The financing mechanisms are flawed, despite advice that was received at the time. I don't think that the mayors are unwilling, as mayors and as councils, to share the financial burden. But given the relatively limited sources of revenue for municipalities — and the property tax being the main one — to divert, in their view, further revenue from the property tax to transportation makes it more difficult for them to balance their budgets, as they are required to under the Local Government Act.

I don't think that it's an act of political selfishness. I think it's just an act of fiscal prudence for them to say: "Let's put a limit to the use of the property tax to fund transportation in the region."

It wasn't only the mayors who expressed concern about the structure of TransLink. Mr. Dinwoodie, who is the municipal manager of the city of Surrey, said in a corporate report, which was prepared for the city of Surrey and forwarded to the TransLink governance review…. So before the process of bringing in the legislation in 2007, this was a report that he prepared and submitted to his council. He said:

"A particular concern would be the replacement of local government 'elected' representation with a mainly appointed 'non-elected' board — i.e., airport authority model. While this may work well for airports or Crown corporations, these entities do not provide direct services at the municipal level.

"There is concern that if the TransLink board is structured to have fewer or no municipal representatives, the level of cooperation between the member municipalities and TransLink would be adversely affected.

"Likewise, an appointed board would not address the issue of taxation without representation nor public accountability."

A senior government official, the manager in Surrey, the second-biggest city in the region, well respected at all levels of government among his peers as the public servants and among elected officials — that was the advice he gave back in 2006 in the governance review — brushed aside, ignored. No elected officials at all. So is it any wonder that TransLink is in the governance mess that it is now? All the good advice was completely ignored at the time, and this bill, the bill that created TransLink that we're now amending somewhat, was rammed through the Legislature with little debate and closure.

[1650]

There's a lesson. I'm absolutely certain this government will refuse to take it, but there's a lesson there. When you do things that way, you set in motion a structure, an organization, a law, that will plague you for years and years. That's exactly what happened in creating TransLink. This bill is a very timid step to correct some minor problems with the policy and the operation of TransLink.

It wasn't just people like Murray Dinwoodie. It wasn't just people like Mayor Brodie. Patrick Smith, a professor of political science, stated at the time that since the TransLink board, the structure, raises property taxes, has the power to change taxation classifications, can accumulate property and run its own police agency, it fails the democracy test. Those are his words: "It fails the democracy test." So a respected political science professor at Simon Fraser University says TransLink fails the democracy test.

This bill, which creates a couple of changes and adds some people to TransLink's board, notwithstanding the fact that they are elected officials, is something that is a minor change. I'm not sure that it's going to be very effective. Certainly, Mayor Corrigan has expressed his strong view that it won't be. Mayor Watts, similarly, has said that it's a change but doesn't really tackle the fundamental governance problems there. So is it any wonder that the problems at TransLink will continue?

Now, the bill does deal with a couple of other issues. It deals with fare evasion. It's particularly ironic in light of another part of the amendment where the bill adds the power to do performance audits to the repertoire of powers of TransLink. The fare evasion issue was raised and comprehensively reviewed during the course of — guess what — a performance audit, 2007.
[ Page 12297 ]

In 2007 a performance audit was conducted for TransLink by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and they spoke of the low rate of ticket payment. The reason for it is "the inability to link transit fines to other desired government functions. For instance, in regards to motor vehicle fines, vehicle licensing and registration are withheld until traffic violations are paid. As a result, the only actual consequence to the individual is the short delay that they encounter while awaiting their violation ticket."

The audit recommended "that management strengthen its fare enforcement by pursuing ways to link violation tickets with other government functions — e.g., driver licence renewal. We believe this change could have the most significant impact on fare evasion by creating significantly enhanced consequences of evasion."

That was four years ago, and that came about as a performance audit. That's the very power that is being added in this bill that the minister and the government seems to think will enable TransLink to function more effectively. Well, they did that. They did that in this case. They did a performance audit. They had recommendations, and the government failed completely to act on them.

Despite the previous minister making a commitment that he would do something about this four years ago…. My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has asked the minister to respond directly to this in his closing remarks. I don't know whether he will. But certainly, some explanation is required as to why the gap of four years existed. Only when it came to light through the diligence of some members of the media did the minister choose to respond and to put this bill before the House, at least in that particular aspect.

Then thirdly, the final item that I want to deal with is the whole issue of performance audits. Now, the Auditor General here, the independent officer of the Legislature, conducts financial audits, and he also conducts performance audits. Performance audits are designed to go beyond the financial audit and actually evaluate the effectiveness of a program, as opposed to examining and scrutinizing the books of an organization to make sure that they conform with standard accounting practice.

[1655]

Performance audits are not a bad thing. But what appears to be the view of the government is that rather than fixing the governance structure and enabling effective management to be carried out, this issue of management, revenue — all those ultimate questions of the effectiveness of the organization — can be deferred by setting up a mechanism to do performance audits.

You're not going to act on the results of performance audits. It doesn't matter how many performance audits you do. You're never going to get a good result. The illustration is the performance audit that was done on fare evasion. Surely, that's a good example of the fact that if you don't act on it, nothing happens. A performance audit is just simply no substitute for good, effective management.

Much needs to be done to make TransLink a genuinely responsive organization to lead the region and the province forward in terms of effective urban transportation that brings about all the benefits that everyone knows, all the planners talk about and the public instinctively realizes — an ability to move around the city; to create a dense, more pedestrian-oriented; and to reduce the carbon footprint of the city generally.

Indeed, some theorists have said that cities, by virtue of the fact that they bring about public space which is shared and increase population density dramatically, are one of the most effective ways to bring about a reduction in carbon emissions. So there's the democratic side of the city, and there's the population density which, if properly planned, can dramatically reduce carbon emissions. That's inherently related to an effective public transportation system.

This government, on TransLink, is missing the boat time and time again. These minor changes will not remedy the fundamental questions that face TransLink, and that is indeed regrettable.

But there we are, and I expect, as my colleague has said, that we won't get to deal with any of these amendments. It'll be rammed through this place in closure, and the weaknesses, such as they are, of this bill will only manifest themselves down the road, just as the creation of TransLink — rammed through this place by closure, without adequate debate and with no real attempt to understand the organization that was being created and the problems that were hard-wired into the legislation. That won't take place either.

That seems to be the will of the government at this time. At this point we will have to live with it, but there will come a time when perhaps that will change.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close debate.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I want to thank the members for talking about Bill 51. Most of them stayed fairly focused on the bill itself, which in many cases is unusual in this House, from my experience. So I do say thank you to the members for that.

Bill 51 deals with two very significant issues with TransLink. We are dealing with the powers for TransLink to enforce fare evasion, something that I will address right off the bat. There has been indication that the minister should have known. "The previous minister knew in 2007. Did he not transfer that knowledge to the minister, who then took that position and then, following another minister…?"

The reality is… I want nobody — because there will be thousands of British Columbians glued to their televisions watching this debate — to be under the belief that that's when it first became an issue. In fact, Members, it
[ Page 12298 ]
became an issue in 1999, when this was first put in under the previous New Democrat government, that there was an oversight and that the ability to ticket was there but the ability to collect was not. So let there be no reasoned person out there that thinks this became a new issue in 2007, when in fact it didn't.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When did I become aware of it? About 60 days before I presented the legislation to correct the problem. I'm proud of the fact that when I said I would do something, we were able to correct the situation, correct the problem and move on it quickly.

I know that a lot of fingers have been pointed at my colleague, now the hon. Minister of Finance, saying he didn't do anything, when in fact he did. He's worked, certainly, on our fare gates and worked hard to make sure that as we move forward with our transit system in Metro Vancouver, we not only have a world-class transit system but a safe transit system and one that works well for everybody.

[1700]

I do want to touch on the issues of what the bill really does, and then I will go through a number of the speakers not only here this afternoon but going back about eight or ten days. There were a number of speakers previous on this bill, and I want to address some of the comments there.

I know that the power to enforce fare evasion is something that is very much worthwhile. I have no problem standing here again and saying that if you have a ticket, please do the right thing. Step forward and pay, because we are coming after you to get the money. Anybody who has avoided paying their fare or paying their ticket has only increased the cost for the vast majority of the law-abiding citizens out there who, each and every day, use the system, pay their fare, ride the system, and get to and from where they have to go.

TransLink will be able to use the small claims court and collection agencies to collect unpaid fines, as well as other options. They will offer discounts for early payments. They will be imposing continually escalating fines and interest over time if people refuse to pay. Also, they will be able to use ICBC. Not only will they actually see that you have an unpaid fine and a debt owed to TransLink; they will refuse either a driver's licence or registration of the vehicle. Before they didn't do that, and this is a big step towards helping.

I know a number of members in their discussions on this indicated, and I think probably because they maybe hadn't gone through the entire bill, that that was the only portion or ability to collect, which is not the true facts behind this bill. It is only one part of it. Only about 30 percent of the people who are ticketed using transit in Metro Vancouver have a vehicle registration or a driver's licence, so it will go a long way to help in that 30 percent.

For the others, you will have the ability to go through the courts, to do a number of other things. You can recover amounts of money on the new smart card or Compass card. If an individual goes and puts an amount of money on this but owes money to TransLink for a previous ticket, that money will come off of that card. That's how it will be recovered there. Not only that, you can actually refuse transit service or monthly passes and transponders until the fines are paid.

It's very simple, Members, to me. In order to avoid any of this, any of these challenges or problems you think this may bring upon yourself, I encourage you to just pay the fare on the front end of it, and you won't have to deal with any fare evasion issue. It will make life easier not only for yourself but certainly more equitable to the vast majority of men and women who ride this and families who pay their fees on the front end of that.

I want to talk about the other side of this bill, which is the governance. We've talked about fare evasion. I've heard a great amount of discussion on this, and also governance.

Over the last about 14 months now, I've had the honour of serving as the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Very early after I was appointed to this position, I began discussions with the Mayors Council and TransLink. There are challenges, without question, there. Governance was one of them. Funding sources were another.

From the first meeting I met with the Mayors Council and continued on, I made it very clear that I would look at refinements to the governance of this organization but that I would not look at blowing it up and going back to the way it was. I don't think, and I certainly haven't run into many people that do, that the governance system prior to the one that exists today worked well. I think there was a lot of parochialism. I think there were challenges with that. Changes were made to try and enhance the system. Along with that comes our ability to learn each and every day.

I heard from the Mayors Council. They said: "We would like elected representatives on the board of directors." There is no question in my mind that they would like the majority, I'm sure, on the board of directors. I don't think there will be a member around the Mayors Council table that will deny this. I made it clear each and every meeting that I would look at refinements but that I would not blow up the existing structure and go back to the way it was, and we haven't.

We are actually going to put two members of the Mayors Council onto the board of directors. Both the chair…. I know that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant had asked who is going on, or it may have been another member. It will be the chair and the vice-chair who will go onto the board of directors from the Mayors Council. I think that gives a very clear voice for the
[ Page 12299 ]
Mayors Council to be represented at the board level as well as report back on issues.

[1705]

I know there were concerns about people saying they couldn't talk about anything. I share the view, like most British Columbians, most people in this Legislature, that there are limited issues that have to be dealt with in camera, but not everything has to be dealt with behind closed doors. If you're dealing with a legal issue or a personnel issue or a matter of these sorts, obviously you're going to do that in a closed-door meeting. I think that is respectful of the individuals that are being talked about or dealt with.

Overall, putting two additional people on the board of TransLink is certainly a favourable step and one I'm that proud we're able to accomplish through Bill 51.

We will actually also extend the submission date for the TransLink base plan from August 1 to November 1, something the Mayors Council was requesting. It gives more time for dialogue not only with the Mayors Council and TransLink but also with the public, which makes a big difference as well.

We are going to add the electoral area A director to the Mayors Council, something that has been missing for some time. It was a request of the Mayors Council. I fully support that. We have an electoral district that includes several unincorporated communities that was not officially part of that group, and this bill will formally put that in.

It will also establish periodic performance audits that can be conducted at the request of the Mayors Council or at the request of the minister responsible. Again, we have heard a great deal. We have heard that different audits have found different things.

I've always been a believer, whether I'm working in this House on behalf of the people of Peace River South or working in my capacity as the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, that each and every day we had better hope we can improve on what we've done the day before if we're truly doing what we believe in, trying to build a better quality of life for all. Bill 51, I think, is a very positive step.

I will concur with members on the other side that said it's a step in the right direction. I think the only difference we have there is how big a step. I think it's a much bigger step, and I understand that some members on the other side think it isn't quite as big a step as I see it. But I've always had a good working relationship with my colleagues on the other side.

My critic, the member for Surrey-Newton, works hard on behalf of this file to go into the issues. I know he indicated he had a preference for the old governance system, thought it worked better. We have a difference of opinion on that, and I respect his opinion.

We are going to move. We are going to make refinements to the governance structure by adding the two mayors, both the chair and the vice-chair, to the board, which, again, I think will be a very positive step.

I want to address…. A number of members on the other side talked about board remuneration. I thought we had cleared this up some time ago. Unfortunately, it maybe never got through. I've heard people talk of $125,000 for the chair, that it was worth this. Remuneration for the board was set in 2008. It hasn't changed since 2008. The chair is set at $100,000 per year. Board members are set at $25,000 per year.

I want to point out that there was a panel that looked at what that board should be paid. The chair of that panel was a gentleman that I got to know in my previous life when I was in local government but is no stranger to this province. He is the former Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Mike Harcourt. He chaired the committee that actually set those rates. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Harcourt. I think that the work he does, he does well.

I want to make it very clear that there isn't an amount of money out there that has been escalated since 2008, that we've added to the board remuneration when, in fact, that isn't the reality of what's happened.

Also, the fare evasion issue. We've heard a great deal about that. We are moving on that. I share the view of the people of British Columbia when it came to light that tickets could be written but there would be no way to collect those. We acted on it, and we've done it quite quickly.

The member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads also brought up the fact about the board remuneration again. Hopefully, I've corrected that and people are now, certainly, informed about what the reality is. She also talked about the issue of money. This bill doesn't address that, so we can talk about that at another time. But if she asks where the money does come from, I do want to reiterate, for the people of British Columbia and others who are watching this, a good example of where the money comes from, the Evergreen line.

[1710]

It is a tremendous project that will benefit Metro Vancouver — certainly, the people there to a greater degree, but others who visit. Hon. Speaker, $583 million is coming from the province of British Columbia, $417 million from the federal government and $400 million from the local area in Metro Vancouver.

When people ask where the money is coming from, close to $1 billion is coming from the taxpayers of this province who don't live in the region where this project is being built. I think that's a pretty good deal. For Metro Vancouver and the Mayors Council and TransLink to come up with $400 million I think is pretty reasonable on a $1.4 billion project. I think most people in this province would be ecstatic to get that kind of sharing arrangement.

There's a great deal of work still to do with the Mayors Council. I've made that commitment on the funding end of it, and we will continue to meet.

Also, I want to point out that I've heard from the other
[ Page 12300 ]
side that this is a step in the right direction. There were one or two members over there talking about how it was a step in the wrong direction, but I do believe we are going down a path in a positive position here. Do I think that this is the end-all and be-all and that we can never improve on this again as long as we're all working together? No. As I said earlier, I hope that each and every day we try and improve on what we've done.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington also spoke briefly on this bill. I appreciate the comments there. She talked about fare gates; talked about what we're going to be able to do for fare evasion, and so on. Also what was touched on was safety. I do believe we have an incredible system in Metro Vancouver under TransLink. We have a world-class transit operation and one that I think people should be proud of, but like other transit operations around this province, it's not without its challenges.

There was a great deal of discussion on this, and I know that we have a great deal of work before us over the next number of days. Rather than go on at length and address each and every person that raised issues, I want to close with just a couple of issues that people had talked about.

The appointments to the board of TransLink are not made by government. They are made by the Mayors Council. I know the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant had indicated that. I want to make it very clear that that wasn't correct. The Mayors Council makes the appointments to the board itself.

Board remuneration — I have already addressed that. The efficiency review that the member spoke about, implying that the government may have hoisted this onto them — this was a request that I think is a worthwhile request and one that a number of the mayors actually said: "We are not going to approve a single new funding source until we have an audit and see." I concur with that. I think it was a move in the right direction.

In closing, Bill 51 is a very good bill. It moves us in a good direction. It deals with both fare evasion and governance at TransLink, something that was asked for and we worked together on. Does it meet everybody's expectations? I doubt that. It very seldom does when we're trying to work together, but you try and do the best you can.

I will close by again thanking the speakers to this bill who got up and spoke and raised their issues. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading of Bill 51.

[1715]

Second reading of Bill 51 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

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

Bill 51, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1720]

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading of Bill 47, intituled the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012.

BILL 47 — COASTAL FERRY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

I'm very pleased to speak today about the amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act in Bill 47. The amendments are required to respond to the recommendations contained in the B.C. Ferry Commissioner's report presented to the province in January of this year.

The amendments will help address concerns about affordability of ferry services and strengthen the regulatory oversight of ferry operators. The principles of the act are being amended. The primary role of the Ferry Commissioner will be to balance the interests of ferry users, the interests of taxpayers and the financial sustainability of ferry operators.

After the amendments the commissioner will have more flexibility when setting price caps. The amendments also provide the commissioner with greater discretion in setting price caps, such as the prohibition against cross-subsidization between route groups, which has been eliminated. The commissioner has more flexibility in determining the value of the capital assets, and the commissioner will be able to set the price cap so that the ferry operator can achieve sufficient returns to enable it to meet its debt obligations and maintain access to borrowing at what the commissioner determines to be reasonable rates. These changes will reduce pressure for fare increases.

As well, the commissioner will also have improved regulatory oversight. The amendments will allow the commissioner to approve the ferry operators' ten-year capital plans as well as capital expenditures determined by the commissioner to be major. This will ensure that significant capital investment will meet the needs of the future rather than the needs of the past.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

There are a number of other amendments which will enable the commissioner to encourage the ferry operator to be more efficient. The commissioner will now be able to conduct routine performance reviews, request ferry operators to prepare plans, review policies and conduct public consultations, and make service level adjustments that are consistent with the parameters set out in the service contract between the ferry operator and the province.

The commissioner has been given additional tools to
[ Page 12301 ]
deal with the extraordinary circumstances. The commissioner can now issue an order for one or more of the following: a temporary or permanent price cap increase, a temporary reduction in service below the core ferry services in the service contract between the ferry operators and the province; a permanent reduction of service within the parameters of the service contract; and the deferral of major capital expenditures, as long as it does not compromise safety. As a result, the commissioner will no longer be restricted to just increasing price caps in response to an extraordinary circumstance.

As the commissioner will have additional responsibilities, the act has been amended to adjust the level of the commissioner's budget. As requested by the commissioner, the timelines for the delivery of the Ferry Commission's annual report has been extended to five months instead of four, to allow the commissioner adequate time to receive year-end reports from ferry operators and to assess their compliance with the service contract and the Coastal Ferry Act.

An amendment has been made to explicitly enable the commissioner to establish fuel deferral accounts in response to significant changes in fuel prices. This confirms the commissioner's ability to provide for temporary fuel surcharges or discounts under whatever terms and conditions the commissioner may determine to be appropriate.

These amendments respond to key recommendations from the commissioner that required amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act. Making changes to the Coastal Ferry Act will put us on the right path to further our vision of an affordable, efficient and sustainable system that balances the interests of ferry users, the interests of taxpayers and the sustainability of the ferry operator.

[1725]

These amendments are part of a comprehensive set of measures to ensure that coastal communities are connected in an efficient, affordable and sustainable manner.

I look forward to the comments of members opposite. I do believe that this bill goes a long way to, as we've said earlier, making sure we have an affordable, sustainable ferry system for the people of this province and the system operators themselves.

G. Coons: I rise to speak to Bill 47, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act. I appreciate the minister's comments. We've talked frequently on Ferries issues and a few issues about this bill.

Again, I think they are some very small steps in the right direction but far from where we need to go with our ferry system. It does nothing with the affordability issue, has nothing to do with the ridership issue, has nothing to help improve the economic impacts that the high fares have had in a lot of our coastal ferry communities.

I do want to respond to the minister. When the Coastal Ferry Act, Bill 47, came out, the minister talked in his release about the government's vision "to connect coastal communities in an affordable, efficient and sustainable manner." They want to go out and "develop strategies to support a vision for connecting coastal communities."

One of the key components of the Ferry Commissioner's report was that B.C. Ferries, since 2003, has not had a long-term vision. That needs to be done, and that was one of the recommendations. That was key. I believe it was recommendation No. 6.

As I move forward as designated speaker, acknowledging that we probably aren't going to get to committee stage…. There's the possibility, again, as has been common before, that this bill will probably end here and be rushed through and given closure so that we will not be able to attend to each section. I hope that in the time I have, in the next hour and a half or so, I will be able to touch on some of the key components in each section of Bill 47 before us.

I do find it interesting that the minister talks about a vision and the vision that we need to go towards. He feels that a third kick at the can, Bill 47, will develop that vision. There are lots of people that are questioning that.

I do want to go back to 2003, when the Coastal Ferry Act first came into play here. The Transportation Minister of the day, Judith Reid, talked about the Coastal Ferry Act. This is what we're amending in Bill 47, the Coastal Ferry Act, along with the other two kicks at the can. I believe it was Bill 20 and Bill 14 that basically looked at the governance structure of 2003 and have dismantled it.

I believe that I should put on record what the Transportation Minister, Judith Reid, said back in 2003 in the second reading of the Coastal Ferry Act.

"Firstly, this new legislation sets out the terms of the corporate restructuring. This act recognizes the new company. The act recognizes the intended conversion of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation from a Crown corporation to a new, regulated, independent, commercial operating company under the Company Act that will be renamed British Columbia Ferry Services…. The act underpins the vision for the new company as the integrator of services, charged with planning and coordinating the delivery of services and activities in the coastal ferry system."

When we start looking at the bill before us…. The vision back then has been totally dismantled by this Bill 47. Along with Bill 20 and Bill 14, it has disintegrated the terms of the corporate restructuring of our marine highway, B.C. Ferries. There's a long history that we have with B.C. Ferries, and this piece of legislation before us is very integral to where we're headed.

We believe, as most British Columbians and those that depend on the ferry services do, that we need a ferry service that's reliable, affordable and that offers a needed service so that the economic growth of communities can continue. B.C. Ferries is an integral part of the economic patterns of a lot of our communities.

[1730]

We look at the bill before us. What we've seen from the six principles from the Coastal Ferry Act…. I believe that section 2 actually takes out section 38 of the Coastal Ferry Act, as amended, and in there it takes out its "great-
[ Page 12302 ]
er reliance on a user pay system," and it takes out the requirement against cross-subsidization. These are issues that have been paramount ever since the introduction of the Coastal Ferry Act back in 2003.

We have to remember that back in 2003, when the Coastal Ferry Act first came into play, there were 77 government members and two opposition members, and this Coastal Ferry Act was rammed through the Legislature without debate, without consultation, and done, basically, within a 24-hour process.

Again, the fear that we have among us today, with all of the bills in front of us, is that the same thing is going to happen with closure. When we move towards trying to look at a vision, as the minister has referred to, the vision that we need for B.C. Ferries is for it to be an integral part of our marine highway, ensuring that coastal communities have the service necessary at an affordable rate. This bill before us does not do that.

There is an influx of money. There are a lot of other things. There's power going to the commissioner. You know, in some people's minds, it's a lot of power — way more power than is necessary. But again, to some degree — and I will refer to this later — it seems like B.C. Ferries is going into some sort of receivership, and this government is unsure of what to do with the ferry system before us and what they've created with their Coastal Ferry Act.

Now, when we look at the six principles of the Coastal Ferry Act that section 2 gets into, the role of the commissioner, he is governed by six principles. In these six principles the number one priority is to be placed on "the financial sustainability of ferry operators."

Now, what happened with that number one principle is that the Ferry Commissioner had a real issue, a real concern, with dealing with the number one priority, because under the last bill that came before us, Bill 14, the commissioner was given a direction that he needs to balance the interests of ferry users and the financial sustainability needs of the ferry operators. There was the dilemma the Ferry Commissioner found himself in.

He had some legislation in Bill 14. That was the second kick at the can of trying to correct what happened in the B.C. Liberals' Coastal Ferry Act, and he could not do that under the premise as given in the six principles.

So he requested to do a review of B.C. Ferries, the minister allowed that, and this is the end result of that. We had Bill 14 that said there will be a review, and it will give the commissioner more power to look after the interests of ferry users. The problem was that there was no definition of "ferry users."

We talked about that for a long time on the terms of whether it's public interest or the interests of ferry users. Throughout the last eight or nine years under the Coastal Ferry Act, there was no definition. We did not know who was looking after the interests of ferry users or the public interest.

It came down to the effect where, when questioned on the record of who's looking after the public interest, minister after minister who was responsible for B.C. Ferries said the commissioner would look after the public interest. But when the Ferry Commissioner was questioned, that was not the case.

This is how we've got into the dismantling of the six principles with Bill 14, Bill 20 and this current bill before us. Again, the commissioner was trying to work within those parameters and was having a lot of difficulties.

[1735]

When we start looking at what the six principles were — I'll go through them again, just for those people out there — the number one priority was "the financial sustainability of the ferry operators." They are to adopt a commercial approach. They are to seek alternative service providers to privatize some of the routes and to minimize expenses. Cross-subsidization throughout their routes was going to be eliminated.

That was a key premise that a lot of people talked against — that the cross-subsidization from the major routes that made the higher revenues would not be spread out among all of the routes. The bill before us is a step in the right direction — where, under section 2, they eliminate the "no cross-subsidization." One would think that that would perhaps lead to lower fares and help out the ferry routes that depend on money throughout the system as an integrated system, versus the way it was split out to a flotilla of profit-loss centres, to some degree.

The last principle was "a greater reliance on a user pay system." Again, from day one, what that meant to a lot of people who were looking at the Coastal Ferry Act and analyzing it was that it would mean substantial increases in fares to particular routes or route groups, especially if there was no cross-subsidization from the major routes. And we've seen that. We've seen fares skyrocketing over the last eight or nine years.

You know, the inflation rate was 14 percent. Fares on the major routes went up 40 to 45 percent, and on the minor routes they went up 80 percent plus, with significant hardships to families, to ferry users, to businesses.

As a result, we're finally seeing the corporate restructuring that happened in 2003 being dismantled. But again, that dismantling isn't what we need with our ferry service. It's our marine highway. There has been and always has been a social and economic contract with ferry-dependent communities and those that live on the Island. What we've seen is a disintegration of that social and economic contract.

I see a lot of positives — well, a few positives — in the legislation before us. But there are some in there, I have to say, that we are vehemently opposed to. I will get to those. That's obviously section 3, which the Privacy Commissioner had major concerns with, and section 8, where the commissioner has the powers to reduce service or cut service on any routes without any feedback or consultation. Those are questions that I have to find out
[ Page 12303 ]
in committee stage. When I say that, I'm sure the minister will help form that vision of what it is when we get to section 3.

I found it really interesting, also, that the minister talks about, along with this legislation before us…. There's going to be an influx of $79.5 million over four years, and there are going to be some efficiencies. B.C. Ferries will need to find efficiencies to reduce operating costs. There'll be significant adjustments to service levels and discussions with communities about trade-offs, about service. Again, you have to question where we're going.

You know, you would hope that those conversations would have started before we had the third piece of legislation come before us, trying to correct the errors, the mistakes of this corporate restructuring of our marine highway that happened in 2003.

I want to go back and talk about the user pay, the cross-subsidizations. I want to talk about the Ferry Commissioner's concern with the Auditor General not having any oversight.

[1740]

I just want to read something, and it relates directly to Bill 47. This is back from September 19, 2005. It's talking about the elimination of cross-subsidies, which is happening under Bill 47, and the moving to user pay, which is going to be dealt with in Bill 47 when we get to it. Hopefully, we will have time to go section by section. But back then, this quote:

"Other major concerns involve the elimination of cross-subsidies that were fundamental guarantees for the minor routes that vital services would be there. Service to coastal communities can be terminated if the route is not profitable. We do not run a province as a business. A profit-over-service scheme will only lead to the decimation of our marine highway. Ferry routes moving to a user-pay system, again, will devastate small coastal communities and larger centres that depend on tourism.

"The key to all of this…. This legislation exempts this…company from the…Ombudsman Act, the freedom-of-information law and from any oversight by the Auditor General — and no scrutiny from the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations and with over 500 million in public tax dollars…in the last four years."

I do have to comment, though. One of the legislations prior to this, Bill 20, eliminated the freedom-of-information exemption, so we do have that.

What has happened with the Coastal Ferry Act? It has entrusted our public marine highway, with "no regards to ensuring that coastal communities have the required service levels that are safe, reliable, accountable and affordable — and no public input or debate." It's a "business model in pursuit of profit over service." We need to "restore public accountability to B.C. Ferries to ensure that the public has oversight over this creation and fares and oversight on how our fully integrated marine transportation network is being reduced to a flotilla of…floating and profit and loss centres."

I do comment on that because the bill before us eliminates the no cross-subsidization and eliminates the user pay. That comment was back in 2005 in one of my first responses to the Coastal Ferry Act. Here we are seven or eight years later finally having a government acknowledge that the direction we have been floating in has been in the wrong direction. This bill before us, I think, has just….

For people that rely on ferries, for those who've been following ferries ever since the Coastal Ferry Act, they realize that what we're seeing right now is probably just a small plug for a larger hole in the whole system with B.C. Ferries.

We have to remember, as the minister referred to, that we're here because of the Ferry Commissioner's recommendations. There were 24 recommendations, and then there were another seven administrative recommendations. So all together there were 31 recommendations from the Ferry Commissioner that he put forward. I do believe that the minister said that this legislation covers 18 of them.

As I move forward with my discussion and debate on this bill before us, Bill 47, I'm going to look at the 18 that we covered. Some of them were part-covered, some of them were half-covered, so we'll look at that.

The commissioner said that the tipping point of affordability has been reached, and I think that's something that everybody acknowledges. The millions of people that travel ferries throughout the system every year — the millions of cars and vehicles that use ferries, whether it's to Vancouver Island or any other smaller, ferry-dependent community — know and have acknowledged that the tipping point of affordability has been reached. The legislation before us seems to acknowledge that.

"Without changes," it says in the press release, "the system is at considerable risk." There are lots and lots of issues that we have with ferries, but we have to return it to part of our marine highways act or highways act. We have to make sure that it's affordable and reliable and communities have the service they need.

[1745]

Bill 47, this bill before us, doesn't address how the fares have gone already too high and ridership has plummeted— to record levels, they've plummeted. And what do we get? Well, we get another fare increase of 4.15 percent on April 1, which is double the cost of inflation. This bill will result in less service. Higher fares, less service — basically, that's what ferry users are seeing they're going to be getting from this legislation.

There is a real concern of having no consultation or input into the legislation before us, whether it's ferry advisory committees or committee chairs or whether it's leaders in communities.

I did mention that these legislative changes before us amount to some initial steps — some that we've acknowledged should have been changed years ago, because we knew that it would get us into a situation of fares out of control and, with that, ridership plummeting. And we're seeing that. It falls far short of the overhaul that I
[ Page 12304 ]
think the Ferry Commissioner called for and nowhere near what those in ferry-dependent communities were hoping for.

This bill before us, Bill 47, can be, I guess, classified as a band-aid approach to deal with flawed legislation, the Coastal Ferry Act. Again, I don't believe that it's going to fix any of the real issues that have been plaguing the corporation — the affordability and the ridership dilemma that we find ourselves in.

I did mention that Bill 47 looks at amending the Coastal Ferry Act, a flawed piece of legislation that needs a complete overhaul. I mentioned it's just an approach…. People were expecting more from this government to deal with the issues out there. B.C. Ferries needs to be treated as part of our highways.

I do believe that the commissioner's review indicated that all the principal stakeholders need to be part of the solution in order to achieve a system that is affordable and financially sustainable. Again — and it is mentioned in a few of the sections I will refer to shortly when we get into capital expenses — these capital expenses are based on the vision of B.C. Ferries, the long-term vision. What we don't have, though, from this government is a long-term vision for B.C. Ferries.

Recommendation 6 from the commissioner, I do believe, talked about having a long-term vision. From what I hear, it's on the minister's to-do list that he's going to go out— hopefully, it's going to be the minister; it's hard to determine that until we get into committee stage — and consult and seek input to develop strategies to support a vision for connecting coastal communities. Well, it's getting a bit too late to do that. That should have been done eight years ago when the Coastal Ferry Act was rammed through this Legislature.

We've seen the total abandonment of all of the corporate priorities, down to just two now. Those two priorities, basically, are talked about in section 2 of the bill before us. They look at the primary view as "protecting the interests of ferry users, taxpayers and ferry operators." So the primary view is now taking into consideration the ferry users and their interests.

[1750]

It actually gives a definition — I do have to say that — in section 1 of Bill 47, the ferry users definition. Here's what it means. Ferry users are: "(a) ferry passengers and their families, (b) communities serviced by ferries, and (c) businesses that rely on or utilize ferry services."

The big dilemma that the Ferry Commissioner had, as I commented on earlier, was that he did not have that definition. I look at that as perhaps that is the public interest component of the Coastal Ferry Act where from day one the ministers, when they were presenting this, said that the commissioner would look after the public interest.

Minister after minister right up to the current minister, I think, has alluded to that — that the commissioner looked after the public interest. We can see now, with this before us and the dilemma that the Ferry Commissioner was having, that that was not the case.

When we look at what was promised, I believe…. I'm going to put promised in quotations here, because it sounded like community leaders and those in ferry-dependent communities were looking at having some consultations about any legislation. I'm not too sure of that. The minister, I'm sure, will correct me on that. But I do think that a flaw in this legislation is that it has been put forward without a key component of a long-term vision.

The minister also refers to the $79.5 million over four years. Again, this just offsets the higher cost of borrowing that B.C. Ferries now has, due to the privatization model, the corporate restructuring of our marine highway.

Somewhere in the bill — I'm not too sure, but I'm sure I'll get to it when I go section by section — they talk, and a minister talked, about the debt to B.C. Ferries and how to ensure that interest rates for debt are at reasonable levels. But it's interesting, because the last quarterly report indicated net earnings of $29 million and interest payments of $54 million.

It appears that the $79 million over the four years…. About $40 million, I think, is going into B.C. Ferries for last year and this year. The $40-something million will just about cover the $40 million losses this year.

So a lot of people are looking at this legislation before us as pure political ploy before the next election — that B.C. Ferries will be flush as far as their losses, where the $40 million plus going in will cover their expected losses this year. It's just, I think, another example of the model that this legislation is trying to revamp and restructure and indicates what a failed model it was from the start.

The cross-subsidization will help communities from getting into worse situations, but I don't think it's going to deal with the affordability. The government, in their release, said: "Government is committed to providing additional dollars to keep the system affordable." I don't think these additional dollars are going to do anything for affordability. The legislation before us basically has nothing to do with the affordability and ridership issues.

I mentioned it before. "Without changes, the system is at considerable risk," the minister says. We all agree. We needed a complete overhaul. We needed the minister to sit down, look at where we're going with ferries, develop a long-term vision, and that was not done.

Again, they look at long-term strategies to be developed. "To ensure British Columbians have safe and reliable coastal transportation for future generations, long-term strategies will be developed and implemented." Now, I'm assuming that this is where the minister starts a road show, going out and going to ferry-dependent communities, looking at strategies and a long-term vision — mind you, eight or nine years too late.

[1755]

The Ferry Commissioner went out and visited 25-plus communities, talked to 2,000 people. The minister al-
[ Page 12305 ]
ludes to that quite often — what an intense, comprehensive review was done by the commissioner.

Four years ago I did basically the same tour. I went to 25 communities. I spent months and months listening to people, and the stories I heard four years ago are very similar to the stories the commissioner heard just when he went out in the last eight or nine months.

I'm sure when the minister goes out on his tour…. I'm not too sure what the title of that tour may be. "Minister goes ferry"? I don't know. But I'm sure that he will hear the same stories from four years ago: ridership is plummeting, our communities are being devastated because of high fares, and ridership is at its lowest ever.

We move forward with the Coastal Ferry Act before us. I did talk about a few of the things. I'm going to look at it now section by section, because I do think that this will be the last opportunity we have to look at Bill 47 before us, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, to go section by section, to look at the pros and cons of where we need to go and at some of the concerns that I have, that the constituents I represent in the ferry-dependent communities have.

I did say, in Bill 47 before us….

N. Simons: In general — not section by section. In general.

G. Coons: Oh, in general, yeah — in general, commenting on section by section. I'm not going to be doing committee stage here, but thank you so much for that correction there, my colleague.

We look at section 1. It is interesting because section 1 is the definitions section. Again, as opposition critic for here, I say okay, we've opened up the definitions section, so that's an opportunity for amendments. At this point in time I'm still debating whether or not we need amendments in the definition section.

In the section the definition of "ferry users" went in there, and I've already described that: ferry passengers and their families, communities serviced by ferries, businesses that rely on or utilize the ferries. These are the suggestions the Ferry Commissioner put in. They should have been in a long time ago. They should have been in during Bill 14, when they put in that the commissioner has to ensure that the ferry users' interests are looked after, but there was no definition. So it's good to see that that's in there.

Section 2, and I've commented on this briefly, amends section 38 of the Coastal Ferry Act, which was the nitty-gritty of Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry Act. It was the priorities of the Ferry Commissioner. As I've mentioned, we've gone from six of those priorities down to basically two, a watered-down two. What's happened is in the previous…. Including this amendment act and the other two amendments to the Coastal Ferry Act, we've seen the mandate to find alternate service providers — that the commissioner may advise to go out and find alternate service providers.

That has been basically wiped out of the key priorities, along with…. As the explanatory note says, it "removes the prohibitions against cross-subsidization of ferry routes and the requirement to move towards a greater reliance on a user-pay system." These are key components, I believe, that needed to be removed from the Coastal Ferry Act.

Also, section 2 gives a lot more authority to the commissioner, where the commissioner can now, I believe, prepare plans, review policies and engage in public consultations. So it gives the commissioner the power to require ferry operators to prepare plans, review policies and engage in public consultations. That's quite a bit of power for the commissioner.

[1800]

The minister talks about Bill 47 following from the recommendations of the commissioner. I believe it was in recommendation 21 where the commissioner acknowledged this. In recommendation 21, under "Accountability" in the ferry commissioner's review, he says: "The act should be more explicit that the commissioner may issue an order which requires the ferry operator to (a) prepare a plan" — so we can check that off for the minister — "(b) review a policy" — check that off — "(c) undertake public consultation" — check that one off.

But there is a key fourth recommendation from the ferry commissioner in recommendation 21 under "Accountability." That was: "(d) cause information to be made public." For some reason, that fourth section, fourth comment, fourth bullet, was left out of this legislation. That would be a question that we need to ask the minister.

He says that the legislation here before us came from the recommendations of the ferry commissioner and that he followed 18 of them out of the, say, 31. But here's one where he followed three-quarters of it, so I'm trying to figure out…. He didn't say that we followed 17 and three-quarters of one. That's something that I think that we need to question the minister on during the committee stage. What is the problem with having the commissioner order B.C. Ferries to make information public? That is very puzzling, let me just say.

Now, if I can also comment on this fourth component about causing information to be made
[ Page 12306 ]
public. The reason why the commissioner said that is…. He says:

"The Auditor General routinely conducts performance audits on ministries and other bodies which are within the government reporting entity. These are distinct from financial audits and look specifically at performance related to efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. They are a routine part of the oversight process and are managed within a specific budget line."

This is from the commissioner's report. He says:

"B.C. Ferries doesn’t fall within the purview of the Auditor General, so the act should explicitly authorize the commissioner to conduct performance audits as deemed necessary."

Whether it's performance audits, which I'm going to get into a bit later, or causing information to be made public, you would think that because B.C. Ferries does not fall under the purview of the Auditor General, the minister would have acknowledged the commissioner's concerns and put the fourth bullet in — that he would cause for the commissioner to make the information public.

The most disturbing part of this legislation before us, Bill 47, I believe is section 3. Section 3 has brought a lot of attention. The note for this section, the explanatory note, says that it "allows the commissioner to avoid publishing information provided by a ferry operator if that information might be harmful to the financial or economic interests of the ferry operator or to the business interests of a third party." When I first read that, I had some questions about that. I was wondering where it was going.

At first I thought it referred to section 3 of the act. It talked about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that "the commissioner may or must refuse to disclose in response to a request made under the Act." It just brought up a lot of alarm bells and red flags.

[1805]

Then what we found out in dealing with this bill before us that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, also had major concerns about section 3. I think it's incumbent on myself to bring this forward during the debate and look at the concerns from section 3 from the person that's responsible for information and privacy.

Elizabeth Denham is providing some comments about Bill 47, which the minister tabled.

"The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides my office with the responsibility to comment on the implications of proposed legislative schemes on access to information and the protection of privacy. The Legislative Assembly granted my office the responsibility for monitoring how the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is administered to ensure its purposes are achieved."

She says, and this is a quote from her letter to the minister:

"Section 3 of Bill 47 would repeal and replace an existing provision of the Coastal Ferry Act that requires the British Columbia ferries commissioner to publish financial and service information provided by a ferry operator, B.C. Ferries, for the purpose of establishing price caps for ferry routes.

"The proposed amendment would give the commissioner the discretion not to publish information that could be withheld in response to an access request under sections 17 or 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Sections 17 and 21…allow information to be withheld where disclosure could harm the financial or economic interests of a public body or government, or where disclosure could be harmful to the business interests of a third party."

She goes on to say in this letter to the minister:

"In my view a proposed amendment to the Coastal Ferry Act that would remove an existing requirement for proactive disclosure is a step backward."

When we're looking at a long-term vision and looking at strategies to move forward, all of a sudden in this legislation before us, in Bill 47, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, we have section 3, which is a step backward.

She goes on to say:

"It's contrary to government's open government initiative and to the policy intent of new provisions in Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act in relation to proactive disclosure…. These provisions promote greater proactive and routine disclosure by public bodies."

She requests that this section should be removed.

"It is clearly in the public interest that the commissioner routinely and proactively disclose such information. I ask you to amend Bill 47 by removing section 3."

It's pretty hard to have legislation put before us where all of a sudden the person that's responsible for freedom of information and protection of privacy asks that a section be withdrawn. I would think that as we move forward with that, this whole House would be opposing this.

The minister had the opportunity to put forward amendments on the order paper, as I've seen other ministers do with legislation coming forward, but I don't see any movement towards that.

I guess what we did see from the minister in response to this is that he respectfully disagrees with the Privacy Commissioner. This was an article, I guess, in the Tyee. The minister is becoming a real hit with the Tyee these days. He may have to walk a little faster out in the hallway. "I'm going to respectfully disagree with the Privacy Commissioner," the minister says. "This is not about trying to hide information. It's really about trying to actually make sure the system can work."

Well, you would hope that the system is working. At one point in time the Coastal Ferry Act was exempt from freedom of information, and a lot of people worked a long time trying to get that back into the legislation.

[1810]

The comptroller general made that recommendation, and with Bill 20 we got freedom of information back in. I believe that was June of 2010. And here we are again going a step backward, as the Privacy Commissioner is indicating.

It's really concerning when we have a section in a bill before us that blatantly flies in the face of proactive disclosure. It's not only acknowledged by the person responsible, but Vincent Gogolek, the executive director of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, in response to the minister's response to the Privacy Commissioner — that he respectfully declines — also talks about how he has concerns. The minister is talking about theoretical possibilities of harm when it's a real possibility that this may put B.C. Ferries at risk.

Now, this could only put B.C. Ferries at risk, I believe, if they were still working under the governance model and the priorities that were changing it into a corporate structure. But it seems that we've moved forward — away from the primary vision back in 2003, a corporate restructuring of our marine highway. We need to — and we will on this side — vehemently oppose section 3 of this act.

One thing that British Columbians have a real issue
[ Page 12307 ]
with is transparency and accountability. When we get not only this bill before us…. There are three other bills that the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner is having issues with.

I guess that the concern that we have is: will we have the time in this Legislature to go through committee stage to look at each one of the sections in all of the bills before us that are, I guess, going a step backwards as far as proactive disclosure and again keeping the veil over the promise of openness and transparency? Those are questions, I believe, that we need to get from the minister when we get to the components of the committee stage.

I read with interest about the return on equity in the legislation before us. In section 4 it says it "replaces the requirement that the price caps applicable to a ferry operator must allow that ferry operator a specified pre-tax return on equity." It seems that the return on equity that was mandated through legislation has been removed. The sections with that were repealed. And the legislation prior to Bill 47 required the commissioner to maintain a 13.6 percent return on equity — a reasonable return on equity, said the act.

We have to remember that return on equity determines a company's profitability or a company's efficiency, and return on equity actually measures a corporation's profitability by revealing how much profit a company generates with the money shareholders have invested.

As I said, the legislation required a reasonable return on equity, about 13.6 percent. In 2007 the return on equity was 17.5, so it maintained that. In 2008 the return on equity was 12.5 percent, so they missed the mark.

[1815]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Then it started to really show a real symbol of concern, I guess. In 2009 the return on equity was 3 percent. Then in 2010 it was 1.1 percent, versus the 13.6. The projections for return on equity were well below expectations, probably about 1 or 2 percent.

When I read section 4 about return on equity, I saw a bit of a situation…. I've been talking about that for quite a while, about how ridiculous it was to mandate a return on equity when it was impossible to do that under the structure. I'm pleased to see that the return on equity in section 4 is going to be implemented. But again, many questions arise from that.

Again, in section 4. I talked about the debt obligations of B.C. Ferries. Right now what we see is B.C. Ferries…. Along with all of their expenses, they have approximately $50 million a year in interest debt. So when section 4 talks about that they're repealing some sections in section 41 and allowing "for a return sufficient to enable the ferry operator to (i) meet its debt obligations."

It would be good, in committee stage, to find out what those debt obligations are. Quite often it's very difficult to find the finances of B.C. Ferries. Quite often you talk to the minister in estimates or whatever and it's a handoff approach. "If you want that information, you need to go other routes," says the government.

When we look at debt obligations…. Section 4 is looking at that and also section 4 talks about "meet its debt obligations, and (ii) maintain access to borrowing rates that, in the opinion of the commissioner, are reasonable in all of the circumstances." So that's another issue that a lot of people had with this restructuring of B.C. Ferries — taking it out of the benefits of being under government, whether it's better interest rates or GST benefits.

You know, back in 2002 relating right to this from section 4, there is a release from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. This is relating to debt obligations and borrowing rates. They say: "If the new company runs into financial trouble, you can bet that the province will have to bail it out somehow."

Okay. Well, here again, $80 million going into B.C. Ferries. Again we start seeing some other recommendations where the commissioner talked about some of the benefits that the northern routes have should come to the minor routes. I'll be getting into that in a bit. That’s sort of a bit of a bailout, where, you know, with the Queen of the North when it sank, the user-pay component really couldn't apply to the northern routes or fares would shoot up thousands and thousands of percentages. So the government put in some money. They had to bail out the northern routes to ensure, after the sinking of the Queen of the North, that the transportation system did not go under.

But what happened is that the new Ferry Authority was charged, when it was transferred under this new structure back in 2008, a higher interest rate than if it was government with its excellent credit rating — than if they borrowed it themselves under this rating.

A small difference in interest rates means a big difference. You know, if there's $2 billion that is needed to replace ships and upgrade terminals and it's just a 0.6 percent or 1¼ percentage point more than the corporation currently enjoys, it's $20 million more. We're seeing that right now with interest debt at over $50 million a year, which is totally outrageous.

This government got us into that situation. Then I talked earlier about the GST. The new company, back in 2003, had to pay GST to the federal government, which was about $19 million at that time. That was in 2002.

[1820]

So I do hope that we have an opportunity to get to section 4 to talk to the minister and lay out on the line what the debt obligations are with B.C. Ferries and how the minister envisions the commissioner enabling the ferry operators to meet them and maintain access to reasonable borrowing rates. I think that's been a huge, huge dilemma under the Coastal Ferry Act, and whether or not section 4 will help that at all — it's up for questioning
[ Page 12308 ]
during committee stage.

Reading through Bill 47, section 5 looks at fuel deferral accounts, and it provides for the commissioner to be able to require the ferry operator to establish a fuel deferral account. What had happened over the past few years — I think it started in performance term 2…. B.C. Ferries, through the previous commissioner back in performance term 2, which would have been 2008-9 — somewhere around there — had used fuel deferral accounts, where it collects fuel surcharges from which it dispenses rebates as a way to keep tariffs stable despite fluctuating oil prices.

I guess there weren't any rules or regulations to ensure that it was being run appropriately. There were no established terms or conditions placed upon the corporation on how it was to be done. So I see section 5 looking at fuel deferral accounts as a step in the right direction. But, again, how is that going to operate and how is that going to impact all of the routes as we move forward?

What happened, I believe, with the price volatility that we saw back in performance term 2…. The previous commissioner, I believe it was Martin Crilly, established a mechanism to manage rebates and surcharges, and it was based on the ability, on a timely basis, to put temporary fuel charges in place as prices rise.

The commissioner, in his review of last January, in recommendation No. 12, as the minister referred to, said that the action explicitly authorized the commissioner to establish fuel deferral accounts and have discretion to set terms and conditions for their use. So again, with that going into legislation, I can see that there would be more accountability and better use, I would hope, depending on what the terms and the conditions are that the commissioner is going to use.

But again, what was not done…. I believe that this was in recommendation 13, in dealing with fuel surcharges and rebates, dealing with the fuel deferral account, and I did mention it earlier.

The province presently covers the cost of any fuel surcharges and recovers any rebates that would otherwise apply on the northern routes. So the commissioner thought that perhaps a recommendation should be extended and the province should — and this is recommendation No. 13 — consider extending its policy of absorbing at least a portion of both fuel surcharges and rebates on northern routes to all routes for the balance of PT3, performance term 3.

Now again, it's hit-and-miss here. The minister says on record that he's done 18 of the Wright recommendations — there are 31 of them, and that's counting the seven administration recommendations that came from the commissioner — and that this legislation follows, he figures, a majority of them. We'll analyze that in a bit.

[1825]

So that is a question that I think needs to be asked: was there any consideration of extending the policy of absorbing fuel surcharges and rebates to all the routes, as they do on the northern routes? That would help with affordability and help with, I think, fare caps for all routes.

Noting the time, hon. Speaker, I adjourn debate and….

Mr. Speaker: No, we're not adjourning debate, Member. The House will stand in recess till seven o'clock, and you will be speaking after.

G. Coons: Okay.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands in recess until seven o'clock.

The House recessed from 6:26 p.m. to 7:03 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: We're on Bill 47. The member for North Coast has the floor.

G. Coons: Yes, we're here and continuing debate on Bill 47, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, which was put forward a couple of weeks ago here in the House. I've been looking at how this bill before us does not do anything except increase fares, along with a loss of service. It has nothing to do with affordability, has nothing to do with the issues that are of concern to the ferry-dependent communities.

I was looking at getting into section 6 in the bill before us. I found it really interesting that when I looked at section 6 in Bill 47 and then went back to section 42 of the Coastal Ferry Act, to which it refers, they're talking about extraordinary situations. The title of section 42, which section 6 amends, is: "No extraordinary price cap increases without authorization." I find this section very interesting. I'll have a lot of questions for the minister during committee stage on this.

[1905]

I'm sure we all remember the bit of a fiasco that happened with extraordinary price-cap increases when Bill 14 came into play, and the minister said that Bill 14 was to prevent ferry operators from obtaining extraordinary price-cap increases until October 1, 2012. This section, whose title is "No extraordinary price cap increases without authorization," I believe brings up a lot of questions on that issue.

Even the minister…. When I asked him specifically about extraordinary price caps, I said: "What circumstances?" Back under Bill 14 he said: "Under the bill we're debating, under no circumstances could that take place — any extraordinary price cap increases." So I think it begs to offer a lot of questions as we go through committee stage on what exactly section 6 is referring to.

Will this undo the confusion, I guess, that we had back in November when B.C. Ferries announced they were going to raise fares by 2½ percent on December 12 on the
[ Page 12309 ]
major routes, a fuel surcharge, and 2.5 percent on the Horseshoe Bay–Langdale route? There was a bit of confusion whether that was falling within the spirit of the law, the legislation that the minister put forward.

I hope that this section looks at some of the issues that we had with that, especially when I believe the ferry commissioner, Sheldon Stoilen, said that he thinks the surcharge skirts around the legislation. I don't think that we should have regulations that were agreed to back in 2005, '06, '07 or '08 be allowed to skirt around legislation. Those are questions I do hope that the minister can fill us in on — whether or not, you know, extraordinary price caps will still be able to skirt around the actual legislation in this section.

Continuing, I had a lot of interest in a new section. I'm going to go to section 8 of Bill 47. This section is a brand-new section entitled "Permanent reduction in service." It authorizes the commissioner to direct a ferry operator to permanently reduce service on a designated ferry route. Even though the commissioner asked for more power, it seems that what we've got before us is an awful lot of power for the ferry commissioner.

I think what we need in this House is the opportunity during committee stage to ensure that the power of the commissioner is balanced with other aspects of the legislation and looking after the public interest.

At first glance, this is a very concerning section, section 8, when they're putting in a new section in the Coastal Ferry Act dealing with permanent reduction in services. I've got quite a bit of response back from constituents and those that live in ferry communities that their route may be permanently cut due to this new section 43.1.

As I said, it tends to give a lot of power to the commissioner. Under what basis will the commissioner decide to permanently reduce service on a route? What consultation? There doesn't seem to be in the legislation any consultation that could happen with ferry-dependent communities whose routes may be permanently reduced or cut.

I think as we move forward with Bill 47, it's imperative that we have an opportunity during committee stage to set the parameters for the powers of the commissioner. I read somewhere it was like a new czar is being anointed out there.

[1910]

Again, I think the concerns and the issues need to be brought out during committee stage. Actually, when I talked to, specifically, somebody from Haida Gwaii and there were concerns about their route on this, this is his ideas that he gave me, a Haida Gwaii community leader. He believes that this new section that's going in, this 43.1, should be removed because "it puts the power to change core service levels in the wrong hands. The minister already has the power to reduce service levels, and that is where the power should stay. If the government chooses to reduce core service levels, then the minister should have the moral fortitude to come to the community that will be hit by the reductions, sit down at a town hall meeting and explain why."

So from a moral standpoint, this clause stinks because there is no accountability. I hope that is parliamentary. Also, this Haida Gwaii leader says — he's on the ferry advisory committee there — 43.1, which is in section 8, is also "poor public policy because the commissioner has a narrow mandate. The restricted mandate of the commissioner will work like blinders, shutting out the big socioeconomic picture and leading to seemingly good ferry system policy that may well be bad economic policy."

He continues: "I can't stress enough how damaging the combination of rapidly escalating ferry fares, which will not change, and reductions in core services will have on ferry-dependent communities. As you know, this combination will be simply devastating to some of the most vulnerable economies in B.C."

When we look at the picture put before us, this is a section that I believe has to be withdrawn also. The opposition is opposed to section 8 of Bill 47, and we will be voting against that. In that, you know, sometimes you picture: could amendments be made, or what can you do to make it better?

I think at this point in time the concerns from those who are most impacted…. Before a section like this goes in there, there has got to be that consultation. There has got to be the input from ferry-dependent communities and ones that are really going to be impacted by something like section 8 in Bill 47.

Again, I have to stress the importance of the ferry commissioner's recommendation of having a long-term vision. He said that the government needs to sit down with B.C. Ferries, put out a discussion paper, have input, have consultation and work on a long-term vision.

We haven't had one for eight or nine years, and look where we've gone. We've gone to skyrocketing fare increases, we’ve gone to record low ridership, and we've gone to the decimation of the economies of many ferry-dependent communities and on the Island. So I can't stress enough that section 8 is a section that should be pulled from the bill before us.

When I go on looking at Bill 47, it just continues to bring up questions. In section 10…. It was interesting. I keep going back to the minister's comments that out of the 31 recommendations from the ferry commissioner, and this bill is based on that, "we followed 18." I'm pretty sure 18 was the number, and I'm sure the minister will correct me in his follow-up.

But I still have to question whether there are halves or three-quarters of ones. Again, I'm not too sure if he was actually counting just the administrative recommendations also. So there are 24 key recommendations, and then there are 7 administrative ones, which made 31. But enough with the math. You know, being a former math teacher, I sort of like to key in on whether that's a
[ Page 12310 ]
full recommendation you kept or a half of one or three-quarters of one.

In section 10 it looks at performance review. A new section, "Performance review" is added. "The commissioner may conduct a review of one or more aspects of a ferry operator's operations, including, without limitation, ancillary services, at such time or times as the commissioner considers reasonable…." Well, what was asked for was not actually a review but to be able to conduct routine performance audits on an ongoing basis.

[1915]

I think there's a huge difference when a performance review is being put into the legislation, when the commissioner specifically said, in recommendation 23: "The act should explicitly authorize the commissioner to conduct routine performance audits on an ongoing basis as deemed necessary and in the interests of ferry users and taxpayers."

I do want to comment on why the ferry commissioner asked for a performance audit versus the performance review that we seem to be getting. Again, I need to question the minister, or the opposition needs to question the minister in committee stage, on what the difference is between a performance review and an ongoing performance audit.

But what the ferry commissioner said, and this is from his report, was, "The Auditor General routinely conducts performance audits on ministries and other bodies which are within the government reporting entity" and should be part of the oversight process. B.C. Ferries doesn't fall under the purview of the Auditor General, so "the act should explicitly authorize the commissioner to conduct performance audits…as deemed necessary and in the interests of ferry users and taxpayers."

He's saying this is a new responsibility for the commissioner, because the Auditor General doesn't have purview over anything B.C. Ferries does. So he requested routine performance audits on an ongoing basis. I think there's a real difference between that and a performance review. Again, I hope those questions get answered during the committee stage. That's an issue and a concern there. Whether or not the minister thinks that he has checked that recommendation off, thinking a review is the same as an audit — I'm not too sure.

When we look at section 12 it says: "Section 55 is repealed and the following substituted: Commissioner to consider capital employment and expenditures." Throughout the commissioner's report he talked about capital deployments and capital expenditures, but a lot of them related to a long-term vision.

In some of the recommendations it looks like the minister has put in, for example, some of recommendation 7 from the ferry commissioner. If anybody is following, it's on page 70 in the commissioner's report: "The act should explicitly require that the commissioner must approve the long-term capital plan and any modifications thereto and that the commissioner's approval be based on a determination that the capital plans are compliant with the long-term vision and its guiding principles."

So when we start looking at section 12, they talk about "the commissioner must" approve the major capital expenditures. But in this whole dilemma that this government is in, there is still no long-term vision for B.C. Ferries. That was a key component of the ferry commissioner's recommendations. So whether it's recommendation 7 or recommendation 8 from the commissioner, which again, looks at capital investments, which it looks like is covered….

Recommendation 8 says: "The act should require that all major capital investments" — for example, new vessels and midlife upgrades and terminal upgrades above a threshold determined by the commissioner — "should be approved by the commissioner based on a determination that such investments are reasonable, prudent and consistent with the long-term capital plan."

Again, it is very difficult, I think, to have a long-term capital plan when you don't have a long-term vision yet. I think these are questions that are just waiting to be answered and heard by the minister — on what the long-term vision is. I think I do remember the minister saying that it's on his to-do list. He's going to be going out and developing strategies. Now, I don't know if the strategies are the same as a long-term vision. But that was a key recommendation from the ferry commissioner.

[1920]

One reason that the long-term capital plans are in the legislation is, as the ferry commissioner says, so that they cannot be overtaken by special interests. That's a key component, I think, to the whole ferry system.

In order to fall within the realm of affordability, accountability and value to ferry users and the taxpayer, you've got to have a long-term vision of where you're going. This government hasn't had one since they rammed through the Coastal Ferry Act, which was Bill 18, back in 2003. It's unfortunate that the current minister falls into the situation of inheriting this vision of a corporate restructuring, when what we need is just affordable, reliable service to communities and to the islands.

Now, there's another question that begs to come out of section 12. They talk about capital deployments, and they talk about new vessel builds. I think it's imperative that in this legislation we have it known to British Columbians, known to Canadians, that all our ferries will be built in B.C. by British Columbians, and that should have been part of this legislation.

When we start talking about new vessels and midlife upgrades, I think that's another question that just begs to be answered by the minister, maybe begs to have an amendment thrown in there that we ensure that any new vessels that are built for B.C. Ferries are not built by foreign shipbuilders, but they're built by British Columbians and for British Columbians throughout the province,
[ Page 12311 ]
wherever we can do it. It might be up on the north Island. It might be up on the north coast. It might be in the shipyards down south.

I think it's imperative that we all stand arm in arm and agree to that. Perhaps that would be a wonderful amendment. Perhaps the minister may want to put that in himself. We'll wait and see on that one.

But it is interesting, as I move along. I looked at section 13, and all of a sudden, I went: "What's going on here?" The commissioner asked for 1/20 more in his budget, and he got 1/5 more. Anyway, once I talked to a few people, I realized that the 1/5 was over the year and the 1/20 was per quarter, so it worked out the same. He wasn't getting four times the amount in his budget. That was something I was going to be going after the minister about, but I sorted that out by doing the math, I guess.

It just sort of shows how when you go through the legislation, when you do have the explanatory notes, they're very helpful. I do recall that — I think we were debating the sales tax bill — it had no explanatory notes for the 255 sections. It was very helpful in Bill 47 to have the explanatory notes, or the Coles Notes, for some of us that need them.

I think at this point in time I would be remiss if I didn't look at the sections in the bill before us. The recommendations from the ferry commissioner, that he made — the 31 versus what's in Bill 47…. I have said on a few occasions that it sounded like the government…. The minister said that they got 18 of the recommendations in, out of the 31. Under the principles, it's a great start as far as the legislation and the minister's putting in the first five recommendations from the commissioner. They were all in, so he's batting 1 for 5.

[1925]

That's looking at…. The primary responsibility should be "the interests of ferry users." The second responsibility is the financial sustainability of the ferry operator. They took out the user pay and eliminated the no cross-subsidization. One other one: they looked after the respective interests of ferry users.

As far as the principles, all of them are in this legislation, which goes to the original Coastal Ferry Act. The priorities or the principles that were there were all based on a corporate model that has totally failed our ferry-dependent communities and our marine highway. I think this is just a sign that what we needed in retrospect for this Bill 47 was a complete overhaul of the Coastal Ferry Act. It seems like the minister just went to his toolbox and took out a couple of spark plugs, and he needed a new engine.

We still need to go there. We're a long way from making B.C. Ferries the service that we need and what British Columbians want. It may take another year or so to put it on the right course and get the course direction in the right way for B.C. Ferries, but I'm sure we will be able to do that.

Now, when you look under affordability, there were 12 recommendations from the commissioner. I go through them, and No. 6 is a long-term vision. I've talked about the long-term vision — not in there. A long-term capital plan is in there. Major capital investments are in there.

Rate of inflation. Now, here's one where the province should consider an increase in subsidies to hold price-cap increases and hold the increases to the rate of inflation. They did put in some subsidies. They put in $79.5 million, but they did not increase price caps to the rate of inflation. So I don't know if that's a whole recommendation or half of one, because they did put in some money, but a key one was the rate of inflation.

What they have done with this bill, and the money they have put in accompanying it, is put in a fare increase of 4.15 percent, which is double the price of inflation. It's fairly difficult to comprehend where the minister is trying to go with this when he understands that we are at a tipping point, and we are in a crisis.

Deferral accounts were in here. But here is one, and I mentioned it before. I want to talk to the minister about this during committee stage. This is No. 13. "The province should consider extending its policy of absorbing at least a portion of both fuel surcharges and rebates on northern routes to all routes for the balance of the third performance term." That didn't make it in there.

There's something about buying down ferry fares, authorizing municipalities and regional governments to do that. That's not in here. Here is one which…. I don't know if I agree with that. If that was in there, that may have been amended quite significantly. But he didn't put that in there.

Here is one. "A high priority should be placed on upgrading B.C. Ferries traffic forecasting capabilities, including upgrades to the reservation and point-of-sale systems." I believe that the commissioner in his report talked about what chaos the reservation and point-of-sale system is with B.C. Ferries, but you have to look at efficiencies, and that's not mentioned in this legislation at all.

So this middle part on affordability — there were 12 recommendations. I saw two of them with check marks and two partial ones. So far that's about seven out of 17 that we've got.

Financial sustainability. There were three recommendations under financial sustainability: a pretax return on equity — no problems; a marketing surcharge on ferry routes which lie within their boundaries. I don't now if I would agree on that, so that's a good one to be left out perhaps.

[1930]

"The act should be explicit that the commissioner be expected to encourage the ferry operator to generate new ancillary revenue." I'm not too sure if I saw that in the act, so I'm going to have to liaise with the minister on this and see where he went on this.
[ Page 12312 ]

But as we go along, accountability again…. They left out, in 21, "cause information to be made public." They let the commissioner have a lot of power: ordering B.C. Ferries to "prepare a plan," "review a policy," "undertake public consultation." But "cause information to be made public" just smells a little bit of putting the veil of secrecy again over B.C. Ferries. We cut the leash with the freedom of information, and now there's this dome of secrecy coming back under them when the minister fails to put in a key component on section 21.

Other ones, I think, throughout here…. If I keep on going through this, I see probably 14 or 15 recommendations that were followed from the commissioner's review. Some of them will make a difference. But there are quite a few….

There are a few in there that we are going to vehemently oppose, and that is section 3, where the privacy commissioner had major concerns about going backwards as far as public disclosure — again, getting that veil of secrecy going. The other one is section 8, where the commissioner has the power to cut service on routes.

Getting to my concluding remarks, I do hope that there's an opportunity to have discussion in committee stage. A fear here is that we are not going to get there — with 20-some bills before the House, and we're in all different stages of them — and that by the time Thursday rolls around, they will just be passed without debate, passed without further consultation.

I do want to comment on the ferry commissioner's comments when he put out his report. He talked about a new direction for coastal ferry services. "The province must define a vision for future ferry services and provide additional financial support," so one out of two isn't bad. There's really no vision. They put in a bit of financial support. Although that financial support….

Infusing B.C. Ferries with a temporary measure to assist the corporation's bottom line really doesn't solve the inherent problems facing B.C. Ferries, with their decreasing ridership, their skyrocketing fares and their increasing costs. I mentioned before that it's just a band-aid for a system that's broken. It's not a real solution.

But again, back to the commissioner. He says this new direction for coastal ferry services…. You know, he has some key recommendations. In his press release he listed eight of them.

I'm just going to go over these eight. Actually, there's ten, because he had a couple of parts.

"Future price caps should be held to the rate of inflation" — no, not in the legislation.

"Capacity utilization of the ferry fleet should be improved." Well, nowhere did I find in there anything about capacity utilization, because before you move on with finding efficiencies, with trying to look at reservations or points of sale, you need to look at your capacity utilization, which make take a while, which may and should be part of your long-term vision.

"The commissioner should have more explicit authority to hold the operator accountable." Okay, yeah. There's more power in there — perhaps too much. It seems that he's gotten a role of a czar, just overseeing. It seems like B.C. Ferries has been put into receivership already, and this is the person that's trying to set things straight. Again, hopefully during committee stage we can set those matters straight.

"New authority to conduct performance audits." Now, I talked about audits on an ongoing basis, because the Auditor General can't do them, versus performance reviews. So I'm going to say no. Reviews are not the same as audits.

"Capital plans and acquisitions" — yes. "Increase in financial support," cushioning some of the fuel price volatility, as is done on the northern routes — no.

"Municipal and regional governments have an ability to play a role in keeping fares affordable" — not in there. "Upgrading its reservation and point of sale" — not in there — and new tools for setting price caps.

[1935]

So even in the commissioner's eight or ten that he's got on the front page of his press release, I can only see about four out of ten there. If you're playing baseball, it's not too bad of a hitting average, but anywhere else it's pretty much of a failure.

I don't think that Bill 47 is going to do what those in ferry-dependent communities and on the Island wanted and expected from the minister in the bill before us. It doesn't get us past the real issues. It's still not a fully transparent, government-controlled entity.

The fact is that it's part of our highway system. It's a very important economic driver and generator for coastal communities, and it needs to once again be a vital transportation link, as it always was before this government got hold of it. On that note, hon. Speaker, I look forward to committee stage.

C. Trevena: I'm very pleased to be standing up here to take my part in the debate on Bill 47, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012. My colleague from North Coast, our critic on ferries issues, who's been doing a very admirable job for the last few years on taking up the concerns of ferry-dependent communities and the whole issue of ferries, I think summed it up at the end of his remarks, talking about what the commissioner had asked for. There is really nothing in this bill — maybe one or two slight changes — that responds to what the commissioner has asked for.

As a representative of a number of ferry-dependent communities, what I heard from my constituents when they heard about this act, is outrage and anger. They really could not believe that they would be so let down by government. They had put a huge amount of faith, in a non-partisan way, in trying to get the ferry system back under highways, and they have felt completely betrayed.
[ Page 12313 ]

They went to meetings that the ferry commissioner had up and down the coast and then read his report, and then they saw what was in this act.

This act has allowed…. It has basically cut ferry-dependent communities loose. It has just said: "We'll forget about you. You're not important. You're not important to the development of B.C. You're not important to the infrastructure. You're not important as communities." And that is sad.

I think it's a reflection of what this government has done over the last ten years, and it has crystallized it. It has really just said: "We are forgetting about you. We're going to invest in the areas which are important to us. We're going to invest in the areas where there's oil and gas, where there are a lot of mines. We're going to invest in putting good roads in there, even though many people don't live there. But those of you who depend for your lifeblood on the marine highway — sorry, we're not going to help you."

It's symptomatic, I think, that here we are talking about Bill 47 — and whether or not we get to the next stage of the debate, which is when we go through it clause by clause and have the full analysis. But we're doing this at a time when the major routes we have in B.C. — the ones from Vancouver Island to the Mainland — are running a promotion where you can get cheap rides on B.C. Ferries at the moment. It's a 37 percent reduction in fares, which is a substantial reduction.

I mean, if you're a car and driver going over from Victoria to the Mainland, you're paying about 67 bucks, just on a regular day. So to have a reduction there — that's great. It gives people more freedom. It allows people more ease of access to visit family, to visit friends, to go and…. Whether it's to do a bit of big-city shopping or come over to the parks here, it allows people to travel across their own province.

[1940]

It would have been very, very nice if two things had happened. One, there was a recognition by B.C. Ferries, by the ferry corporation, that there is more than just the big routes, the major routes — that smaller communities need assistance. They need support in ensuring that people can easily come and visit family, can easily travel. They can go and do a bit of tourism and a bit of shopping without worrying every time they drive their car onto one of the smaller ferries, without having to look at the ticket for how much the fares are now.

I keep hearing from people who don't live on the islands. They say: "But you get a discount card. You get a residents card. You get something special." People who live on the islands all have little plastic cards, Experience Cards. You have to pay up front for them. I think now it's a minimum of $90 if you're driving on, which is a lot of money for people to come with up front.

We're still not quite sure what's going to happen, because after a while the prepaid amount lowers down, lowers down, lowers down, and there are always a few dollars left that you can never actually access. You have to keep on buying more. What B.C. Ferries is doing with those — but that's not part of the cause….

Even with your residents discount card, as they would see, and even with the fact that you get a small percentage off, you're paying up front and you're paying, in some cases in my constituency, over 100 percent more than you were paying ten years ago.

Yes, costs have gone up. Everybody knows costs have gone up, and the cost of fuel has gone up. This doesn't include the cost of fuel for B.C. Ferries. For the cost of fuel you've got a fuel surcharge on your ticket as well.

This is just the simple increase in costs. When people in my constituency read this bill, when I read this bill, what we were looking for was something very simple — a recognition of the ferry commissioner's own words. In his review of the Coastal Ferry Act, he says: "Current ferry fares and the proposed increases have reached the tipping point of affordability and are imposing significant hardship on ferry-dependent communities and the ability of people to visit family members and friends as frequently as they would like."

In the communities I represent, which are serviced by the ferries and linked by the ferries, we've got Cortes Island and Quadra Island linked to Campbell River, and up-Island we've got Port McNeill linking Sointula, Malcolm Island, with Alert Bay. People are leaving the islands because they simply cannot afford to use their highway. They cannot afford the cost, even saying: "I'm not going to go to town. Instead of going to town once every couple of weeks, I'll make it once every month. I'll retrench." That's for those who can.

For those who are either working or have to leave for business, who have to leave because they have children…. Yes, kids when they're in school get free ferry rides. But when they are just doing activities outside of school, they've got to pay. It starts adding up. Every time you take your kids up to the pool — and you've got to take your car because the pool isn't walking distance, and there isn't a regular bus service that can get you there — you are starting to pay an inordinate amount.

Looking at the picture slightly differently. You get sports teams that want to play, participate in tournaments on the Lower Mainland. So families have got to try and afford to pay for not just the gas but their regular trips across from driving down from Campbell River to Nanaimo and then that car ride, which is driver, car and passengers.

The commissioner was quite right. Current ferry fares and the proposed increases have reached a tipping point. People within my constituency are furious. I mean, words cannot describe how angry they are that what they have been given here is not just the fact that fares weren't frozen.

What people would really like is for fares to be frozen
[ Page 12314 ]
and be rolled back so we can get some level of affordability again, so it's not an elite form of transport. We're not having a Rolls-Royce. What our ferries are, if you ride the ferries in my constituency….

[1945]

They are 50 years old, a number of them, and you're not getting the Rolls-Royce service. You are getting the potholed road, and they're not getting any relief for actually travelling that road, that bit of highway.

People always say: "Oh, you choose where you want to live in B.C. You've got the choice. You don't have to live on the islands." The islands, which I represent…. We have active logging communities. We've got aquaculture. We've got shellfish and finfish aquaculture. We have tourism. We have fish processing. We have fishing. We have active and vibrant communities, like any active and vibrant community across the province.

The vibrancy is dying because of the ferry fares — the vibrancy and the ability for people to actually stay in their communities, for young families to stay in their communities to ensure that we have that vibrancy so we can have the schools, the community centres, the churches, the structures of our communities, and they don't just become places where we have people who come for their weekend visits or we have the foreign visitors who come up for six months a year or two weeks a year in some cases.

These could be vibrant communities, but without a highway system to service it, these communities don't have a hope. So I have a question for the Minister of Transportation when we get to committee stage or when he gives his closing remarks on this. Why has he given up on coastal communities? Why has he given up on ferry-dependent communities?

I don't think he's given up on the isolated communities in the northeast, and I really don't think he's given up on the isolated communities in the northwest. We're still talking about the transmission line down the Cassiar Highway. We're still talking about the investment in the northeast. Those communities haven't been forgotten, but the communities that I represent have most certainly been forgotten.

What we have here is a province that is accepting that fares are going to continue to go up, and as fares continue to go up we see families leaving communities. We see industry really struggling, whether it's the tourism industry, which is very seasonal and obviously depends a lot on people having the money to travel and having the money to access a place to stay….

I mean, going up the northern route from Port Hardy…. Again, it's very important for the economy of Port Hardy. It's the route all year round up to Prince Rupert but the seasonal routes that go in and out. People take them as day trips sometimes or just a couple of days up to Bella Bella or Bella Coola in the whole beautiful area around there.

People depend on this tourism. I mean, it's more expensive taking the ferry to Prince Rupert than it is flying to Europe. I mean, it's a gorgeous route, but it isn't exactly accessible.

When you get people coming to the smaller islands, whether it's Quadra or Cortes, and they want to go out to Alert Bay for the day, and three of them pile in a car…. They just want to go out for a day and toodle around, and when they find out that it's costing them almost a hundred dollars, it puts them off. They're not going to tell their friends: "Oh, you should just go and do it. There's a nice little restaurant there. There's a good museum. Just go and spend the day. Go to the parks." It's too expensive.

The fact that the government has refused, in Bill 47, to take any action on fares, which was so fundamental, which people turned out in droves to the ferry commissioner's meetings…. The ferry commissioner did a very transparent, open tour and had a very good conversations, people thought, around the province — really went out and listened to people and had town hall meetings everywhere. What he heard everywhere was the issue about fares, the issue about stability.

People participated in those meetings, and they seriously hoped, that they were going to be listened to. They were listened to here, but that was not translated in this piece of legislation.

[1950]

The audacity of this government to actually table this when they had heard what the ferry commissioner has heard…. I know the minister is very well aware of what coastal communities are saying. I know he hears regularly from representatives of coastal communities. I know he talks to the ferry advisory committees, that there is a dialogue there. I think it is a betrayal of their trust, the fact that nothing was acted on in this bill.

The other areas in this bill that people are frightened about are in section 8, where there is the ability to have a permanent reduction in service, because nobody knows what this means. What does a permanent reduction in service mean?

Does it mean, as has been talked about with huge concern up in Port McNeill — the Malcolm Island–Alert Bay run — that instead of going from Port McNeill to one of the islands, back to McNeill, then from McNeill to the other island and back, and doing it so that each island gets serviced very regularly, it's going to be changing that run so that you do it in a triangle, which means you obviously don't get as much access to the town?

And when you go to town, it's going to the doctor; it's for your kids' school; it's going to the hockey arena; it's doing a bit of shopping; it's going to see family. There's a lot of interconnected family in the north Island. A lot of people live in these communities that are closely related and cannot afford sort of the fares or the vulnerability of suddenly losing a route. So there's fear. What does it mean?
[ Page 12315 ]

Does it mean that instead of…? I mean, people talked about the good old days on Quadra when there were two ferries running — one every half-hour. So you needed to get one ferry running to town and one ferry running to Quadra. It was the Quadra Queen I and the Quadra Queen II, which are now actually servicing up-Island. Is this meaning: "Well, let's not get the one o'clock or the two o'clock run"?

The Cortes ferry — are they going to lose some of the runs there? We don't know what this means, and it is very, very worrying for communities that are trying to ensure their own survival under a regime that has allowed fares to go up by, as I mentioned before, more than 100 percent in some instances.

Is it then going to say, "Oh well, you're also going to lose a couple of runs, because you know that nine-o'clock-at-night ferry. There's usually maybe only five cars on it"? Maybe it's the sea cadets on a Thursday night and whoever else — just a couple of people who've been to the movies in town. And oh yeah, we also forget that they're often used for an ambulance run or for any emergency services or for anyone who needs to use their highway. Again, this is the highway system for our communities.

To just suddenly say it's a permanent reduction in service is a bit like going along the logging road when you want to turn off for one of your favourite hikes, and you see that the road has been made inaccessible by the forestry company because of safety concerns. "Okay, we're not going. The road has been closed." Is this what's going to happen — that our roads are just going to be closed because the government has mismanaged our ferries for so long that the only way they can find they can deal with them is just saying: "Yeah, okay. That's it. A permanent reduction in service"?

There was an opportunity here for the government to look at what was brought in with the Coastal Ferry Act and admit and acknowledge — which I think the government had maybe even started to do with the new Ferry Commissioner, having the new Ferry Commissioner going out and talking to people — that they got it wrong.

I mean, it's not bad to once in a while say: "I was wrong. We were wrong. This wasn't the way to go about it. We didn't like what was happening before, but we went too far the other way, so we're going to act. We're going to make something happen that will really make a change and be important for those people who live in the coastal communities."

You've got to remember, Madam Speaker, when you talk about coastal communities…. I mean, I represent the North Island and very proud to do so. We have the regular B.C. Ferries. We've got the Uchuck out on the west coast, which is actually a ferries contract although it's not a B.C. Ferries logo. We rely on the ferries.

[1955]

But we're speaking here in Victoria. It's the capital of the province. We're on the Island, and not everybody is as fortunate as people in the government and our colleagues on both sides of the bench to be able to take helicopters or floatplanes. Most people use the ferry. This is the highway system. Most people, if they want to go to Vancouver or points beyond — or, likewise, they want to come here — need to have the ferries.

Our food is brought over oftentimes on the ferries. It's not barged separately. Whether it's the bread trucks or the food trucks or whatever it is, it's coming on the ferries just like the people.

It's not too much to say that the government could have said: "All right, this isn't working. We recognize that we are largely a coastal province." Yes, we've got the Lower Mainland, but that's coastal too.

We are a coastal province where we have many coastal communities. They live on an island here, Vancouver Island, or the smaller islands. My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, I know, will be talking in a while about his communities, where you've got the two-ferry link and are even more isolated than some of the communities that I represent. We are a largely coastal province that relies on this highway system, and the government has just taken a jackhammer to the highway.

My colleague from North Coast was talking about what's missing from this act is the fact that we haven't got the vision. Well, there is certainly no vision here. There is no belief, as we in the opposition have, that the ferries are part of our marine highway and will be put back as part of our marine highway because that is the only sensible way of running a system that is so interrelated. If we have an infrastructure and we're supposed to be having a healthy economy, you need to make sure your infrastructure is healthy too.

As my colleague from North Coast mentioned — the lack of vision but the lack of vision in even the fleet. We all saw what happened a few years ago when the ferries were built in Germany and the loss of the skills, the loss of the work that could have happened here, the loss of the economy that could have happened here. Now we've got the shipbuilding contracts that have come through. Will that translate into ferry maintenance and ferry-building, shipbuilding? We can only hope so, but it's not anywhere in here. It's nowhere in this act. There's no commitment to that.

These are things that, if you're looking seriously at what a vision should be and how we should be treating our marine highway, you have to be looking at. You've got to be looking at the very fundamentals. You've got to be looking at the fares and the costs. You've got to be looking at a commitment to service, not just a section which says:

"Without limiting the commissioner's powers under section 42 or 43 to authorize or direct a ferry operator to reduce service on a designated ferry route, the commissioner may at any time direct a ferry operator to permanently reduce service on a designated ferry route in a manner and to a level that are consistent with the applicable Coastal Ferry Services Contract."
[ Page 12316 ]

That doesn't give people much hope, and it doesn't give much stability for the system.

I think the government has really lost sight of its role here. It's lost sight of the fact that it isn't here to support business. It is here to help communities and help people living in those communities. I know the minister spends time on the Island when he's here in the Legislature, but I'd just like to paint a picture for him and for his government, as somebody who lives on one of the islands.

I represent Campbell River and the north Island, but I actually live on Quadra Island. The other day I was on the ferry, and the ferry was late leaving, and nobody worried. We sat there. It was the Sunday before last, before we came down the last time. I was there for, I think, the ten-to-six ferry, and I sat, and it didn't leave until about a quarter past six.

[2000]

It didn't leave because an ambulance was coming. We all know that ferry is really important, and if there's an ambulance that's going to get off the island, that ferry will wait for it and then will go as fast as it possibly can across the channel. And it can — I mean, it's the 12-minute ride — get across very quickly if there's an ambulance. It will ensure that the ambulance gets straight off the ferry. We all rely on that.

That's not asking too much. That's asking something that we should expect as people who live in a well-developed province with a good network of highways and communities, where we have an ambulance service that looks after people. I mean, you have your paramedics there — and their $2 an hour — who are coming out and helping their neighbours. The ferries will come out in the middle of the night to get an ambulance across, if necessary.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Madam Speaker, this is what the ferries are for our communities. They are our lifeline. They are a lifeline, I would have to say, for B.C. because we are a coastal province. We are a province that relies on trade. We rely on the shipping and the moving of people and of goods. Yes, we rely on our natural resources, but we also rely on ensuring that people get from A to B and that we can move the goods around.

We should respect that. I think the government should recognize that the ferries are part of our infrastructure, that the ferries are as important to our communities as any paved highway or any logging road. I use the analogy of paved highways because I know there are many very nice paved highways in the northeast of the province.

I think the government has forgotten that and has forgotten the fact that we have thousands of people who live in ferry-dependent communities. These thousands of people, who expect the government to act on their behalf and who expect the government to…. When they realize that they have done something wrong — which was the initial Coastal Ferry Act — instead of looking at it and sort of saying, "Okay, we'll do a bit here. You know what will make them think that we've done a good thing? We'll allow cross-subsidization again…."

For people who don't live in the ferry world all the time, cross-subsidization means that the big ferries that actually make quite a bit of money because of tourism will help pay for the smaller routes, like the ones I've been talking about — the Alert Bay-to-McNeill route or the Cortes-to-Quadra route, the ones that aren't used as much. Particularly in winter when you see very few people on the ferries on some of those routes, you think: "Oh well, maybe they're right. Maybe we can have a permanent reduction in service."

That is maybe, I think, the only good thing about this bill. It allows cross-subsidization. So you throw up a little trinket like that and hope that all the people in ferry-dependent communities are going to say: "Oh well, that's okay. That's going to prevent our fares going up too much. That's going to make sure that we have an investment in our highway system."

We've had comments about: "Well, at least we've got some definitions in this." We've finally got a definition of what a ferry user is, ferry users being "ferry passengers and their families" — well yeah, that really describes it — and "communities served by ferries, and (c) businesses that rely on or utilize ferry services." Yes, those are all ferry users.

It is important to have definitions of those ferry users, but it'd be useful, then, to get some support for those ferry users — instead of just saying, "This is how we amend the act; we are going to say what a ferry user is," to actually have a vision and give people the opportunity to know that as a ferry user, as somebody who daily goes on the ferry to go to work…. You know, get on the ferry, and then you get on your bus, or you get on the ferry because you're visiting your parents who happen to be in a seniors home in a different community. As we all know, people don't actually end up in their own communities when they end up in a seniors home, and so people have to travel for that.

[2005]

There is no recognition for the realities of ferry-dependent communities in this act — absolutely no recognition. It's all very well having the words here, having ferry users defined. But unless there was a commitment to say the ferry system is part of our highway system, it's part of the infrastructure of B.C. and an important part in those communities which it serves….

Whether it be Victoria, whether it's Tsawwassen, whether it's Quadra Island or Texada — I'll take some of my colleague's limelight there — whether it's any of these places, they are important, and this act does not recognize that. This act is a very sad failure. It is one that has provoked an extraordinary amount of anger in com-
[ Page 12317 ]
munities, and it's one that has just written off the coastal communities of B.C.

It's written off the family life. It's written off vibrancy. It's written off economy. And it's written off the concept of what a highway system is and what a proper infrastructure should be for a province such as B.C. that is linked by coastal communities.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll take my place.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim. [Applause.]

S. Fraser: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thanks to those for the thundering applause.

I'm taking my part in the debate, second reading of Bill 47, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012. The act itself is at second reading, so this is really the beginning of the debate, and I believe I'm the third speaker up.

I note for the record that we have three days and less than an hour left in the session, and we have yet to do the debate. Then, of course — for those that want to know the procedure — this would be followed, presumably, by third reading and committee stage where we would, hopefully, have a chance to go through the bill section by section. There are 15 sections and many subsections within those 15. That's the process for dealing with this.

I know we have 22 or 23 bills now on the order paper, so it will be challenging. The importance of the second reading debate…. It's a fairly fulsome and wide-ranging debate that allows us to take issues forward on the record on behalf of our constituents. I proudly represent the riding of Alberni–Pacific Rim, and that includes the central part of Vancouver Island, obviously very dependent on the ferry system. Being landlocked on Vancouver Island isn't a bad thing, but the ferry system is a lifeline.

Certainly, whether you're living in Ucluelet or Bamfield or Tofino or Port Alberni or Errington or Whiskey Creek or north Qualicum, Deep Bay, Bowser — we are all on this island. We are speaking today from the capital city of British Columbia, Victoria. It's the capital city for everyone in the province, and anyone who wants to come here, for the most part, should have the right to do so. They need to take our ferry system.

We have a chance here. Bill 47 was an opportunity, I think, to address some major flaws in how the Liberal government has redesigned the ferry system over the last ten years. They did it very early on; 2003, I think, was when the first act was brought in by the Liberals.

I must say, anyone who has talked to ferry communities, representatives from the communities — mayors, councillors, regional district directors — knows the conversation about the changes that happened under the Liberal government back in 2003, which fundamentally changed the ferry system and caused a lot of damage and continue to cause a lot damage to all coastal communities, whether you're on the Island, on the Sunshine Coast or on smaller islands.

We are a marine jurisdiction, and transportation is challenging. The minister, I know, knows that and is working hard, I think, to try to address those challenges.

[2010]

The ferry system was taken out of the highway system in this province in 2003. A highway is an expensive venture — pavement, black gold, asphalt. Building highways, roads, is very expensive. It's absolutely necessary. Transportation is key to our economic well-being as a province, as a jurisdiction and, certainly, for safety and other factors too, of course.

Bridges are expensive — hugely expensive. Again, a necessary part of our transportation system. Avalanche breaks in the mountains — expensive, very expensive ventures, necessary for the public interest, necessary to move goods back and forth, people travelling back and forth. It is essential for the province for its economic and social well-being to have these forms of transportation, and they are expensive to build, they are expensive to engineer, and they are expensive to maintain.

The ferry system is the most efficient way of travelling, of moving goods and people, in many marine jurisdictions, B.C. being one. It is a much more efficient system than, say, trying to build a highway on a fjord system of a coast. It is a very expensive venture to do that, and it's a very daunting engineering task to do that. Boat traffic is more efficient. It is the best way to move people and goods. In British Columbia, like all marine jurisdictions, that is often the case.

To separate out the ferry system and target it as not being part of our transportation system, our highway system, is simply wrong, and it's missing the point of the importance of our transportation system and the efficiencies that a marine jurisdiction gets from using ferry systems.

The B.C. ferry system is one of the largest corporations of its kind in the world. So there are always challenges, and it is expensive, and it is necessary. It is expensive, as are all forms of transportation in the province of British Columbia.

We have Bill 47 before us, and it's, I think, the third attempt to tinker with a fundamental flaw and a fundamental problem in the system created in 2003 by this Liberal government.

I just want to make a quote here. This comes from the former Transportation Minister going back to March 24, 2003 — that was Judith Reid — in second reading of the Coastal Ferry Act. This is second reading of the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, so it's nostalgic in some ways.

"Firstly, this new legislation sets out the terms of the corporate restructuring. This act recognizes the new company. The act recognizes the intended conversion of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation from a Crown corporation to a new, regulated, independent, commercial operating company under the Company Act that will be renamed British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. The act underpins the vision for the new company as the integrator of
[ Page 12318 ]
services, charged with planning and coordinating the delivery of services and activities in the coastal ferry system."

So the creation of a company under the act that is separate from the Highways Act. We fast-forward to today, which is May 28, 2012, and Bill 47, and there is nothing to change that, but there are attempts to fix some of the fundamental problems created in the first place by taking the B.C. ferry system out of the highway system.

I mean, talk about taking one step forward and two steps back. This is the same government that caused this. They're still fighting the problems they created in 2003. Yet Bill 47 doesn't address the fundamental problem that was created with — now, the number of that bill might have been.… I think that was Bill 47 back in 2003.

Now, I think that the member for North Island spoke very well about the importance of the ferry system, and the disappointment that my constituents certainly have, I think, mirror that of the member for North Island.

[2015]

There is a bill before us, and it was the opportunity to do a major, bold change to fix the system that was broken by this government in 2003. I had the honour of engaging in a number of ferry tours with our critic. This was a number of years ago, 2008-2009, and the critic from North Coast. He went to big communities, small communities, big islands, small islands — Denman Island, Hornby Island.

I had the opportunity to travel with him to some extent and learn the issues from the public, from people who live on islands, who rely totally on the ferry system to commute and, in many cases, to have their families come to visit and, in many cases, to be able to work. Their employment required the use of the ferry system.

We engaged in that as an opposition party, as the official opposition of British Columbia, and I was honoured to be part of that. Our critic did a great job setting those up, and he spent a lot of his own time and a lot of effort to meet with as many communities as possible.

That never happened in this case. Now, we did have the commissioner, who did a major report that reflected, I think, a lot of the concerns that the public had, and that's what was presented to the minister prior to this bill being made. But there was no consultation that I can see between the ministry regarding this bill and bringing it forward now.

I believe even the commissioner suggested that that was an absolute necessity, that this shouldn't be brought forward as a sudden thing to the public of British Columbia without consultation, without explaining and listening to the public about what their concerns were for the ferry system.

The importance of the ferry system. This government talks about jobs. On the coast, on Vancouver Island, on all the small islands in this province, economic development relies on the B.C. ferry system more than any other single factor. You can't have job creation when a ferry system is failing to look out for the public interest, and that was the model that was created in 2003.

I believe it was the Auditor General who a number of years ago actually stated that the ferry system as it was, the privatization of the system, forgot to look into the importance and make a priority of the public interest. There's been no attempt to fix that.

The commissioner said specifically this time that there needs to be a long-term vision for the B.C. ferry system. That's fundamental to fixing the problems created in 2003 by this government, and the act, Bill 47, is an amendment act. It does not include any vision for B.C. ferries. It's a big problem. When we have an opportunity, with Bill 47, to fix fundamental problems, this would be the time — in this Legislature, in this bill — to address the long-term vision that's necessary.

We don't have to reinvent the wheel. The people, the mayors, the representatives of coastal communities — they know the importance of this system. I had the opportunity several weeks ago to go to the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities annual general meeting. It was held in Ucluelet in my constituency this year, and it was a great event. It was very well-attended.

The scuttlebutt in the rooms when you go to these events…. It's like at UBCM. It's where you learn things. It's where you hear from other mayors, other councillors, other administrators, city managers, regional district directors.

Everyone talks about the problem with trying to address economic problems in their communities when the ferry system, which is really the key plank in economic development for the coast and on the islands and on Vancouver Island, has actually become almost a punitive form of transportation. We know from the commissioner's report that the tipping point has been reached.

[2020]

The only strategy we've seen from the government and from the management of the private corporation, as it was created under this government, for economic problems has been to raise rates over and over again — over 100 percent on some routes. It's a kiss of death for economic development. It doesn't matter whether you're moving goods….

I was an executive director for a little while for the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association. You want to move your product to market, which you need to do to expand and to thrive as an industry. This industry has the potential to do that — the shellfish industry. It relies on ferry traffic. When you've got rates that go through the roof, you take away the viability of those businesses, of those livelihoods, of the thousands of people that make their living in shellfish or finfish aquaculture or in tourism.

I was also a director on Tourism B.C.. I fondly think back to Tourism B.C. Tourism B.C. was a great organization, renowned around the world — destroyed by this
[ Page 12319 ]
government. But while they were there doing their good work, I learned a lot. One of the things that I learned is that road traffic to and from Vancouver Island, to my constituency — to Alberni–Pacific Rim, to the Pacific Rim National Park, Ucluelet, Tofino, Bamfield…. These are economic generators. They are a huge draw for the touring public.

But it doesn't work. They can't do their work. They cannot expand that industry and allow the economies to thrive — not just in communities like Bamfield or Ucluelet or Tofino. Not just there. The entire bottom line for the province suffers when you make rates so high that people don't travel anymore.

Tofino is a surfing mecca. Outside magazine just two years ago rated Tofino as the best surf town in North America, but many surfers can't afford to come here anymore because the ferry rates have become punitive. They'll go elsewhere. They'll stay in Washington State. The surf won't be as good, and they won't have a Tofino, but they don't have to spend the exorbitant cost of the B.C. ferries that have priced themselves out of business.

I'm not an economist; I'm not an economic expert. But every time that we saw major increases from B.C. Ferries in rates, we saw drops in ridership of B.C. ferries. Then there'd be a loss of income. This is a business. It's being run as a business, not as part of our highway system, so the response was to raise the rates.

Well, we've done that. It doesn't work. The commissioner and the commission's report was very clear on this. The tipping point has been reached and exceeded. One of the recommendations from the commissioner — and this should have informed Bill 47 — was to stabilize rates. The commissioner nailed it.

We've exceeded the tipping point. The cost of riding B.C. ferries is beyond the point that many can afford. It is causing a loss of ridership. The economic formula for this corporate entity, as it's been created under the Liberals, is failing in the most fundamental way.

So the commissioner said: "All right, then. We should see about tracking the cost of inflation. We shouldn't exceed that." Well, this bill basically ensures that the costs will go up, at least for the next three years, at over double the rate of inflation.

Bill 47 does specifically what the commissioner recommended not to do on one of the key problems with B.C. Ferries. Whether you're running it as sort of a blind corporate model with no care of the public interest, which we've seen…. Even that doesn't work. The business case doesn't work. We've passed the tipping point. The ridership will continue to drop as the cost of riding continues to go up beyond any reasonable amount.

[2025]

I know from my discussions in Alberni–Pacific Rim with mayors and councillors, and certainly at the AVICC, that everyone gets it. This is, must be, should be part of our highway system. It is an essential form of transportation. It is the most efficient form of transportation. You know, there are cheaper roads and more expensive roads. Some are very daunting.

Sea to Sky Highway for the Olympics. The cost of that was very expensive. It's a good highway, nice job. I've travelled on it. It's a very expensive transportation system. We spent a lot of money — we the people, the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Ferries are expensive too. They all have their own challenge. But they are and must be considered part of the highway system.

I'm happy to say…. I'll remind the minister and thank him for this because with relatively short notice, he has a meeting with myself and the mayor from Ucluelet, the mayor from Tofino, several councillors and, I suspect, an administrator or two tomorrow. There are a number of issues that are very important to these communities, and the minister is going to hear all about that. I will take a very low-key role there. I'm sure that the minister will be happy with that.

I will warn the minister that he will be hearing about these issues. I'm not making these up. These are the discussions in the municipal circles. Bill 47 was — could have been, should have been — the time to fix the fundamental problems, to put a vision, a real vision for the future of B.C. Ferries that put the public interest first.

This would be not just a better thing socially. I think, in the sense of justice, you shouldn't be penalized because you live on Vancouver Island or you live on the coast. We need people. We need economic development all over the province, and the coast is a large part of that province.

The municipal governments all know that we need to have the B.C. ferry system reflect the public interest, not for social reasons but for fairness, I would suggest, and also for economic development — jobs.

You're not going to be able to increase jobs in tourism, which I know is either No. 2 or No. 3 as far as a sector generating revenue for the province of British Columbia. It's big, and it cannot grow in the key areas that have room to grow — Vancouver Island, smaller islands, Sunshine Coast. These are huge attractions for people to come and visit, to recreate, to spend money, to drive our economy.

The one thing that's stopping that economic growth and development in many instances is B.C. Ferries and their failure to take into account the public interest, the failure of this government to recognize that it must be brought back as part of our highway system.

There's a cost to that, I know. There are challenges, absolutely, just as there are with building bridges, just as there are with building highways, just as there are with maintaining bridges and highways. This is a coastal jurisdiction, and ferries are an essential part of that transportation mix.

Bill 47, as I touched on, does not even address the tipping point of affordability issues that the commissioner
[ Page 12320 ]
so rightly explained and made recommendations on. It does actually address it; it makes it worse. So there's a denial there somewhere, and that certainly has to be addressed. The higher fares reflect less service.

Service. With this model under Bill 47, what we're going to see and what the minister is going to hear, I'm sure, from the mayors tomorrow, and the councillors and their staff, is…. Seeing this bill come forward, what it's offering is higher fares and less service.

That's not a good deal. That is not what coastal communities and island communities have been waiting for. These communities will be the economic generator for the province of British Columbia. You've got to give them a chance. The chance was here — Bill 47 before us today, second reading.

[2030]

It was a chance to deal with a piece of flawed legislation, deeply flawed, based on ideology as opposed to any common sense, any sense of fairness or any business case. We know that the model that was brought in, in 2003 has hurt coastal communities' economic development, and it's continuing under Bill 47.

When I was in Tofino, I was at a mayors breakfast last week, and the chamber of commerce were the co-sponsors for that meeting. That's the Tofino–Long Beach Chamber of Commerce. The first question that came up while I was trying to eat breakfast, actually — my breakfast got cold, but it was a great meeting — was: "What are we going to see with B.C. Ferries? Are we going to see the problem fixed?"

People knew the bill was coming before us, so I had to deliver the bad news, which the rumours had already been talking about, that this wasn't going to be the fix that we were hoping to get, that the government missed the opportunity with Bill 47 to fix a very basic problem with B.C. Ferries.

If road traffic to Vancouver Island were to increase, if the cost of travelling here to Victoria, the capital of British Columbia, to Port Alberni, to Tofino or to Ucluelet was kept somewhere down so that it wasn't punitive, so the tipping point was the other way, so that ridership would increase…. That's the balance we need to find. For me that's the biggest problem with Bill 47. It's exacerbating the problem the other way, and I think that's one of the worst parts of this bill. It misses the opportunity to fix that essential problem.

Section 8 is going to be problematic for the opposition. I know there was a recommendation from the Ferry Commissioner. Section 8 authorizes the commissioner to "direct a ferry operator to permanently reduce service on a designated ferry route." That should be the responsibility of the minister. That is the responsibility of the minister.

That should be the responsibility of a minister that has to face an electorate. That should never be given over to a commissioner that isn't responsible to the electorate. That will be a big problem for, I think, all members of the opposition.

I know the member for North Coast, our very astute critic, followed a quote from Haida Gwaii. I won't repeat what the community leader said, but suffice to say it's on the record of Hansard. There is a lot of criticism about giving the role of an unelected person the ability to unilaterally reduce services permanently on a ferry route. That is unacceptable. We certainly, I would suggest, will be voting against that. I certainly will be.

Also, section 10 allows the commissioner to undertake performance reviews of a ferry operator — B.C. Ferries — on whichever route, I suppose. That wasn't the recommendation that came from the commissioner. Again, another commissioner's recommendation, an opportunity to fix something, that was missed by the minister.

The commissioner said "an audit," and I'll just read from the commissioner's report.

"The Auditor General routinely conducts performance audits on ministries and other bodies which are within the government's reporting entity. These are distinct from financial audits and look specifically at performance related to efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. Such audits are a routine part of the oversight process and are managed within a specific budget guideline sufficient to fund a reasonable amount of performance auditing each year. B.C. Ferries doesn't fall within the purview of the Auditor General."

Again, that's because of the model created by this government in 2003. So we don't have that independent audit ability right now through the Auditor General. The commissioner's recommendation, rightly so, is to provide the commissioner at least that ability to perform such a performance audit.

[2035]

To suggest that a performance review is the same thing is wrong. A performance review is a different entity. It's a much lower level of scrutiny of any organization. It will fail right now. This is something in Bill 47 that will fail. It fails already because it fails to take into account the commissioner's concerns about accountability and transparency in the ability of an independent audit to be done on performance of a ferry operator.

I have a big problem with that, and I don't think it's too late. The suggestion in Bill 47 that there be a performance review…. Well, that could just be amended to reflect what the commissioner was recommending. Instead of a performance review, that should be a performance audit. The commissioner should have the ability to perform a performance audit.

I wonder, when you look at the other parts of Bill 47 where they're continuing to increase fares far in excess of inflation and force down ridership further on the ferries…. That would show up very quickly in a performance audit. A loss of revenue for the organization….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

N. Simons: It's a pleasure to stand and speak on Bill
[ Page 12321 ]
47, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012 — probably the most important issue facing most of my constituents most of the time.

Powell River–Sunshine Coast is the only entirely ferry-dependent constituency out of 85 in the province. We are accessed from the Lower Mainland by Horseshoe Bay to Langdale, and from Vancouver Island from Comox over to Powell River. Powell River joins up with Texada. To get from the upper Sunshine Coast to the lower Sunshine Coast — or from the northern Sunshine Coast to the southern Sunshine Coast, as some like to call it — it's the Earls Cove–Saltery Bay ferry.

The four B.C. ferries are our lifeline. It's the way we get our food over to the Sunshine Coast. It's how we travel to specialists appointments. I know that from recent experience.

I think the issues around ferries have been spoken about and have been advocated for by constituents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast for a number of years. In fact, since 2003 when the Coastal Ferry Act came into place, residents in my constituency have seen their costs of travel increase between 70 percent and 104 percent. That is a significant cut if you're a family and you've got children and you're travelling with them or if you have aging parents and you want to visit more often.

No matter what you do on the Sunshine Coast, it will be impacted by the cost of ferries. It's not as if you have a choice. People on the Sunshine Coast need to, at some time or another, travel. Regularly, every morning at six o'clock or 6:15, as close as they can get to the boat for the first sailing in the morning, residents of the lower Sunshine Coast wait for the Queen of Surrey and go off to their jobs in Vancouver. It's a commuter vessel. It's a transportation link that is essential.

It can't be put any other way. It's like the streets of Vancouver. It's like the highways to the east. It is our only way on and off the Sunshine Coast. People say: "Well, you must live on an island." No, it's not an island, but there are lots of fjords and mountains, and it's difficult to put a road through. If we had the Olympics in Powell River, we'd probably have a road there by now.

But we are still relying on B.C. Ferries. We're relying on the beautiful Queen of Burnaby, Queen of Surrey, North Island Princess and Island Sky. The beautiful Island Sky was built in Vancouver, which plies the water between Jervis Inlet. It has an elevator that works sometimes. I'm pleased to have ridden on it.

[2040]

Since I was elected and even before I was elected, I heard about it. People were concerned about the cost of ferries. So the price that we had to pay for ferries has always been at the forefront of people's minds.

People held rallies. They wrote letters. They wrote postcards. They phoned my office. They wrote letters to the ministers — the previous three ministers. They were demanding, in the most polite way, that government pay some attention to the spiralling cost of transportation.

They saw very little result. They saw very little hope. Government was content with the system as it existed. People had to pay to live where they wanted to live, and people were shot down in their arguments. They said: "We're not going to get involved in the ferry system the way you guys did. You messed this up, and you messed that up."

They're using, perhaps, past failures as their excuse not to become involved. In my mind, that's a bit of a copout. You know: "Since some other governments might have had problems with the management of the ferries, we're never going to touch it again. We're going to keep it arm's length and leave it up to the commissioner."

I had people phoning me, saying: "What can I do? What can I do?" I'd say: "Phone the ferry commissioner." They phoned the ferry commissioner. The ferry commissioner says: "You'll have to phone the president of B.C. Ferries." So they phoned David Hahn, and David Hahn says: "Well, that's what's in the act. Phone the minister." It's a little circle thing. They're going around and around like gerbils, getting about as far with this government. They said: "We can't involve ourselves in the running of B.C. Ferries. It's arm's length."

Then the economic troubles hit in 2008, and all of a sudden part of the ten-point plan of the then Premier Campbell was the reduction in B.C. Ferry fares. Low and behold, it was possible after all. It was close to Christmas. Miracles were happening, and a 33 percent reduction in B.C. Ferry fares for a few months.

That was part of an economic stimulus plan. Imagine that — an economic stimulus plan that called for the reduction in the cost of our transportation. Well, well. Where did that idea come from, and where has it gone? Because it's long gone out of this room. It's been sucked up through the vent somewhere. Never do we hear about the reduction in ferry fares as part of an economic stimulus plan anymore. No, no, au contraire, which is French for on the contrary.

In fact, what we see now is as the result of the reduction in the number of people on the ferries, due to the costs, we will raise the prices, and now we will consider reducing the service.

So if you're a restaurant and you apply the same logic: "Nobody's coming in to eat at my wonderful restaurant. Nobody. You know what we're going to have to do? We're going to have to raise the prices. We're going to raise the prices. No, we're not going to just raise the prices. We've got too much stuff on the menu, far too much choice. Reduce the choice, increase the cost, and let's see if that works."

B. Routley: Cut out the mayo.

N. Simons: Well, maybe cut out the mayo.

But I'm pleased that after that half-hearted attempt at
[ Page 12322 ]
economic stimulus in 2008, the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast — residents of Texada and Thormanby and Savary and all parts of the Sunshine Coast — kept on with their advocacy. They thought there was another glimmer of hope when the comptroller general was asked by a previous Transportation minister to have a look at B.C. Ferries.

Well, people were crossing their fingers. They knew there was no consultation going to take place, but the report came back. Oh, B.C. Ferries was doing exactly what the government told them to do. They did exactly what the Coastal Ferry Act was telling them do, except for the part about alternative service providers, but let's not talk about that since it's gone anyway.

It didn't do anything to address the core concern of families and businesses on the Sunshine Coast, and that was ferry fares. It didn't do anything.

[2045]

The people of the Sunshine Coast held more rallies, wrote more letters, signed more petitions, called more offices, saying: "We cannot afford this anymore." "I can't expect people to come over with their canoes and go on the canoe route and stay in our bed-and-breakfast." "I can't expect people to be able to travel over to the Island in order to participate in the Special Olympics with other kids." The examples are too numerous to go into at this time.

Suffice to say that the cost of ferries was universally understood. You wouldn't even have to bring it up, and you'd already be nodding. You're at the ferry terminal, and you look at each other, and you go: "Yeah, that's right. We know." The cost was becoming out of reach. People travelled less.

I've had seniors actually tear up in my office because they're finding it too difficult. Their kids aren't coming to visit anymore. They can't afford it, and they can't afford to go in. You know, it's not something that….

With just a little more money, it would be fine. All of these people would travel on the ferries if they had more money, but they don't. They don't. People are on fixed incomes. People have worked hard. They've built up…. Their life is secure and safe, and all of a sudden there's a 75 to 105 percent increase in one of the most basic costs associated with their life. The cost of living associated with transportation costs has gone through the roof.

So they wrote more letters and they signed more petitions. They made more phone calls. Then there was a new minister, and then there was a new commissioner. Perhaps at that moment they thought again, "Time to reinvigorate this request for another look at the Coastal Ferry Act," which had been in the minds of most people on the Sunshine Coast. Quite a failure.

They were pleased and they were appreciative of the fact that the minister acknowledged that things weren't quite working right. And that was the first sign, actually, that in fact somebody might be about to do something about the problem that we all recognized to exist.

The commissioner was sent out with a backpack and a scroll to the communities up and down the coast, on the islands, on the mainland, to gather the opinions and the advice and the submissions of residents, elected or not, business people. There were even kids at some of the meetings, and they came to the Sunshine Coast.

Hundreds of people came and saw the commissioner and the deputy commissioner at the Gibsons and Area Community Centre. They came, and they spoke, and they heard. They had great discussion. They attended at Powell River at the Evergreen Theatre, and hundreds came and spoke to the commissioner there. Hundreds even came to the Texada Legion in the middle of the day to talk to the commissioner and his deputy.

Those meetings were interesting and entertaining, in fact, because the stories were compelling. And they all told the same story, the same story that they hoped — those people who spent their time speaking to the commissioner — would be incorporated into new legislation or change the existing legislation, that could bring relief to them and to their families and to their businesses.

Some days and months went by, and the commissioner studiously and with dedication put together a list of 31 recommendations to government on how the system could be improved.

Primary in that list of recommendations was that the government should really think about the long-term vision. What are we hoping that our ferry system provides to our communities? What do those communities provide to the province, and how is it all intertwined?

The vision that would allow people to have some certainty — or some, at least, partial certainty, if there's such a concept — for when they decide to move to the Sunshine Coast, that they know that the ferry will continue to operate.

[2050]

There was a time, by the way, when B.C. Ferries operated until midnight, hourly between Horseshoe Bay and Langdale. The last boat is now at something like nine o'clock, 9:15.

Services have been reduced over the decades already, and fares have gone up. But now we have an opportunity in front of us for the government to take the recommendations that were carefully prepared by the commissioner and incorporate them into a new act that would define the role of this essential, historic transportation system serving coastal and island communities. And so we get to Bill 47.

Madam Speaker, it's been a pleasure. I will continue speaking even while the exchange takes place.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have a shift change in the Speaker's chair, for those watching at home, and now I must remain polite. It is late in the evening on a Monday. I know the fans are watch-
[ Page 12323 ]
ing at home. We're in the middle of second reading of Bill 47, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, and I've just started to talk about the hopes of representatives, of individuals, of mayors, of regional district councillors, of chiefs on the Sunshine Coast that Bill 47 would in fact bring relief to residents of the Sunshine Coast. And they were not entirely….

Let me just forewarn you. I'm about to give a compliment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

N. Simons: Before we note the hour, I think a compliment coming from me is necessary at this time of night in order to refresh ourselves and know that we're coming back. But the people of the Sunshine Coast were not entirely disappointed completely, and I must say that that was an accomplishment on the part of the minister. They were not entirely disappointed. I will elaborate on the reasons they were not completely disappointed tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to adjourn debate?

N. Simons: For that reason, I believe this would be the opportune moment to ask that we adjourn the debate until the next sitting.

N. Simons moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 39 — EMERGENCY INTERVENTION
DISCLOSURE ACT

Bill 39, Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. I. Chong: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[2055]

Mr. Speaker: Members, please take your seats.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — EMERGENCY INTERVENTION
DISCLOSURE ACT

Bill 39, Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division [See Votes and Proceedings].

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 45 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Bill 45, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

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

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 9 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 39 — EMERGENCY INTERVENTION
DISCLOSURE ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 39; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On section 1.

R. Chouhan: My question is to the minister under the section 1 definitions: "applicant." Does it also include the meaning of individuals? Later on in the act we talk about individuals, and we talk about representatives. So applicant is…. How broad a definition of applicant can that be?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'd just like to introduce staff who are with me here: Kim Henderson, deputy minister for the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government; as well as John Blakely and Michael Tanner from the labour policy and legislation division. I thank them for being here.

The applicant would refer to persons described in section 3(1). It would be someone providing emergency
[ Page 12324 ]
health services, someone doing duties as a firefighter, an emergency medical assistant or a peace officer. There also is an intention of people doing prescribed activities, which would be by regulation.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister and her staff as we go through this.

I see a definition in the act, "source individual." Can the minister explain what that means, what that entails? What evidence would be necessary to prove somebody was a source individual?

[1440]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The source individual, as described, is the person whose bodily fluid the emergency responder, first responder, was exposed to. It's actually outlined in section 5. It talks about there being "reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may have been exposed, as a result of the contact, to a pathogen that causes a prescribed communicable disease." It's laid out in section 5 of the act.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

R. Chouhan: Under subsection 2(2), it reads: "An individual may not apply under section 3 (1) for a testing order until at least 3 days have expired since the date the individual provided notice under subsection (1) of this section."

Could the minister, again, explain the mechanics of it? How exactly would it work? I understand that they have to wait for three days, but some people may be confused about the exact date. Maybe you can explain it, because I don't understand. There's some confusion in my mind how it would apply.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm not sure what the member is not clear about, but the intent of this is that the source individual would have notice. They would be given notice that a testing order was going to be sought. Then there'd be a minimum of three days that would pass before the person would make an application to the court. That's the intention of it.

The purpose is to actually allow the source the opportunity to reconsider voluntary testing. The notice form that they would be given would include some information about voluntary testing.

S. Chandra Herbert: A question to the minister. Subsection 2(1) is about how an individual "who intends to apply under section 3 (1) for a testing order in respect of another individual must provide notice of that intention to the other individual in accordance with the regulations."

I'm curious. The first question is: is there a deadline? Is there a timeline that the person must apply within in order to be able to use this act?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This comes in section 3(3)(b) of the act. The application for a testing order must be made within 30 days of the date of the contact with the source individual.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess we're probably going to be jumping around back and forth through sections of this bill because many of them connect to each other. I thank the minister for that clarification.

Now, if somebody tried to apply and didn't meet that test for whatever reason, is there any opportunity that they would be able to have reconsideration or something like that? Or are the 30 days a hard-and-fast intention?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There is not any intention of having exceptions.

S. Chandra Herbert: In subsection 2(1) it talks about how the person must provide notice of their intention to the other individual in accordance with the regulations. Can the minister explain in greater detail what that notice looks like, what the ministry is considering currently and how that process would take place?

[1445]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The intent is that this would be formal notice in the form of a letter, and that that would be delivered in person to the source individual. It would explain the intention of the act, and it would give information about voluntary testing.

S. Chandra Herbert: The question: if the source individual, the person that they want to issue the notice to, is of no fixed address, what happens in that instance?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is partly covered in section 4 of the act. The intention is that under section 4 the court may hear an application for a testing order without notice of intention being provided to the source individual if the applicant is able to satisfy the court that giving the notice to the source individual within a reasonable time is impossible or impracticable.

S. Chandra Herbert: We'll cover that, then, in that section because there are a number of other questions around, you know, if somebody goes on vacation or something like that happens or somebody takes a stress leave and ducks out of public contact after an accident or something like that. So we'll cover that in that section, then.

Section 2 approved.
[ Page 12325 ]

On section 3.

R. Chouhan: Again, in section 3 is there any time limitation before an application must be made? I understand section 3(3)(b) says 30 days. But in general, if somebody is unable to meet the 30-day requirement, could they go like…? In some other statutes you have to apply within a year or six months. Is there any flexibility of making that application beyond the 30 days required under section 3?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There is not any intention to have any flexibility. The application would need to be within 30 days.

R. Chouhan: Now, under section (3)(c) it says: "be made in accordance with the regulations." Again, we will talk under the part where the regulations are addressed. Could the minister tell us when will those regulations be drafted, who will be drafting — who will be involved in drafting those regulations?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: They are fairly complex to develop, these regulations. There are significant legal policy and operational issues that we will need to consider. We will be consulting with the Ministry of Health; the provincial health officer and other public health and communicable disease experts; the Ministry of Justice, including court services branch; the Chief Justice of the Provincial Court; the Privacy Commissioner; the Ministry of Children and Family Development; and the Representative for Children and Youth.

[1450]

R. Chouhan: Under subsection (d) it says: "be served on the source individual at least 4 days before the court hears the application." But if you look at section 2(2), it gives three days. Is this a typo?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The three days…. The source individual has to be given notice, and the person who's been exposed can't apply to the court until three days have passed by. Then there's another four days until the court can actually hear it. If I apply today, four days later is the earliest the court could actually hear it. That's to allow the source individual time to prepare. So it's three days and then a separate four days.

R. Chouhan: I take it that it's a total of seven days before it could be heard.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That would be the minimum.

R. Chouhan: In subsection (4) it says: "The court must hear an application for a testing order as soon as practicable and may, on application or on the court's own motion, order that the public is excluded from all or part of a hearing." Is the intention of that to address the issues raised by Dr. Perry Kendall? Is it about that or something beyond that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The court can have the authority to exclude the public from all or part of the application hearing if the court considers this as necessary to protect the privacy of the source individual and/or the exposed individual.

S. Chandra Herbert: Let's go to "3(1) Application for testing order." This is about how to apply for a testing order. It says: "if the individual has come into contact with a bodily substance of another individual in any of the following circumstances: (a) while providing emergency health services…." Maybe we'll stop there first. If the minister could share with us the definition of emergency health services. Who does that include?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Emergency health services will be defined in the regulations, and it will be consistent with other health legislation that we have. It will capture the provision of first aid or medical services in an emergency situation. There are a number of situations that that could apply to. We certainly have heard about the firefighters and ambulance paramedics, but there could be other providers. We'll do this consistent with our other legislation.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm not as familiar as I'd like to be with all the other different acts regarding emergency services professionals, so I do have some more questions on this topic. For example, I myself have trained in CPR. I do the first aid training. There's an emergency in a restaurant. I've been in a situation where you have to give somebody the Heimlich. You do that. Let's say I got exposed to bodily fluids at that time. Would that be an emergency situation that would be covered in this act?

[1455]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In fact, it would. That would be what we would think of as a Good Samaritan. Providing emergency services in the situation that you described would be able to apply under this act.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just to back up even slightly further than "while providing emergency health services", 3(1) says they "may apply to the court for a testing order if the individual has come into contact with a bodily substance of another individual." Now, that may seem to make sense, but I guess the question I have is: what evidence do you have to have that you've come into contact with bodily fluid?

Sometimes these scenes can be messy. Would it be just that somebody spat on your hand and you didn't have an open wound? What is the burden of proof before some-
[ Page 12326 ]
thing like this can take place?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The legislation in section 5 talks about the necessity for a physician's report. So the circumstances would be laid out in the physician's report, and then the court would decide. The example that the member has given of saliva on intact skin…. A physician would not take something like that forward.

There are obviously all kinds of permutations and combinations. There are some very high-risk exposures, and there are some that are in between. What it would hinge on is that there will be a physician's report, and then the court will make the determination.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess we will get to that in section 5.

Just another question that occurs to me here. Under 3(1)(c): "while being involved in a prescribed circumstance or while carrying out a prescribed activity." That would give somebody the ability to apply it in this act. What does that mean?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The intention here is that in time this act would include the victims of some crimes, but there is more work to be done before that will be possible. That's what the intention is of that particular section.

S. Chandra Herbert: I noticed in 3(1)(b) that the application for a testing order can be made "while performing his or her duties as a firefighter, an emergency medical assistant or a peace officer." That would give somebody the ability to apply. Now, "his or her duties" — that could be quite large. You could be filling out a report, or it could be, you know, driving from one location to another.

Is the idea here that…? I'm just trying to think through all the permutations, as is the job of opposition. Let's say — it sounds silly — a medical assistant was filing a paper, and blood got on the paper from a paper cut, and a colleague somehow got that on them. Just trying to figure this out here. Would that be something that could potentially be included if their co-worker refused to tell their status?

[1500]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The intention of this legislation is to provide coverage for someone who is providing emergency services. What I would say to the specific question the member has asked is that it really would come back to that physician's report and the application to the court. The determination would be made as to whether it was a high-risk exposure, if there was risk attached to the exposure and whether it qualifies in the physician's report, and it would then go forward to the court.

The situation the member describes…. It's difficult for me to see how that would be something that would be encompassed. I know the member was not meaning to trivialize the legislation, and it is difficult to think of all of the possible examples that one could think of. This really is meant for emergency situations where it is not possible always to take the precautions of putting on gloves, gown, mask that you would be able to in a more controlled situation.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the minister is understanding that I'm not in any way trying to trivialize. Really what I'm trying to do is get at why the language was used so that in future if people are looking at this legislation they can understand it better.

Now, I'm questioning why the decision was taken to add subsection (b) when it would seem to be encompassed in "while providing emergency health services" under subsection (a).

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is to provide coverage for individuals who might actually not be providing health services but providing other kinds of emergency services, such as emergency firefighter services, but inadvertently came in contact with a bodily fluid, even though they were not providing, specifically, health services.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is there a reason why it was decided to limit the number of people that this applied to — to firefighters, an emergency medical assistant or a peace officer — and not include other sectors?

I know that bus drivers, for example, have expressed that they, too, can face bodily fluid exchange in their workplace. Sometimes people are less than kind, and there can be bodily fluids exchanged in that way. Spitting in their faces is what I have heard from bus drivers. Why was it decided to just hold it to these professions?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The intent of the legislation is to cover the work of emergency providers who, by the very nature of the work they do, run considerably higher risk of these kinds of exposures than other individuals. The act is not meant for the general public or the situation you've described where it would be, relatively speaking, much less likely that they would come in contact.

This is meant for individuals such as firefighters and those paramedics who are providing these emergency services.

[1505]

S. Chandra Herbert: What test would have to be met to show that the potential exposure was made in the course of emergency action as opposed to just generally going to a meeting or something like the silly case I mentioned earlier of a paper cut? What kind of test would have to be met in the courts to say that this act did apply
[ Page 12327 ]
and that it wasn't just a spurious charge?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, this would come back to the physician's report that's required. With that physician's report, the court would make a determination as to whether an order would be made for the source individual to provide a sample of their bodily fluid.

R. Chouhan: In section 3(2) there is a reference that says "a representative of the individual may apply on behalf of the individual." Could the minister explain how wide a definition that word "representative" can be? Is it limited to the family members or a legal counsel? Could that also include a union officer acting on behalf of that employee or member of that union who may be involved?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The intention here is that if the exposed individual can't apply…. For example, if in the course of their duties as providing emergency help, they were seriously injured and were in a coma and not able to speak for themselves, someone else would be able to apply on their behalf.

This is something that's going to be done by regulation, in terms of the member's question about who could actually do this. We need to do some further legal consultation to define who that representative might be. The member has suggested some possibilities, and there is some more work that will need to be done. Then we will be able to set out who could act for an exposed individual if they weren't able to speak for themselves.

S. Chandra Herbert: Back to 3(1). If the minister wants to cover this in a different section, that's understandable. Just a question around the intention. What is the likelihood that somebody would be exposed to an infectious disease, a communicable disease through exposure that could lead to somebody applying for a testing order? What would be something that the ministry would advise somebody to do? Would it be blood exposure? Would it be maybe oral exposure — spit or something like that? Saliva? What kind of situations are we expecting here that would lead to somebody wanting such a testing order?

[1510]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The legislation refers to bodily substance or bodily fluid. This is something that will be defined in the regulations. They will be developed, as I've said, in consultation. It would include things like blood, saliva, vomit and other bodily fluids.

To give an example of the kind of exposure that a physician's report would be written in a situation where an emergency responder might wish to apply under this legislation…. I can actually give a real-life example from one of the first responders that we met with when we tabled the legislation, which was a situation where the first responder came upon an accident scene.

There was a person in the car who'd been injured, and the window of the car was broken with a lot of jagged glass. The person was slumped over and was having difficulties breathing. Their airway was in jeopardy. They were unconscious, and the car was smoking. The first responder believed the car might actually go up in flames at any second.

So really, the first responder didn't think they had any choice but to reach through that jagged glass and, of course, cut themselves quite badly. The person who'd been injured had lots of blood on them, so there was significant exposure.

That would be a pretty glaring example. Again, in each case there will need to be that physician's report. There will be clear definition of the fluids in the regulation.

S. Chandra Herbert: Down to, I guess, 3(3): "An application for a testing order must (a) include a physician's report, as prescribed, and anything else prescribed" — I understand we'll talk that through a little bit later in regulation — "(b) be made within 30 days of the date of the contact referred to in subsection (1)."

What was the thinking behind deciding on 30 days?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The emphasis in the act is on obtaining timely information about the source individual's status.

Most people with an exposure would immediately take action and certainly well within the 30 days. They would proceed with that court application. The focus is on timeliness. The thinking is that beyond that, it's extremely unlikely that anyone would come forward. Also, the longer the time goes by, the more difficult it is to say there's a pressing need to get this information from the source individual.

S. Chandra Herbert: Maybe if the minister wants to take this somewhere else than this act, then that's fine too. I understand the interest around timeliness. How soon would somebody be able to do an appropriate test for something like HIV or hep C or one of those communicable diseases which the government is still considering to put in this act? Is it likely that we'd be able to find out within 30 days — or 12 days, as I know some people have talked about?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm not quite clear on what the member is asking, whether he's asking about how soon the individual who's been exposed could be tested or how soon the source individual could be tested. I need that question clarified, please.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, in answer, what I'm curious about is that for the alleged source individual, how long would that testing process…? I understand there's up to
[ Page 12328 ]
seven days — we've established that already — between contact and when a court order could come. Then there is a test period, going to an analyst and so on.

[1515]

My question is really about the science, not about how long that period would take. My question is: how likely is it we would know somebody, the source individual, had HIV or had hep C after the test was done? Is that…? Sorry, I'm tripping over myself here. I'm trying to ask the question as to how likely we would know — within 30 days, within 12 days. What is the general window that we think we could learn if the source individual was indeed or was not, in fact, carrying an infectious or communicable disease?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite, I think, has alluded to this — that the science in this area is changing very rapidly. There was a time when test results took weeks to come back. The test results are much more quickly available.

In this scenario, where someone immediately upon exposure gave that three days' notice, then — if the court responded within the four days so that it's seven or eight days since the time of exposure — a person would have that source individual's test results back in significantly under 30 days, I would say.

But it's evolving and changing and becoming more and more rapid. Certainly, something that we have acknowledged is that this legislation could in time become irrelevant, because the science is changing so rapidly. It also could be that there are viruses that we don't currently consider or even know about that could become a part of this, covered under this legislation in time.

It is a rapidly changing and evolving area of science.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I appreciate the minister's comments. It's an area that I will further dig down into a little bit under section 5, the testing order section.

I guess the other question is…. A testing order may be required, and maybe the minister can help me understand this, but what happens in the case where somebody says, "Okay, I don't have any communicable diseases; I'm just fine," when in fact it turns out that they did? I know this isn't in this text of this bill, but is that something that was thought about in the creation of this act?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm asking for clarification. Is the member talking about the source individual?

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I am.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: While it's not specifically addressed in the legislation, if the source individual actually had test results that they could provide…. Otherwise, the request would be that they would be tested. It wouldn't be going on their verbal word that they didn't have any communicable diseases.

[1520]

S. Chandra Herbert: If the source individual said that they had no communicable diseases, the expectation is that they must provide the blood work or the paperwork to back that up. Is that the current procedure in all blood exposures or all bodily fluid exposures through government?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We don't have any legislation like this at this time. It doesn't exist. With this, the source individual would be given that written notice and be given an opportunity to voluntarily provide a sample. If not, then the individual who had been exposed would apply to the court.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is it the expectation, then, that in any case of blood exposure or bodily fluid exposure the courts do get involved now? If you have to make the application through the courts and give the person the window period to respond with their tests or without their tests, depending on what they chose to do, is this going to be a new thing that the courts have to consider in each case?

I'm not understanding. If this is new legislation, which indeed it is, what is the procedure that precedes this legislation? What would be the normal case in a blood exposure at the worksite? Is this a change that they then have to go through the courts with every blood exposure or every bodily fluid exposure to determine if the person does have a communicable disease or not? That's what I'm trying to find out here.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What happens today when an emergency responder has this sort of exposure, the kind of exposure that I described, is they would request to have the information from the source individual. They would ask that source individual to provide a sample so that they could be tested for serious viruses such as hepatitis B or C or HIV. If that person was not willing to do that, then that would be the end of it.

S. Chandra Herbert: The new procedure will require going through an application through the courts. Is that the approach that would be taken? Somebody would have to apply to the courts for a testing order as well as serve notice on the source individual. That source individual would then respond back — I'm just trying to understand — to the person, the applicant. Or are the courts not involved? I'm trying to understand when the courts get engaged.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What would happen is that there would be the exposure that the emergency responder or Good Samaritan was concerned about. They
[ Page 12329 ]
would make a decision themselves that they wanted to have the source of that bodily fluid tested. They would give that written notice, which would be given in person. In that written notice would be information about voluntary testing, how that could be done voluntarily, and also, information about the legislation and the intent of the legislation, the privacy issues that would be addressed.

Then the time would pass by and if a voluntary sample was not given, the individual who had been exposed would apply to the court, and that procedure would follow. Then the court, with a physician's report, would make a ruling on whether the source individual was going to be compelled to provide a sample of their bodily fluid, if they hadn't done it voluntarily.

S. Chandra Herbert: Around the application, there is an application for a testing order. The person has to advise the source individual that they've made this application so that they have time to prepare, if they choose to either get tested or provide testing information, or go through the courts to try and oppose that. We know that's not likely to happen in any large number, but it still could occur.

The source individual gets a letter or something like that from the applicant. How does the applicant find that source individual? Say it's a Good Samaritan at the corner grocery helping out somebody who's just had an emergency situation. What's the thinking in terms of where they go? They may not have a union or a professional association or a management team or somebody to help them through this procedure.

[1525]

What would they do? If you can walk me through what a Good Samaritan would have to do in this instance.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The individual who was exposed would have the responsibility of attempting to find the source individual and serving that notice, as we discussed.

If, regardless of the efforts that they made, they were not able to, there is, as we've already discussed, the possibility of going before the court and saying that it hasn't been possible within a reasonable amount of time to locate that source individual to give them the notice. If the court is convinced of that, then the order can go ahead without the person receiving notice.

R. Chouhan: In subsection (4) again it says: "The court must hear an application for a testing order…." In the definitions the "court" is defined as the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

My question to the minister is: why are we limiting it to the Provincial Court only? Why can't the person be able to go beyond the Provincial Court in case they want to appeal it or want to test it? Why are they not allowed to go all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There were discussions with the Ministry of Justice about which court would be the most appropriate level, and we decided that the Provincial Court was the most appropriate court for these applications — more accessible and less costly for the average layperson. However, decisions of this court certainly could be appealed to the Supreme Court, but the starting place is the Provincial Court.

S. Chandra Herbert: My question is around subsection (4). I understand the need in some cases for confidentiality. People may want to keep this to themselves. Is it just the applicant that can apply for confidentiality in the court proceedings, or could the source individual also apply, or maybe an interested third party?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The application that asked the court to consider privacy could be from the source individual and/or the exposed individual.

S. Chandra Herbert: I realize that I missed something in the definitions, and I just wanted to get it on the record and see if the minister could respond. I know, under the formalities of this, we've gone past it at this stage.

I'm just questioning the identification of a source individual, which we talk about through this act. In some cases, potentially, the source individual under this act may be just an alleged source individual. There may be nothing to source from, if the minister gets my meaning. Maybe the blood did not actually meet the wound, so to speak. Maybe there was not actually communication of disease, since we know the probability of transfer in some cases can be very, very low.

[1530]

What was the thinking around "source individual" versus "alleged source individual" in this act?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I think this goes back again to a point that we've discussed a little bit, maybe two or three times now, which is that the determination really comes down to that physician's report. The description of what happened, what kind of exposure it was and the determination of the level of possibility from that exposure comes down to that physician's report.

S. Chandra Herbert: Since the minister mentioned it, I guess my question is around the physician's report, which is mentioned in (3) here. It says: "An application for a testing order must (a) include a physician's report, as prescribed, and anything else prescribed."

What form is the minister envisioning this physician's report to take? Will the person have to have witnesses to say that indeed, there was bodily fluid exposure, or could it be a he said, she said kind of thing where one person says there was, and one person says there wasn't? I know there are quite often scenes of chaos in emergency situa-
[ Page 12330 ]
tions. If the minister could clarify that for me, that would be very helpful.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The physician's report will be developed under the regulations and in consultation with the groups I previously mentioned. That work has not yet been done.

There is another part of the bill in section 5 which talks about it. It's actually in (1)(c). It says: "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may have been exposed" to a prescribed disease. That will be a part of the decision-making as well, but it's going to come down to that physician's report and the actual details of that being developed within the regulations.

S. Chandra Herbert: Of course, this would be of interest to people who work…. AIDS service organizations, as one example, will be very curious as to what a physician's report would require. Is the minister thinking about consulting with those organizations as well, given their loud, vocal interest in this bill?

[1535]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The list of groups I spoke of that we would be consulting with is not meant to be exhaustive. We certainly would be very interested in what other groups think and are willing to consult with and hear from other groups such as the groups that the member opposite has mentioned.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is the minister considering accepting…? Somebody walks into a walk-in clinic because they don't have a family doctor. A 15-minute consultation, and the walk-in clinic person can fill out a form very quickly and get it out the door. Or are we expecting people to have a fuller consultation with a doctor, longer than walk-in clinics often can afford? What's the thinking here in terms of what level of doctor…? Or are all doctors on the same level here when we're talking about a doctor's report?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's difficult to comment on what kind of physician would do this work and, specifically to the point about a walk-in clinic doctor, how much time they take. The regulations around this haven't been developed yet. They will be done in consultation, and we certainly will be relying on the professionalism of the health professional who's making this report. It will be quite clearly prescribed as to what is necessary. Then that physician's report, of course, is part of what will go to the court in the application in the event that this legislation is used.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the doctor, in their report…. Sorry, to back up a step here. I didn't mean, of course, to suggest that walk-in clinics are not good places to go for health care. I guess my question was that…. Sometimes people have a habit of working quickly through those systems, and I wanted to make sure that the report gets its due diligence. Certainly, I think most medical professionals — indeed, the vast majority — would absolutely agree with that and would do what they could.

But to back up a step, if a person received the application for a testing order, and they said, "No, I voluntarily will disclose here; I have a test from a month ago," would that be acceptable? What is the window that would be acceptable for the order not to be issued?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I think the scenario that the member describes is something that would be discussed between the applicant and the physician, and then a determination would be made. If the applicant with the physician gets a physician's report and goes forward, there would still be that other check and balance of the court determination. I think that would be how it would work.

[1540]

S. Chandra Herbert: If I'm understanding this correctly, a doctor could say: "You've been tested a month before this bodily fluid exposure between the source individual and the applicant was made. That seems okay. You generally have not been a high-risk individual, thus I don't believe this is right. I'm going to recommend that this testing order not be achieved." Then, basically, that's finished at that the stage.

If the doctor of the so-called source individual decided that they had a recent test — whether it is a month, six months or two weeks — that was appropriate, the process stops there. Is that correct?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, without going into whether that's correct or that's not correct, I believe what would happen is that the applicant would have a discussion with their physician that was the attending physician at the time. The decision-making would happen there, and consideration would be given to the things that need to be considered.

I would not at all want to be arbitrary about whether you had a test the day before or a year before, anything like that. I really do think it would come down to that physician-patient relationship and the discussions therein. Then they would go forward and make a determination and fill in that physician's report with recommendations.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm sorry. I should have been clear. I was speaking about the source individual. They may receive a testing order and respond with a test which, I guess, then goes to the applicant's doctor, and the applicant then discusses that with their client.

If the client decided that a month or a week was not
[ Page 12331 ]
enough and was too big of a gap from the test they wanted them to take, that's when it would then proceed through to the courts. That's the only time it would. But if the applicant decided, "No, I've got enough peace of mind," from a test from a month ago or six months ago or a week ago, then it wouldn't proceed. Is that correct?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The only person who would be able to determine whether a court application was going to happen or not would be the applicant, the person who had been exposed from a source individual — or someone who was representing them in the event that they were not able to speak for themselves. They would be the ones who would decide whether they wanted to go ahead and go through the court system or not.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

S. Chandra Herbert: This is the section "If giving notice is impossible or impracticable." "Despite sections 2 and 3 (3) (d), the court may hear an application made under section 3 (1) without notice to the source individual…."

I understand this. This is if the applicant wants to try and connect with the person. Say it is the Good Samaritan example that I used earlier. They're in their corner grocery. They don't know this person. They can't find this person after helping them out. They may have not even needed attending medical professionals. Maybe it was an emergency like a Heimlich situation in which, in the end, the person was fine and didn't need to call the ambulance. Is this meant to help in that kind of situation?

What are we requiring a Good Samaritan to do before this would come to 4? What kinds of examples would they would have to take in order to find the person, the source individual, before this would come in, in to 4?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I don't have specific examples, but this is meant to address the importance of timeliness of response to the person who is seeking out that source individual in order to inform them of, initially, the request for voluntary testing. If they're just not able to reach that person, for whatever reason — if they can't find them, if that person is not at their usual address, if there are circumstances where they just can't do it in a timely fashion — then they can go ahead and approach the court.

The court would then have to be convinced that appropriate efforts had been made and that it truly wasn't possible to give notice to the source individual, and then it would proceed. That's how this is meant to work.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the person was of no fixed address, if they went backpacking into the back country and there was no way to reach them — those kinds of instances — that would be where this comes in.

Are there any penalties? Could this, potentially, if you couldn't reach the person to get them to come to the courts as soon as possible…? Are there penalties that come into place to try to force them into the courts to be tested? What is intended here on that?

[1545]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There are no penalties for that. I guess the penalty would be that you didn't get the written notice. The intent is that the source individual would always get written notice. They would be informed. They would get information about the legislation, the intention of the legislation, the possibility of voluntary testing, what would happen if they didn't agree to voluntary testing.

They would not receive any of that information, and if the applicant could not find them or was not able to reach them in a timely fashion, they would then apply to the court. But there is not any kind of penalty for evading detection, if that's what was happening.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think the minister alluded to it earlier, and certainly my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds mentioned Dr. Perry Kendall. Obviously, the minister will be aware of his letter which raised some concern with this bill, a concern which is echoed by a number of other organizations as well.

If we can just go through this…. It may take some time. I think the minister will agree that getting the details on the table, on the floor, is important for something as important as sovereignty of the body, of your ability to control your health on both sides in this question. It needs to be approached with particular care, given that civil liberties are something which sometimes are very easy to take away and much harder to gain. I'll take this slowly through here. Well, it may be fast. We'll see.

This is section 5, the testing order section. So 5(1)(b): "the applicant has come into contact with a bodily substance of the source individual in one of the circumstances set out in section 3 (1)." We covered earlier about being in emergency health — a firefighter, that kind of thing.

If we go down to (c): "there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may have been exposed, as a result of the contact, to a pathogen that causes a prescribed communicable disease."

I understand this is coming to regulation. I understand there's going to be the possibility of adding diseases or pathogens later. The question I have is: is it just bodily fluids? Why have we just done bodily fluids, not breath or
[ Page 12332 ]
skin, or something like that? What about if you coughed on somebody? Maybe, I guess you could argue, there's a bodily fluid exchange. Where did we get that we've decided that bodily fluids is the one key category here?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In section 5(b) it actually says the applicant has "come into contact with a bodily substance." The things the member has spoken of, such as skin, or we were hypothesizing about if somebody flung one of their organs at you — not at all meaning to be facetious. But it does say bodily substance.

The member mentions other viruses. We're certainly open…. We understand that again, as science is evolving and continues to evolve, there could be a disease that is not currently known about that might one day be covered by this legislation. But the words that are used here, for sure, are "bodily substance."

Remember, there has to be that physician's report that actually explains why there would be reasonable grounds to believe that the exposure was of enough concern that it justified the court process.

[1550]

S. Chandra Herbert: Under "Testing order," 5(d), it says that an analysis of a testing order would be given or an application for it to be made could be made if "an analysis of the applicant's bodily fluids would not determine, in a timely manner, whether the applicant had been infected."

I guess the question is, and the minister referenced it earlier: given that testing procedures that are available today in many cases can find from the individual — the applicant, I guess, in this case — whether indeed they have been infected, would this make this whole bill potentially redundant in the sense that it could be argued in the courts that the applicant could simply test themselves, and they would know if they were infected or had been given a communicable disease?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, that day may come, but that day is not today. The way it works today is that the recommendation for someone who's been exposed in this way is that they continue to have testing done for several months — some people will say six or nine months — and that only in the event that those tests are still negative at that point can they be reasonably certain that they have not contracted a virus.

S. Chandra Herbert: From my understanding, basically what we're looking at here is if somebody were exposed to blood, exposed to a bodily fluid…. Their doctor decided that this should get to a testing order stage. Given the tests, the minister is arguing that it's better to test the source individual once rather than the applicant themselves because you would have to do tests for a couple of months. Am I understanding that correctly? Would the source individual have to undergo tests for a couple of months as well?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The testing itself is evolving, and the science around it is evolving and has evolved and improved considerably in terms of the false negatives and the false positives. Today if a person was exposed, if an emergency responder like the one I described earlier was exposed and was tested initially, took the prophylactic medication, and their tests were all negative, the recommendation to that person, if the source is not known, would be to keep on having regular testing done every few months — every three months or something like that — for, I think, up to nine months. If the test still remains negative, then they could say with almost complete certainty that they had not contracted a virus.

If they have the ability to have the test results of the source individual relatively soon after the exposure and those tests are all negative, there is still a small possibility that the source individual had actually contracted one of the viruses immediately before the accidental exposure happened. So it's not 100 percent sure. There are a lot of shades of grey here, without doubt.

This legislation does not contemplate multiple tests of the source individual. The person who is exposed, the emergency worker, is still going to need to sit down with the physician not only to get that physician's report but to get the best possible advice about what to do to manage the exposure they received. That doesn't change with this legislation.

I think the thing that changes most profoundly with the legislation, if you talk with the emergency responders, and I think we've all done that, is their feeling of deep uncertainty for themselves and for the people they have come into close contact with. The breastfeeding mother was one example we were given. People with whom they have intimate relationships would feel much less worried if they knew the status of the source individual. They understand there still are those shades of grey and that uncertainty, but they would have much less concern.

When we heard from first responders, the uncertainty and the impact that had on their personal relationships and their state of mind and their psychological well-being was absolutely, unquestionably enormous.

[1555]

S. Chandra Herbert: Indeed, that is a very big burden to bear, for somebody not knowing. Certainly, it's one that I've talked to constituents and family members about as well, who have been in those kinds of circumstances.

I know I listened to speeches in the Legislature from many members talking about peace of mind. I believe the press release, as well, from government was that this bill would provide peace of mind.

I heard a few people saying that peace of mind meant that they would get a test, that they would test the source
[ Page 12333 ]
individual. If the tests would come back negative, then they did not need to do the post-exposure prophylaxis or take the post-exposure pills anymore. They wouldn't need to worry about the intimate relationships that the minister mentioned, and they would be able to go back to having those intimate relationships the minute they heard the source individual's status.

My concern — and the minister referenced it, the grey areas she spoke of — is that it's not peace of mind if, in fact, the test results you get may not actually be correct. If somebody has very recently been exposed to a communicable disease, it may not show up in that small window period. Without follow-up testing of the source individual…. I'm not suggesting that here. I'm just saying that without that, you would not be able to know completely, peace-of-mind-wise, whether or not you had indeed been exposed. The only way to know would be yourself, through your own testing and consistent testing for up to a year, which the minister mentioned.

I guess the question is: is it peace of mind, or is it partial peace of mind? What kind of security are people getting here when even if the test shows negative, it may in fact be positive?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The issues that the member raises are issues for each person who was a first responder, who was in emergency, a Good Samaritan — someone covered by this act. That individual would have to be discussing with a physician whose care they were under and working through the various things that the member has referenced and that that person would have to think about. That would be wrapped up in that doctor-patient relationship.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the reference to a doctor-patient relationship and having that. Of course, many people do not have a family doctor in our province, so you may not know the person you're talking to. It could be difficult to have those conversations with somebody that you don't know, nor who knows your medical history.

If we're talking about listening to doctors, I guess the question is: will this be helpful? Will this give peace of mind, or will it give people a false sense of security? Of course, the provincial health officer, one of our top doctors in the province, as well as Dr. Julio Montaner of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS have both raised concerns with this bill, arguing that it would not provide peace of mind, but it would provide people with a false sense of security.

I'm curious if the minister could respond to the concerns they've raised. Certainly, they spoke a lot about how early testing could be done of individuals themselves, of the applicants rather than the source individual, for a greater sense of peace of mind. That would provide greater safety, was their argument, than this legislation. I'm just wondering if the minister could respond to their complaints and why this is a better way than what they suggested.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I can't recollect in the case of Dr. Montaner, but I know in the case of Dr. Kendall that one of the concerns was that emergency responders would not do what they need to do upon exposure. Unfortunately, there was a very clear misunderstanding of what first responders do today and what they would do in the future.

If you speak with the first responders, none of them would contemplate anything other than taking immediate action upon an exposure that they thought was dangerous. They would seek medical attention immediately. They would take the appropriate steps to avoid contracting serious viruses like HIV. They would start the prophylactic medication immediately, knowing that there was some time.

I think one of the concerns that I heard from Dr. Kendall, or I believe I heard, was that people would kind of sit around drinking coffee for however long while they waited for this process and that they wouldn't take those steps.

[1600]

The first responders, clearly, would not do that. They clearly would go ahead with the PEP, the prophylaxis, immediately, and they seek medical attention immediately.

It is true that the testing, as I mentioned before, has really evolved. That was one of the things that Dr. Kendall talked about — the use of RNA or DNA, which gives you a much more rapid answer to whether somebody has contracted the virus or not. But he did acknowledge that if you're actually taking the prophylactic medication, it dampens down that response. It will delay it showing up in your bloodstream if you have in fact contracted that virus.

We are obviously in a really very difficult area here. Does anybody have statistics on the chances that the source individual, on being tested and found to test negatively…. What would be the chances that that person actually had one of those viruses? I don't believe that that science is out there anywhere. I think the answer is that it's relatively small.

The individual, though, who has been exposed and who goes ahead and gets testing done…. It's true. They can have that PCR testing done. They can know, sort of…. It's in the 90s, I think, the percentage that that test is accurate and true, but it's not 100 percent.

When we talk about peace of mind, I think what we're looking at here is physical health and mental health. It's not peace of mind that: "I think I may have left my iron plugged in." It's peace of mind of very significant viruses that one could have and that one could expose one's family to — the infant that somebody is breastfeeding, the intimate partner that someone has, the people that
[ Page 12334 ]
they love.

We clearly, in this legislation, did come down on the side of impacting on the source individual's privacy because we felt compelled to do so, on the request of the emergency responders to have this legislation. We clearly did make that determination going forward with the legislation. My thinking from the second stage reading was that it had a fair amount of support on both sides of the House.

S. Chandra Herbert: I wasn't aware that Dr. Kendall had suggested that people might just be drinking coffee and not looking after their health if they were paramedics. That's not something I heard publicly, so I can't comment on that. It would be a big surprise to me if that was something that the doctor suggested, given the strongly worded letter about support for first responders but also concerns about if this was the correct path to do that.

I think his argument around polymerase chain reaction testing techniques, which allow the detection of minute quantities of viral DNA or RNA and thus can detect the presence of viruses in the blood of an exposed individual much earlier and with greater precision than the more commonly used antibody detection kits, is very important to have in this debate.

I understand the suggestion around peace of mind. I guess my question came out of the concern that people may think they have peace of mind.

Now, I understand paramedics are told, "You must follow this procedure," and the same for firefighters. That's certainly a really good thing to hear. But in the case of a Good Samaritan or an individual who is not in one of those fields without that set of support around them….

I am concerned that all this talk of peace of mind might give somebody the belief that they can just find out what the source individual has, and then they'll know for sure. Or as the minister indicated, the person, the applicant, may find out through one test that the source individual did not have a disease, but because they are on treatment or because they've just received the disease, it doesn't show up, and they can then pass it on to their family. The applicant could — not through any intention of their own but just because they believe they have peace of mind because the government says they have peace of mind once they go through this test.

It's just a concern around terminology. I understand information and knowledge is really useful to have, but I wouldn't want to put too much stress on just waiting for a test of one person when, in fact, the only way in the long run that you'll know is if you test yourself. Even if they came back positive, there is no guarantee.

[1605]

In fact, some arguments have been that it's a 1-in-1,000 chance, 1-in-300. It certainly differed based on who you talked to and which analysis you read of what the rate of exposure is to actually contracting the disease itself.

The minister had mentioned that they didn't know of a survey or study which showed the percentage of people who might not show up as having a disease when in fact they did. I'm just curious if the minister has any statistics around the exposure rate to actual infection rate within B.C. Is this a common problem? Is this an issue where we can tell that we have X number of people who are exposed to bodily fluids at work and thus X number of people who have contracted the disease thus making this legislation necessary?

Does the ministry have that information to share with us?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First of all, with respect to Dr. Kendall's letter, certainly Dr. Kendall did not ever reference anyone sitting around drinking coffee. The point I was trying to make is I do believe Dr. Kendall was concerned that if someone knew they could use this legislation, they would not take any appropriate action — that they would delay appropriate action and that they would be labouring under a false sense of security that: "Oh, I can get the test results, and everything will be fine."

I do believe that misunderstanding unfortunately happened, that emergency responders would not take appropriate action and would not continue to take appropriate action because they were able to obtain testing results from the source individual.

Another point that was made by the medical adviser, I believe it was to the firefighters, is that from time to time — although I gather it's not common in British Columbia — there are strains of HIV that are actually resistant to the standard therapy, and that if you had the source individual's actual genetic material from the virus and you discovered that it was a resistant form that the person had been exposed to, that you could actually tailor the treatment. That is something that would be impossible without the source individual's blood.

Now, granted we are talking about something rare, and my understanding is that in British Columbia these resistant strains currently are not seen, but we certainly know that we live in the world and that things do change with respect to communicable diseases. They can change profoundly. You only have to look at tuberculosis to see that, and some of the superbugs as well.

With respect to the question the member has asked about claims that have been made, I do have some data. Between 1987 and 2011, WorkSafe B.C. accepted 227 claims for hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV exposures, and 47 of those cases were first responders such as police, firefighters, ambulance attendants and first-aid attendants. Of those workers, there was one who developed AIDS, three who developed hepatitis B and ten who developed hepatitis C.

So there have been situations in the province where exposures have led to people contracting a communicable disease.
[ Page 12335 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: On the testing order section, again, it says: "(d) an analysis of the applicant's bodily fluids would not determine, in a timely manner, whether the applicant has been infected."

This just brings to mind what possibilities would exist that somebody, an applicant, could be infected between when they had the exposure…. So they helped somebody in a life-or-death situation, and then after that, maybe it's a couple of days while they go through the procedure, they are then infected through another means, so not through that original test.

Is that considered in this legislation? What kind of means would be taken to ensure that somebody who thought they were exposed through one means wasn't actually exposed through another means, thus going through the court system to solve a problem which is not the source individual's problem but, in fact, was the applicant's problem.

[1610]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The legislation talks about reasonable grounds, and it talks about the physician's report. Those things are necessary in order to compel the court.

Now, the member is talking about, presumably, the person who has had the exposure having some sort of high-risk behaviour in their own lifestyle. What I'd say to the member is that if the source individual has been tested and the source individual is negative, it actually improves the member's case.

There is nothing contemplated in this legislation that would say that the applicant would have a police escort until such time…. I mean, nothing like that at all is contemplated. Certainly, having a negative test from the source individual would be helpful in that scenario.

S. Chandra Herbert: I asked the question because if we're going into another person's body, if we're going to force them to do something like this, we need to be very sure that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that the applicant themselves…. We know how people can work. Most people are on the up and up and do their best, but a few people can sometimes make situations really difficult for all of us. As legislators we do have the duty to have to consider these things sometimes in these pieces of legislation.

I guess the question again is: if the applicant was shown to have contracted a disease, so to speak, from a communicable illness and maybe it's the same as the applicant is trying to find out about from the source individual…. If the minister wants me to take this through in the fines section, we can do that later.

Let's say the person refused the testing order. The applicant could show that currently, according to the test, they did not have a communicable disease. What happens if it turns out in fact that both the folks had communicable diseases and that they're not actually related? Is there a way to prove that we are handing a fine out to the person who refused to be tested, but in fact it was not their blood exposure which infected the person but somebody else's? How would it be provable in the courts that it came from one person and not another?

Does the minister understand where I'm coming from with this question? I understand that it is highly theoretical and that it's a what-if question, but we have to deal with that here.

[1615]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We are in some sort of very theoretical and likely rare possibilities, but what I would come back to is that the legislation does talk about reasonable grounds in order to justify the court order. The fact that there does have to be a physician's report and that it would be under regulation…. As the science in this area evolves, I believe that would also evolve. The testing is changing, and the ability to detect things is changing substantially as time passes. I can't really be more specific than that at this point.

R. Chouhan: The minister made a reference a couple of times — and I think it's also in section 5(1)(c) — to reasonable grounds. What is the definition of reasonable grounds? It's not in the definitions section. Could the minister explain that, please?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Reasonable grounds, I'm told by my esteemed colleagues, is common legal language. The reasonable grounds would be determined by the court. The court would have the physician's report and any other evidence that the court thought was appropriate to consider. Then the court would be the one to decide if there were reasonable grounds to go forward and order the testing.

S. Chandra Herbert: Reasonable grounds, court language, legally understood. The understanding is, of course, that it must be medical. Really, in order to get to what reasonable grounds would be, the physician's report takes on a very high standard, I think. It needs to have all the information possible so that reasonable grounds could be determined.

Could the minister advise me what the process will look like to develop that physician's report? Is there going to be a draft which is then put out there for people's feedback? Certainly, people will want to ensure that it meets all the tests for the courts but also meets all the tests of new medical knowledge and advances.

In particular I'm thinking of folks like the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, folks like Dr. Perry Kendall, people like the Privacy Commissioner, AIDS service organizations like AIDS Vancouver and YouthCO AIDS Society. Those kinds of organizations would want to be aware of what a physician's report would look at, because
[ Page 12336 ]
they want to make sure that stigma attached to HIV/AIDS does not come into it. We know the vast majority of doctors are well aware of stigma attached to HIV/AIDS and certainly would work to ensure that source individuals or applicants were aware of the facts around HIV/AIDS.

[1620]

It's a scary thing. We've had many, many people over the years fearmonger about people who live with HIV/AIDS. Certainly, that's something that has taken place in this House as well.

I know we've made great strides, and I certainly want us to keep moving in that direction. But it's very important, I think, for people living with HIV/AIDS or hepatitis that a physician's report is very detailed in what it requires so that it's not a check box of a couple instances which could grab in a whole bunch of people and send them through the courts, when in fact a much smaller portion would be actually required given the knowledge of the science.

What process is planned here to ensure that the consultation takes in all those diverse viewpoints?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I won't read into the record again the groups with whom we plan to consult. I have acknowledged that the list was not meant to be exhaustive and that other interested groups can definitely come forward with input and suggestions and recommendations when we develop the regulations.

One of the reasons that the physician's report actually is in the regulations is that we do understand that this area of science is evolving. We understand there may come a day when this legislation is in fact completely irrelevant because the science has progressed to that point.

The intention would be to have a widely consultative process and come up with good regulations around the physician's report, which again would be part of what would go to the court, informing the decision about whether testing would be ordered or not.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister said the list wasn't exhaustive, but that people could come forward with their input on regulations. I'm wondering if the consultation is an outwardly-reaching consultation. Or is it just expected that the government is consulting if it receives letters from the public on this?

So when I ask what the process is, I ask: is there going to be more than waiting for people to come forward with input? Is it actually going to be outwards and say, as an open government: "Here is what the physician's report could look like and what we would look for in it. Can you provide us with feedback? We'll modify it to improve it." Is that the thinking? Or is it that inward approach of we've developed it, and you send us your thoughts without seeing the final product?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Without having the process actually clearly outlined at this point, it's not definitively developed as to exactly what it's going to look like. I can say with confidence that it would be an outward-looking process and that we'd be seeking people's advice and opinions and do it in a way that is open and transparent and available to people in a pretty straightforward manner.

I would expect that we would be using the World Wide Web, because it's easily accessible by people who aren't right here in Victoria, and that it would be, as the member has referenced, an outward-looking process.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know we're still looking at physician's reports. There are testing orders, and these questions….

I had asked about 5(1)(d), the "analysis of the applicant's bodily fluids would not determine, in a timely manner, whether the applicant has been infected." In the minister's understanding of a timely manner…. Let's say the applicant, for whatever reason, waited for 30 days before acting on trying to find out if the source individual was indeed infected. They waited 30 days. There's the three days' notice to reach the person to give them the chance to prepare their material and response to the courts. The courts themselves could take four days, could take some time. I think we're talking business days here, so we could be up to 37 days before any testing has been ordered.

[1625]

Given that large amount of time…. Some have argued that the tests we have currently can tell within ten or 12 days. If we were to wait 37 days, does the minister think, based on current testing, whether or not this bill would be useful at that stage or if in fact the applicant could test themselves in 37 days and receive the same amount of knowledge as they might through this procedure?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In this section the court has to be satisfied, as the member has referenced, that an analysis of the applicant's bodily fluids would not determine in a timely manner whether the applicant has been infected. I talked about this a bit before.

Today, without this legislation, what an emergency responder who's been exposed…. The advice to them is to continue to have testing — three months, six months, nine months — and continue to have the testing done regardless of the fact that they've taken the prophylactic medication and taken whatever steps they could to avoid contracting hepatitis B — that they still have the testing done.

We do acknowledge that, as things evolve, there may come a point where the court in fact would be able to say that an analysis of the applicant's body fluid could actually determine in a timely manner, but we're not there today, not with 100 percent certainty.
[ Page 12337 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Just to touch on the point the minister just made. To follow up, in the letter from Dr. Perry Kendall, the provincial health officer, he says:

"In fact, I am informed by Dr. Julio Montaner of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and Dr. Mel Krajden, head of virology at the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, that these techniques can, with a very high degree of reliability, indicate whether infection of the exposed person by either HIV or hepatitis C has or has not occurred by two weeks after exposure. This period may be extended for HIV if the individual is taking anti-retroviral therapy as viral replication is suppressed."

So in the case that I suggested, 30 days, 37 days — because, for whatever reason, it took that long — the person goes to the courts. But given that the provincial health officer is arguing that we can have a very high degree of reliability that a person has been exposed or has not been exposed within two weeks, is that 30-day period too long at this stage? Should it be two weeks? Should it be 12 days? Should it be 14 days, given that both of these experts have said that within two weeks we can know with a very high degree of certainty, a very high degree of reliability, rather than going through the source individual?

Is 30 days appropriate, or could we do it in a shorter time, given what the doctors have put out for us to consider?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This is where the different medical experts clearly had significant disagreements with each other. I would note that even a very high degree of reliability is not 100 percent, and that's what my margin notes say in this particular letter.

[1630]

The day may come, and it may come very soon, where it actually is 100 percent. Then no one will ever go for a court order under this legislation. But at this time it's not 100 percent. I actually don't know what number it is in the 90s, but it's definitely not 100 percent.

There has been the point made that even if a person did contract HIV, it's treatable today, and people can live with it. It's not a death sentence, as it was when I was going through medical school and it was first beginning to be understood.

We did make a conscious decision, when we were thinking about a first responder, that to say to them that it's treatable and you'll be okay…. The push-back from them would be yes, it's treatable, but the treatment is very difficult, talking again about the intimate relationships they have, even though they would have a high degree of understanding — at least in the case of hepatitis B and C.

The doctors that are quoted do acknowledge that with respect to HIV, it isn't actually within that two-week time frame because if they're taking the prophylactic medication, it makes the test less reliable. So it takes longer before you have that high degree of certainty.

I think what it comes down to is that it's just not 100 percent at this time. The recommendation would still be for these individuals to continue to test at regular intervals for a number of months, perhaps up to a year but certainly nine months.

Also not addressed — again, this is between the different medical specialists who have differing views on this — is that issue of the possible resistant strain of HIV which would cause an adjustment of the prophylactic medications that were being given. If you don't have the source person's test results, then you don't have the ability to know whether an individual might have been exposed to a resistant strain.

S. Chandra Herbert: So we're on both sides of this question of 100 percent certainty. This bill is designed so that people could get certainty and get peace of mind. But at the same time, the minister acknowledges — and I appreciate this, because I think it's a message that does need to be sent out far and wide — that even if you tested the source individual, you may not know if they are infected. They may be told through the test that they are not infectious when in fact they are.

Certainly, there's a campaign, Hottest at the Start — the idea that it's easier to spread infection in the first stages of being infectious, and you may not know it. That's often the problem — that people can spread the infection without knowing they have it, even if the tests show them that they do not have the communicable disease.

I understand that people would be advised, if they are in the health professions, to continue to take the testing and continue to take the prophylactic even if the tests came back negative. Is that correct? Would people still be advised to take the prophylactic, the post-exposure medication, even if the source individual came back…? Let's say they got tested seven days after the exposure. Would it be suggested that they should then continue because it's not 100 percent, as the minister was trying to get to?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member reminds me of something he said earlier, which I did want to address. That was the issue of a Good Samaritan, somebody who wasn't a paramedic and maybe didn't have access to a family physician or a physician provider.

Certainly, in the scenario where someone who is a Good Samaritan comes forward and gets that physician's report and actually applies to the court, I would be pretty confident that the person would have a relationship with a health care provider that was knowledgable and able to give them advice, even if they hadn't had an ongoing family doctor. We really would be counting on the health care professional.

On the question the member has asked me, the physician would be giving the advice that was appropriate at the time. As the science evolves here, the advice that was given might change as well.

[1635]

Currently the advice that would be given to someone
[ Page 12338 ]
with one of these high-risk exposures would be that they should take the prophylactic medication and should have follow-up. But I think that advice has changed over time in terms of what you should do and when you should do it and how long you should do it for. I think we can be pretty confident that it'll continue to evolve and change as the science does.

S. Chandra Herbert: In 5(1)(e) it says that "taking a sample of a bodily fluid from the source individual would not endanger the source individual's life or health." In order to get the court order or the testing order, you'd have to check that. Could the minister provide an example or help me understand what situation this is designed to assist with?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Actually, I'm not able to provide an example. I'm thinking about in what situation taking a sample of bodily fluid would endanger an individual's life or health. But this section is in here to acknowledge that the source individual's life and health do need to be taken into consideration, and it would be the court that would make the determination about this.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister. It's true there may be a few instances to consider this in. One was raised with me by a constituent, actually. They were concerned about stigma. They worked with refugees trying to escape countries where they may be put to death for being gay.

They put forward a case. Thankfully, the person has been helped now. Somebody that this could have affected was a person who had AIDS. They could have, if they had said no, that they didn't want to be tested — which I wouldn't understand, in that case, why they would…. But let's just say they did. If they did get tested and any of the information got out there that, in fact, they did have AIDS, in their home country — where they were trying to escape from — that would put them in a real fix because of that country's beliefs or that country's laws, which are homophobic and full of hate.

They were very concerned, in an instance like this, that the testing could be put forward, that it could come out somehow — maybe through the court processes internationally or the refugee processes — that they in fact were infected. This might complicate matters with their home country or with their family back in the home country.

I don't know if that's so far out there, but it is an instance a constituent raised with me. I'm wondering if that would be the kind of thing which could be taken in "endanger the source individual's life or health." It that something that would be considered under this section, or is that just another issue?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The court would consider what evidence was put before it in terms of danger to life or health. We'll come, in subsequent sections, to the privacy protection that is present around the source's blood testing and who that information can go to and the very severe penalties for anybody that breaches that privacy.

In fact, it would be the court, and if the kind of evidence that you've mentioned was brought forward to the court, of course the court would consider that. In the end, the court considers all of these things before determining whether a testing order would be put forward or not.

[1640]

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess this is the question, and I thank the minister for mentioning it. Just around the question of the courts and the question of confidentiality or not, which was raised in section 4, my understanding is court records…. You can read them on line. You can find them fairly easily if you go down to the court registry, in some cases.

Given that there is a great concern around confidentiality of what testing results might be, the question of even needing to get test results going through the court could prove a challenge for somebody if they were concerned about stigma, like the instance that I mentioned.

What considerations under section 4 would be considered in the courts to give confidentiality or to put it behind closed doors? What test would have to be met in order for this to occur?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member references the fact that court documents are public records. The individual, either the source or the applicant, could apply to the court to have the file sealed, and then the court would determine whether the identity of the source individual and/or applicant should be protected. In this case, the court would be weighing public interest in public accessibility to the court records against the individual's interest in anonymity.

But with respect to the test results themselves — and we will get to this sometime — the information in the test results doesn't ever go to the courts. The information is communicated through physicians only. Information is not made public. No personal information about either party would be provided to the applicant or the source individual, and it would never come before the court. The part that comes before the court is the application, the determination about reasonable grounds, the determination whether or not to order the testing. That's what the court is responsible for.

S. Chandra Herbert: Under "Testing order," in 5(f), it says that "the information to be obtained under the testing order cannot reasonably be obtained in any other manner." What other manners might be considered in this case?
[ Page 12339 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's conceivable that that person, the source individual, for example, could have been hospitalized due to the injuries they sustained and might in fact have had this kind of testing done. But that information is protected and cannot be released without their permission. So if the information is not available in any other way, then the court — taking into consideration all of the other things the court has to consider — could order for testing to be done.

S. Chandra Herbert: So in the case of somebody who…. Maybe they were in a coma or ended up in a coma, and the applicant was not able to receive their permission to share the blood work — or maybe they were non-verbal, whatever the situation might be. This would then give, if the court agreed, the doctor of the source person the permission to share their records with the doctor of the applicant.

Am I understanding that correctly? If the testing of the blood work had already been done, they could then work that that way? Is my understanding of this correct?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: No, I'm sorry if I made that cloudy for the member. In fact, the medical testing that you have done in that scenario is protected legally and cannot be released, unless the person actually has possession of their own results. It would be like having voluntary testing done, really.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand this now. You just cannot share that information. This would require a new test of somebody who was in the hospital — non-verbal, couldn't communicate yes or no — so that if the judge agreed, they could check on the level, if any, of any communicable diseases with that person. Okay.

[1645]

Now, just if the minister could explain (g): "The testing order is necessary to decrease or eliminate the risk to the health of the applicant as a result of the contact." Can the minister explain why (g) was included in this legislation?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In 5(1)(g) — "the testing order is necessary to decrease or eliminate the risk to the health of the applicant as a result of the contact" — this is really kind of the heart of the legislation, I would say.

It goes to the points that I have raised previously — the issue of the possibility of the source individual having a resistant form of HIV, the possibility of the source individual actually having a virus and of it taking many, many months for the person who has been exposed to actually know that, and particularly, addressing psychological well-being and interactions with family.

They're things that are very difficult to quantify, but certainly, to the first responders who came forward very strongly advocating for this legislation — similar legislation to that which exists in several other provinces — this was one of their most compelling reasons for it, not so much on the physical well-being but on the mental well-being for themselves and for the very difficult family relationships that have ensued in some cases when there's an exposure but when knowledge of the source individual is not possible to obtain.

S. Chandra Herbert: No, I've been in a situation with someone very close to me who has been in the situation where they can't find out the source individual. They don't know; they will never know. So the only thing they could do was to test themselves and to go through that testing, to follow all those procedures for up to a year. It is very tough mentally. It is very tough on family life and people — friends, family and co-workers, etc. That stress certainly is very real, and in no way do I want my questions to be seen to be questioning that anxiousness, the stress that is involved in this.

Is there a plan under (g) — or under the whole act, I guess — to review this legislation, in a year's time, three years' time, five years' time, to review the necessity of this, of whether having this act on the books continues to serve the public interest or not? What is the plan to check that the testing order remains necessary "to decrease or eliminate the risk to the health of the applicant as a result of the contact"? How are we going to keep this, to double-check it?

I know that in the States they often use sunset clauses, where legislation will come to a close unless it's reviewed by the Legislature. I don't see that in this act, but given that we've been talking a lot about how science is shifting and medical knowledge is shifting, what is the plan to ensure that this act shifts with science?

[1650]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There is not built into this legislation a sunset clause, and we have not contemplated a review in any particular time frame. But government does review legislation annually, and from time to time there are acts that are no longer relevant. They're either radically changed or sometimes even eliminated. That would be something that would be regularly done across all legislation, and this legislation wouldn't be any different.

R. Chouhan: Under section 5(2) a testing order "must require the source individual, within the time specified in the order…." What if the source individual is not even around? As we have discussed earlier, the source individual may be out of country, maybe camping somewhere…. In that situation, how will the court deal with that?

In the meantime, while the applicant, he or she, believes that they have been infected and they want to go to the source but they can't really find out the source individual, what protection do they have? What happens in the meantime? There is no time specified in that case, I guess.
[ Page 12340 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: If I understand the member correctly, he's talking about a scenario where the source individual can't be located. If the source individual can't be located, then they won't be getting a blood test. I mean, if you can't find someone, you can't find them.

R. Chouhan: A related question I also have before we ask other questions under the subsections…. If you go to the last subsection of 5(4), it says: "A decision of the court under subsection (1) may be appealed to the Supreme Court."

So the applicant makes an application and the source individual comes in front of a court and says: "Sorry, I disagree, so we are going to appeal it." In the meantime, the applicant — who probably is already infected or believes he or she is infected…. What steps can that individual take to protect themselves? How long will they have to wait? There is no test available from that source individual. The issue is now in front of the court, and now it's been appealed. We don't know how long that could take given the fact that courts are so clogged and backed up.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It would be under the discretion of the court. The source individual does have the right to appeal, and the process and how long that would take would be under the jurisdiction of the courts. There's not a timeline that is mandated. Clearly, it couldn't be mandated in this legislation. The courts can't be controlled in that way.

But this particular piece of the legislation does say that if the court made a decision, that that source individual does have the ability to appeal that decision.

R. Chouhan: My concern is still there that that individual applicant, who is now so concerned about his or her health, made an application. They went through the court procedure and everything, but now the decision of the first court is appealed.

[1655]

What happens to that applicant, who is now in a condition, a position, and believes that his or her health or their family members' health is in jeopardy? What should they be doing? Is there anything in the legislation advising or instructing them on what they could do to protect themselves?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There's nothing of that nature in the legislation. It would be similar to the way that it is today. The applicant would have a doctor-patient relationship. They would be under the care of a physician. They would almost certainly be taking prophylactic medications, and they would continue to follow up with that physician. That would be what would be possible for them to do while they were waiting for the court process to unfold.

I think the member opposite is probably aware, but I do want to remind all of us that in jurisdictions where this legislation exists today, it is very rarely used. It may not be because of the knowledge of the legislation existing, but certainly, voluntary blood samples or samples of bodily fluid are provided.

For example, in our neighbouring province of Alberta, the legislation has only ever been used on two occasions. In Ontario, which has a far larger population than British Columbia does, it's been used, I believe, on something like ten occasions. So very, very rarely does it come to this point where the court is actually mandating that you must give a blood sample and then going through, potentially, that process of appeal.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just wondering if the minister can describe what a prescribed health facility would be.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The health facilities that will be prescribed are going to be determined in the regulations. It will likely include public health facilities with the required equipment and staff that would be necessary, so something like a hospital or a public health clinic. We are going to look at whether private labs or clinics could be included or not.

One of the things that was discussed was the fact that it's possible that a source individual could, for example, be in a correctional facility that actually has a lab facility within it. Rather than transporting that person to a hospital or another place, you could look at the possibility of using that. This will be completely clear once the regulations have been developed as to where the testing would be carried out.

S. Chandra Herbert: I notice that it says, "A testing order (a) must require the source individual, within the time specified in the order," and then it goes on. We didn't quite get to that in the earlier discussion around testing orders. I understand it would be quick, but what is an expectation of a reasonable testing order time frame for somebody to go in to get tested?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The determination about the time specified in the order would be the responsibility of the court. It would take into consideration whatever factors needed to be taken into consideration, understanding that time is of the essence, so being reasonable for the source individual and taking into consideration whatever circumstances there might be — extreme distance from a lab, for example, or something like that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I think the minister makes a good point around the distance from a lab. Certainly, in some parts of our province you might be quite a distance from a lab, depending on where you live or are working.

The question that comes out of this, and I didn't ask it earlier, is: what's the expectation for the applicant? Do
[ Page 12341 ]
they have to get tested first for communicable diseases before they can then proceed through the procedure of requiring someone else to get tested?

[1700]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There is nothing in the legislation that requires the applicant to have testing themselves. But the advice that they would receive…. I think the usual scenario would be…. Take the first responder that I spoke of earlier. That person would, on a very urgent basis, see a health care provider. One of the things recommended to them, along with taking the prophylactic medication, would be to be tested immediately for a baseline. While it's not prescribed in the legislation per se, I think it is something that would be part of the regular medical advice and care for such an individual.

S. Chandra Herbert: Why was it not brought into legislation to require the person to undergo testing before requiring the courts to consider forcing somebody else to do testing?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This legislation is partly modeled on the legislation that exists in other provinces. Certainly, none of the other provinces have that built into their legislation. There's also an understanding that the individual who's been exposed…. Generally speaking, one of the recommendations along with starting treatment right away would be that they have this baseline testing done, which in part would help to guide their treatment as well.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that many health care workers, people who work in the professions that get trained on what to do in these tough situations and get trained in how to avoid bodily fluid exposure…. They will be told all about how this act could apply. They'll have done the medical training in many cases to understand what their risks are and will continue through their careers to get updates on how diseases change and how our understanding of treating them and testing for them will change as well.

I just go back to the Good Samaritan example, somebody who may have very little training, very little medical knowledge for something like this. The health professionals will be told about getting the treatment and about doing the testing and about checking their own health. In fact, probably as part of their jobs they consistently get disease testing, but the Good Samaritan may not.

I just think about an instance of: what if we proceeded through the courts? The Good Samaritan had in fact been previously infected. We require the source individual to be tested. Meanwhile, the applicant, the Good Samaritan, has not been.

So you go through the court system. The source individual gets tested, but the applicant has not — regardless of if the source individual has proven that they have the communicable disease or not. You've gone through a big process to potentially prove that a source individual may or may not have a communicable disease, without getting to the real question of: did the applicant get that disease, or did they have it before they even went into the situation?

[1705]

It's confusing to me that there's not a higher burden of proof or a higher requirement that they be tested to go through the procedure, a rather invasive procedure. The instances may be few, but in a case for that one individual who's required to be tested when maybe they have stigma issues or maybe they have just real concern about the medical profession…. Some people do not like being part of the hospital and the medical profession, for whatever reason.

Is there anything being considered to be built into the doctor's report or a form like that, where the doctor would request or ask — or be required, before going to the courts, that they have asked — the question around testing and that they have very urgently urged the person to do the testing?

I wouldn't want us to get in a situation where somebody does get tested, through being forced to by this act, when in fact the applicant already had the disease.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite is concerned about the Good Samaritan. What I would submit to the member is that if a Good Samaritan is actually going to access this act and if they are going to try to use this legislation in order to force a source individual by court order to provide a sample of their blood, then that person almost certainly is going to already have been in contact with a physician, who will be giving them advice, including getting baseline testing and taking prophylactic medication.

Even if they hadn't, they have to access a physician in order to get a physician's report to compel the court to order the testing.

This scenario, where there's someone who doesn't have access to any kind of medical care and advice, simply to me is just not going to happen. If they are accessing this legislation, de facto they will have to have had contact with the medical profession, because they will have to get that physician's report in order to go forward to the court.

S. Chandra Herbert: My question wasn't whether or not they would have access or connection to medical health professionals. My question was whether or not the doctors, maybe through the doctor's report, would be required to share whether or not the person had had testing so that the judge could consider whether or not, in a case, it could be vexatious…. Maybe they did not want
[ Page 12342 ]
their partner, let's just say theoretically, or did not want somebody to know that they had contracted the illness.

We know there are people who try bizarre things to get away from personal accountability. They may try to use this act in a way to paper over their own challenges, whether it's mental or physical, or what have you.

It's not a question of if they have seen a doctor, because I understand that through the act, if they are going to follow it, they have to. But in order to actually get to the point of going through the testing and finding out the results, I'm concerned that the person would get the opportunity….

The person who's being forced to share their medical health information, the source individual, would also have the confidence that the applicant who is pushing them through that process would also be able to show that they indeed were not, according to the best testing, dealing with a communicable illness themselves.

To move on to (2)(c), "must require the applicant to serve the testing order and any other prescribed information, within the time specified in the order, on (i) the source individual, and (ii) the prescribed health facility identified in the order," I guess the question is…. If the person is unfindable, obviously that's difficult. Are we requiring the applicant to hand-deliver a letter, or is it through the mail? How are we trying to achieve this?

For somebody who's just been in a pretty tough situation…. I think of a Good Samaritan who goes in to deal with a burning car or something like that and tries to help the people. To then ask them the next step of "go out and find the person you may have helped" — who may, in some cases….

I know, in a personal case, that the person I tried to help wanted to get as far away from the situation as they could because they were embarrassed that they'd been eating quickly. They didn't want to stay in the same room, didn't want to give out a name, because they were embarrassed about me having to help them.

[1710]

That does happen in cases where Good Samaritans try to help people. The person they tried to help disappears and then regrets it later because they feel so bad that they didn't say thank you to the person that helped.

What is going to be required here? How onerous is this for a Good Samaritan who may be acting on their own without a lot of knowledge of the legal system or the court system or the medical system?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The question about the serving of documents is actually addressed in section 12 of the act. That subsection says that the serving of any documents or notices will be done with accordance with regulations, and they will be developed. They'll be developed in consultation with the Ministry of Justice.

Generally, the serving of such documents would be done in person. That would generally be how it would be recommended to be done. It is an important part of the act because it makes sure that the source individual understands that there has been an application for a testing order and what the testing order says if one has been issued.

It is in a latter section of the act, but that's how it will work.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just moving down to 5(3): "If the source individual named in a testing order is a minor or an incapacitated adult, the testing order must require…the following to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the source individual complies with the testing order." That's the "guardian of the minor" or "a person in a prescribed relationship to the incapacitated adult."

The question is, really, what happens if the guardian of the minor or the…?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called in the other House, so I'll call a recess for the division.

The committee recessed from 5:14 p.m. to 5:26 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

S. Chandra Herbert: We were on section 5, and I was actually in section 5(3). I wanted to ask what would happen if the guardian of the minor or a person in a prescribed relationship to the incapacitated adult was not able to enforce or ensure compliance with the testing order. I'm thinking of a teenager who says to their parents: "No way. You can tell me I have to be tested, but I'm not going to." What would happen in that case?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Under the legislation, it would be up to the parent or guardian or responsible person to take all reasonable steps in order to have the source individual provide the sample. If that didn't happen, then we would go to the penalties, and those are at the discretion of the court. That would be the next step.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has a few questions on this section as well, as does the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan, who I believe will be joining us in the little House.

"Confidentiality. A person must not use or disclose any information concerning an applicant or a source individual if that information comes to the person's knowledge in the course of carrying out responsibilities under this Act or as a result of obtaining a testing or-
[ Page 12343 ]
der." Confidentiality is obviously very important in this legislation.

Now, what if the information is disclosed, if somebody comes across the information? Say the information was put out in a trash bin, or something like that. Sometimes information is wrongly disclosed from health care facilities. It's rare, but it does happen.

Does this apply to somebody who may have come across the information not through their duties but just through happenstance? Would they be not able to disclose this information, share this information? Does it apply to them or only people who have responsibilities carried out under this act?

[1730]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In the scenario the member describes, where someone comes across, really, any kind of personal information in a garbage can, there are a whole host of other legislative acts that apply and direct what one can do with that information. It depends on who you are, and it depends on the kind of information. There are the FOIPPA and the PIPA and the Health Act and a number of other pieces of legislation that dictate what can be done with that kind of information if it's accidentally found.

Here what we're talking about is the responsibility of the lab worker, the physician — those people who have access to this information.

S. Chandra Herbert: If the minister could help me understand. Is it correct to suggest that when the testing results go through, there's not a name attached to the sample but a number, so it would be difficult for analysts who are testing the blood or difficult for people who were involved in the transfer of that information to even know who it might be connected to? Is that the way the procedure works now, or are names attached to that chain of events?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I don't specifically know the answer to the member's question. Back a few years ago, for example, if someone wanted to have HIV testing, they could choose whether it would be anonymized or non-anonymized. I don't actually know the answer to the question.

This is specifically talking about the necessity for privacy to be maintained and that the information can only be…. You know, the technologist would have it and the physician would have it, regardless of the method by which that was done. That's the intention.

S. Chandra Herbert: I wonder if the minister might explain 9(3), that section — what it entails and why it's in the act.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Subsection 9(3) provides that confidentiality extends to a person who's compelled to give evidence in court, unless the presiding judge first examines the information without the public present to determine if such disclosure is of value and relevant to the court proceedings, taking into account the effect of the disclosure on the subject person's privacy.

S. Chandra Herbert: In terms of privacy and these questions of confidentiality. We earlier discussed this in subsection (4) — some of the reasons why somebody might not want to have the public court open to the public, so to speak. In this question around confidentiality, I'm just wondering….

[1735]

While it may not be determined and said aloud in the court if the person proves positive or negative — that, of course, comes after the fact — the fact that somebody might oppose sharing their status would suggest to some that they have a presumption of guilt — that they did not want to disclose their status because they had something to hide. I'm just wondering: in this section, in 9(3), is that considered an aspect of this? Is that why it's set up in such a way as the minister outlines?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: When the member canvassed this earlier, he was giving an example of someone from another country where there could be safety issues, although with this legislation, this would be applying in British Columbia. So the person actually wouldn't be in another country; they'd be in British Columbia.

Regardless, the court would take into consideration the facts that were brought to the court and make a determination about whether the court records would be sealed, whether the court proceedings would be closed to the public. The other thing, of course, is that when the source individual is informed about the applicant going forward, they do have the ability to voluntarily give a sample, in which case there would be no court proceeding.

D. Routley: Could the minister describe to me the consultations that took place between her office and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner before the legislation was tabled?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Staff from the ministry engaged with staff from the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office, discussed the intent of the legislation and discussed the concerns. There was back-and-forth engagement with staff from the commissioner's office. The intention is to continue to include the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office in consultations going forward with the development of regulations on the legislation.

D. Routley: Did those consultations affect, in any
[ Page 12344 ]
way, the drafting of the legislation? Were the concerns of the commissioner accommodated in the drafting of the legislation?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: During the consultations, the discussions back and forth, no recommendations or suggestions were made for modifying the legislation. No requests were made. So there aren't any reflected in the legislation because no suggestions or recommendations were made.

D. Routley: Was the only recommendation from the commissioner — or concern expressed, then — that the government remove the legislation?

[1740]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The commissioner wrote to the ministry on two occasions. One was toward the end of April. In that letter she concludes by saying: "I ask you to reconsider the proposed legislation. Should you decide to move forward with the EIDA, please convey to the legislative review committee that I believe the draft has significant privacy concerns for individuals from whom the court compels testing with little or no benefit to the emergency responders who this legislation is designed to protect."

She didn't recommend any modification. She asked us to reconsider. There was a second letter, which we received, where the commissioner did request that the bill be withdrawn and again articulated privacy concerns. That letter came to us in early May.

D. Routley: I understand the dilemma that the minister and the government face in dealing with this legislation, and we support the legislation. I'd just like to probe a little bit further into what the reasons might be that the government didn't make an attempt to accommodate these concerns of the commissioner in somehow making the legislation less onerous to privacy rights or at least to gain the approval of the commissioner.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly had the opportunity to discuss some of this already, as we've discussed the bill over the last few hours. The Information and Privacy Commissioner, particularly in the second letter, really is not quoting Dr. Kendall but certainly extracting large portions of what she is saying from what Dr. Kendall said. There is a significant disagreement between Dr. Kendall and the physician who was advising the emergency responders. We have canvassed this in some detail repeatedly, but I'm certainly happy to go over it again.

There is one specific area, which is that it is possible for an individual to carry a resistant strain of HIV. Without having the source individual's test results, there would be no way to know that. If the health care provider knows that information, then they're able to modify the prophylaxis so that it will work. If they don't have that information, they can't do that. Now, my understanding is that it's not common at all in British Columbia to have resistant strains of HIV. It's certainly reported elsewhere, and we know what a mobile population we have. So that was one issue.

The other is that the testing, the PCR testing, is much more reliable and with a higher degree of reliability than testing that was available in the past. I certainly acknowledge that. That was one of Dr. Kendall's points. I think that's why the commissioner came to the conclusion that there was little benefit.

But the testing is not 100 percent accurate. So the recommendation today, without the source individual's information for a provider, would be to continue to have regular testing done for at least nine months, if not 12 months, and you really could not be certain. You would be still in a grey zone.

Where this makes the biggest difference to the provider is really with respect to their emotional well-being, their psychological mental health and that of their family. A number of the first responders who gave their stories to the MLA for Kelowna–Lake Country really talked about that. That was probably the biggest focal point they had, and that is not addressed unless the source individual's test results are available.

[1745]

In terms of physical well-being, individuals almost certainly would opt to take the prophylactic medication in the absence of other information. They would do that almost immediately, along with having their blood tested and so on. That part wouldn't change.

The concern they have, and the worry they have for their immediate family and people they're close to, is something that is really immeasurable but something that people spoke about very strongly — the first responders who approached our government requesting that this legislation come in, similar to legislation that's in several other provinces in Canada and exists today.

D. Routley: Thank you for that, Minister. It is clear I think to anyone who looks at this situation that stress is an occupational health concern for first responders at all times, with such a high frequency of post-traumatic stress disorder and other health effects from enduring constant exposure to expected and unexpected stresses. One can easily see how this would create yet another burden on the first responder. I suppose that is a direct health concern by itself.

The recommendation is always that the first responder, if there is an exposure, engage a prophylactic treatment. That will continue, I presume. The approach would still continue regardless of whether a test is ordered or in the interim between the time there's an exposure and a test is ordered.
[ Page 12345 ]

Does the minister have any concerns that this might inhibit a first responder from engaging in their prophylactic treatment, given the fact that they feel more security in knowing the test results of a provider?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, in discussion with first responders…. Although I haven't had the extensive discussions that my colleague has had, in the discussions I have had, particularly with people in leadership positions — the head of the firefighters, the head of the ambulance paramedics — they indicated that the recommendations they get from their physician they would continue to carry out.

One of the concerns that Dr. Kendall certainly brought forward was that while waiting to get information from the source individual, the first responders wouldn't take the prophylactic medication, wouldn't take other steps to protect their health. Certainly, every indication that I've received from those I've spoken with is that they absolutely would continue to be guided.

As for the question of once they receive the information from the source individual, and let's say there's a negative test, the first responders I've spoken with understand clearly that the advice would likely still be given to continue with whatever course had already been recommended. The point they made is that they would want to be in a position to make an informed decision. They would want to have the information that they could have and work with their health care provider to make an informed decision based on the information that they had.

D. Routley: Has the ministry had any discussions with the Professional Fire Fighters or other groups in terms of increased education of their membership — some sort of effort or steps that might be taken to encourage that type of continued awareness — in order to proactively avoid the kind of relaxation that might occur, that was pointed out by Dr. Perry Kendall?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The legislation doesn't change what's already in existence, the advice that we've received from the provincial health officer and others in the health care community that it's very important that there's an educational component — just as it is today, regardless of whether the legislation exists or not. The firefighters, again, have given every indication that they believe that that's important as well.

[1750]

One of the things the member actually hasn't asked about but which I just want to mention here — certainly it's in Dr. Kendall's letter, and I believe the Information and Privacy Commissioner talked about this as well — is the importance of universal precautions being taken, like protective clothing, gloves and those kinds of things.

One of the points that the first responders would certainly make with respect to that is that of course they do that whenever it is possible. But sometimes in the life and death situations that they encounter, it actually isn't possible, for example, to put on a face shield to protect one's self the way that it would be if you were in an operating room, an emergency department or some much more controlled environments.

They're absolutely taking those precautions whenever they can, but there are times — and I gave an illustrative example earlier — where the first responder probably would have known that they were going to end up having an exposure. But because they believed the person's life was truly in serious jeopardy because of the threat of a vehicle going on fire and issues around an airway that wasn't protected — imminent death in the view of the responder — they would go ahead, and they wouldn't take the precautions that they would in a more controlled situation.

The Chair: I remind members that we're currently on section 9 to deal with confidentiality. While the Chair has been giving some leniency as to general discussion of the legislation, I remind members to go back to section 9.

D. Routley: In section 9(1), a person may not "use or disclose any information concerning an applicant or source individual if that information comes to the person's knowledge in the course of carrying out responsibilities under this Act." Does the minister see any vulnerability in terms of people who come into possession of this knowledge or information while not directly carrying out responsibilities under this act?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Hon. Chair, this is pretty much the same question I've already been asked and have answered. But I'm happy to address it again if I'm so directed.

The Chair: If you believe it's been answered, that's fine, Minister. Thank you.

D. Routley: In section (3), "A person who is subpoenaed or otherwise compelled to give evidence in a legal proceeding, other than a proceeding for the purposes of section of 5 (1)," which is to acquire an order for a test…. Would a person who's subpoenaed to appear in a civil matter that might arise from an exposure? Would the act and its scope on confidentiality extend to people giving evidence in civil trials that arise out of an exposure?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, a very similar question was asked, but I will go over this with the member. Subsection 9(3) provides that confidentiality extends to a person who's compelled to give evidence in court, unless the presiding judge first examines the information without the public present to determine if such disclosure
[ Page 12346 ]
is of value and relevant to the court proceedings taking into account the effect of the disclosure on the subject person's privacy.

[1755]

D. Routley: I'm not sure if the minister has already answered this as well. If a matter in a family court arises out of an exposure not directly related to the proceedings that were engaged in, in acquiring the testing order…. If there is a dispute between a couple, for example, and the information related to testing is requested by one of the parties in a family court matter, would this act provide protection for the provider of the sample?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That question has not been posed before. We believe that subsection 9(3) would still apply, that confidentiality would extend to the person who is compelled to give evidence in court. But it is a complex legal issue that the member has raised, and there may very well be other legislative acts like the Public Health Act that would come into play, which talks about when you collect information for one purpose, health information, what else it could be used for.

Clearly, the scenario that the member has described is using information that was collected under this Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, based on something that an applicant requested and was granted by the court to get information from a source individual, and taking that information and using it in a completely different way.

D. Routley: Yes. The concern that I have is that the information once taken out of that context could have the potential to affect a number of scenarios that might play out in a family court, including child custody issues and other suitability issues that might be fought out between couples in a family court and thereby implicate the privacy of a person well beyond the imagination of this legislation.

[1800]

Was there any thought given to these potential problems during the minister's drafting?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: A section that we have already passed, subsection 7(e), talks about what a qualified analyst can do with the sample. It says that the qualified analyst must do all of the following. They must "ensure that the results of the analysis are not disclosed except in accordance with this Act or the Public Health Act."

In answer to the member opposite, no, we hadn't contemplated the scenarios that he is suggesting about the possibilities that information that is obtained under this act would then be used somehow in a family court proceeding.

One thing the member opposite wasn't present for that I have mentioned earlier is to point out that, for example, in the jurisdiction of Alberta, which has had this legislation for a while, it has only actually been used twice. In Ontario, which is a much larger province than British Columbia, it has only been used ten times. It's very rarely used. Almost all of the time the source individual voluntarily gives a sample.

D. Routley: So 9(3)(a), (b) and (c) seem to spell out the parameters that a presiding judge or a person presiding over a proceeding would use to weigh the appropriateness of sharing information. Does this act limit that decision to these three terms of reference, for lack of a better phrase?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The language in the legislation says that the judge or other person presiding would have to have regard to these three things. They're not exclusive, but they are things that that judge or other person would need to have regard to — those three items.

D. Routley: The first two seem clear and within the understandable purview of the person who's presiding over a subsequent action or hearing — "the probative value of the information" to that hearing, I presume, and "the relevance of the information to the proceeding." But (c), "the effect of the disclosure on the privacy of the person the information is about," is very broad. It would be difficult to imagine that anyone could possibly extrapolate the full extent of the effect of the disclosure on the privacy of the person the information is about.

We're probably talking about a court proceeding that either would be civil, related to exposure, or somehow completely removed from the original circumstances of the exposure. In a sense this legislation is asking the judge or the person presiding over the matter to imagine all possible effects the disclosure might have on the privacy of the person the information is about.

[1805]

Is there any guidance that would be given through this legislation or the regulations that will be written for this legislation that will help that person decide what the possible effects might be of disclosure?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's not contemplated that we would regulate a judge's decision or the court's decision in that way. The determination would be made by the court as to the effect of the disclosure, and then a ruling would be made as to whether it would be disclosed or not.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

R. Chouhan: Section 10 says: "Subject to the regulations, an applicant is responsible for paying the prescribed costs relating to a testing order." Could the
[ Page 12347 ]
minister explain the meaning of "prescribed costs" in this section, please?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What this section does is provide authority for regulations which would be set out for the costs associated with the testing order — which costs would be paid by the applicant and which costs government would bear.

There are examples of some of the associated costs. They would include the cost of preparing a physician's report, the cost of doing the analysis and the cost of serving documents and notices. Those are some of the costs.

What section 10 does is provide the authority to prescribe when the applicant would be responsible for costs to obtain the order and the information they're seeking and which costs, if any, government would bear.

R. Chouhan: Now, when a first responder is in that position and is exposed to some body fluids, he or she is doing it during their working hours. So why does an applicant have to be responsible as an individual? Why will his or her employer not be paying all the costs that the minister has outlined either to serve documents or for the costs of court or anything? Because he or she was working on behalf of his or her employer, he should not then be responsible from his individual pocket.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: At this point decisions haven't been made. Really, what this section does is provide authority for regulations to be made that would set out…. That process has not yet happened, but that's what this allows for.

R. Chouhan: What kind of costs may there be for the source individual under this section, which he or she may have to do?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The source individual might possibly want to obtain legal advice or representation. They might choose to retain that. We are not intending to impose that cost on the applicant. So that would be the responsibility of the source.

R. Chouhan: When the application is made and the source individual disagrees with that and that decision of the court may eventually be appealed, would the applicant also be responsible for the entire appeal costs? Or will the government or the employer bear that cost?

[1810]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: If I understood the member opposite correctly, he is asking about costs for an appeal process. If the source individual made the decision to appeal a court decision, then we're saying that the source individual would be responsible for the cost of that appeal.

R. Chouhan: My concern is about the applicant's cost as well, resulting out of that appeal. Who will then pay for the appeal costs for the applicant?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What this section does is provide the authority for us to develop those regulations, and they haven't been developed yet.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

R. Chouhan: Section 13(1) says: "A source individual who contravenes a testing order commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $10 000." My concern is, as has been raised earlier by my colleague, that if that source individual is, let's say, a teenager who has no source of income, what happens? He or she may not comply and then has committed an offence. How would that individual be fined or penalized under this section?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In the case of a minor, such as the teenager that the member opposite references, it is the responsibility of the parent or the guardian to take all reasonable steps to get that source individual to the laboratory to have the testing done. In the event that that doesn't happen, then it does go to the court, to the penalties. The member will note that the penalties are up to $10,000. It would be up to the discretion of the court, but it would be in the hands of the court as to what the penalty would be.

R. Chouhan: I understand the intent, and I totally support the concept of this. My concern is the practicality of it. Say a minor or a teenager was the source individual and his or her parents are not in a position, even though they can take all the steps to make sure the person is advised. The individual aril doesn't comply with what's required under this law. Then who will we fine? The parents may not be working. They may be on income assistance. In a situation like that, what happens? How would you force compliance?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This really would be at the discretion of the court. According to the legislation, the maximum fine would be $10,000, and the decisions around that would go to the court.

R. Chouhan: Section 13(5) says: "Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act." Could minister explain what that means, please?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Section 5 of the Offence Act is a general offence provision. It makes it an offence for any person to contravene a requirement to do or to not do
[ Page 12348 ]
something required under an act. It is not required here, because the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act has a specific section that identifies offences under the act.

[1815]

R. Chouhan: I just want to fully understand. I think it's clear enough. Section 13(2): "A person who contravenes section 9…." It's that the person who breaches the confidentiality part, I think, is one which this section will apply to.

Now, it says: "(b) in the case of a corporation, to a fine of not more than $25 000." What would be the definition of a corporation? Would that be just any employer, or does there have to be some kind of criteria which have to be used to define a corporation?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: An example, under this act, of a corporation could be the laboratory where the testing was done. That would be an example.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 14 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 14 (3), by adding the text shown as underlined:

(3) In making a regulation under subsection (1) or (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make different regulations for different persons, things, decisions or activities.]

On the amendment.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister explain the need for this amendment and how it would apply?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The proposed amendment to section 14(3) corrects a drafting oversight. The word "may" was inadvertently left out. So just that one word "may" has been incorporated: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make different regulations for different persons, things, decisions or activities." It was a drafting error.

Amendment approved.

On section 14 as amended.

R. Chouhan: Regulations. I guess, as we canvassed earlier, they will be drafted later on. Would there be any possibility or ability that we may have a look at those regulations so that we can discuss and debate and see how they would be applied?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm not entirely certain if the member is asking if the regulations would come before the Legislature. There's not a process by which that would happen. But as I've said before, there certainly will be a widely consultative process in place in the development of the regulations around this act.

R. Chouhan: When speaking of the consultation process, would there be any public consultation on that, or will you just be consulting the experts in this field?

[1820]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, I think one of the things that's reflected in the discussions we've had today is what a highly complex area this is, and technically challenging and ever evolving.

I listened to the record earlier about the kinds of groups that we contemplated consulting with and certainly anticipate that we would consult with a wider group. But in terms of an actual public consultation process, it's difficult to see, with the complexities and the evolution of the science, that that would be something we would do. I would, however, say that there will be wide consultation on the regulations as they're developed.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment at its rising.

Motion approved.

The Chair: Pursuant to the agreement with the House Leaders, this committee shall stand in recess until 7 p.m.

The committee recessed from 6:22 p.m. to 7:08 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

BILL 45 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

On section 1.

B. Ralston: This revises section 29 of the Income Tax Act of B.C. There are two amendments — in subsection (2)(b), adding a subsection (x); and in subsection (3)(b)(i) "by repealing clause (E) and substituting the following: (E) section 127 [training tax credits]; (F) section 147 [BC seniors' home renovation tax credit]."

The substitution and addition of section 127 — that's related to other legislation but not this particular bill, I believe. Can the minister just confirm that?

[1910]

Hon. K. Falcon: The new section (E) there differs only from the old section (E) in that it eliminates the word "or." Section (F) refers to the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit, which is the new tax credit that is now being added as part of this bill.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Ralston: This is the substantive section which deals with the home-renovation tax credit, and there are a number of definitions, so I'm going to take the minister through an explanation for some of these definitions.

Perhaps we can begin with "eligible individual." I'm looking particularly at subsection (b)(i) and (b)(ii). Can the minister explain those?

Hon. K. Falcon: Under this section, the definition of "eligible individual" is required to ensure we determine what exactly and who exactly — which individuals — is eligible to claim the credit. Eligibility is extended to seniors and their qualifying relations who live with them.

B. Ralston: So "qualifying relation" is defined a little bit later in the same section. It means "a person who is connected or related to the individual in any manner described in section 251 (6) or 252 (2) of the federal Act." Perhaps the minister could briefly expand upon what that means.

Hon. K. Falcon: This definition, the "qualifying relation" definition, is required to determine which individuals, who may not be seniors, may also claim the credit if other requirements are met. Essentially, what we mean by that in terms of other requirements…. It would include that they may be a son, daughter, brother, sister, niece, nephew, stepchildren, etc., — the kinds of things that make clear that they have a relationship with the senior.

I think, in layperson's language, we want to ensure that those who are taking advantage of the seniors renovation tax credit are doing so in support of seniors related to them in some fashion that is defined here in the qualifying relation.

B. Ralston: So the qualifying relative — I'm looking at subsection (ii) — can make the expenditure on behalf of the senior and then claim it themselves. Or does the senior have to claim it?

Hon. K. Falcon: They could claim that themselves because it would be providing a benefit to the senior.

[1915]

For the sake of argument, say the member opposite wished to have an elderly parent live at home with them but needed to make some modifications that would allow the elderly parent to live with them. They could make those investments and then claim the credit. The benefit, of course, would be accruing to your elderly parent when they're able to move into the house and live in the house with you.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, and maybe I'm not: the senior would claim the tax benefit, or the qualifying relative who made the expenditure for the senior would claim the tax credit?

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you for letting me clarify. The credit would be claimed by the one making the investments. So in the example that I give out, if the member opposite was the individual that was moving his elderly parent into his home, he would make the application, and he would receive the credit for the investments that he made in order to allow his aged parent to be able to live within the home with him.

B. Ralston: In the definition of "principal residence," there's reference made to a non-seasonal mobile home. I think one has an intuitive sense of what is meant there. How would that be determined?

Hon. K. Falcon: The definition here is to ensure that the qualified individuals are claiming the credit. We want to ensure that the principal residence is indeed an individual's primary place of residence. So the reference there to non-seasonal mobile home just means that it is a mobile home used as a principal residence, not something that is used seasonally, maybe a summer vacation home or what have you. It must be the principal residence.

B. Ralston: I'm looking at the definition of qualifying expense, and in (g) there's reference to "for financing costs in respect of the qualifying renovation." So if the financing costs are incurred or there's an agreement to…. I'm looking at, say, (f), "an electronic home-entertainment device" or "acquire a household appliance." If those are to be paid…. If the contract is, say, for two years or three years, how is that apportioned in terms of eligibility for the credit? Is it the payments made in each tax year, or do you take them all at once, or do you claim it at the end?

There may be other clarifying language, but perhaps I'll just leave you with that question at the moment.

Hon. K. Falcon: So the "qualifying expenditure." The (a) to (i) are actually the items that do not qualify. Just prior to subsection (a), you'll see there it says, "but does not include such an outlay or expense," and then goes on through (a) to (i) to outline what kinds of expenditures would not be qualifying.

Again, qualifying expenditures do provide some clarity around exactly what kinds of things are going to be
[ Page 12350 ]
eligible in terms of expenditures that will be able to apply towards the renovation tax credit.

[1920]

B. Ralston: In the first part of the definition, it's referred: "the rental of equipment used in the course of, the qualifying renovation...." Is that intended to refer to, say, equipment rental for the purposes of doing renovations, or is there some other meaning to that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. This would mean that if you required certain machinery or equipment necessary to undertake the renovations — for example, the installation of a ramp in the home that would perhaps make it wheelchair accessible — then that kind of equipment rental, which is specific to undertaking the renovation necessary to allow an aged senior to remain in the home, would qualify.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain section (i)? That is one of the non-qualifying services. So it says: "in respect of goods or services provided by a person not dealing at arm's length with the individual, unless the person is registered for the purposes of Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (Canada)." Does that mean that they have to have a GST number?

I'm just thinking. Typical home renovations may be performed by some other related party or a member of the family, which would fall under the definition of a qualifying relation. They may be doing the work. So I'm just wondering. Does that mean if they're registered for GST, then that's fine?

Hon. K. Falcon: The purpose here is to ensure that those that are doing the work that would be eligible work being done to qualify for the credit must be GST-registered. This, I think, is important for ensuring…. It, in part, deals with a lot of the under-the-table work that often goes on.

One of the surprises, maybe not surprising, that the federal government discovered, evidently, in the course of a renovation tax credit that they had running a couple of years back during the downturn, was a surprising increase in their GST revenues as a result of a lot of what used to be under-the-table work suddenly becoming above the table, because people realized that for their clients to gain access to the renovation credit they had in place, they had to be using GST registrants.

So this really mirrors that principle. It does not mean, of course, that if you're doing the work yourself, your materials that go into the work, etc., would be eligible. But you would not be able to say, "Well gee, I put in five hours of my own time doing this" or "My brother-in-law, who is pretty nifty with a saw but is not a GST registrant did five hours of work, and I want to apply that towards it." That would not qualify. They would have to be a GST registrant, whether they're arm's length or non–arm's length.

B. Ralston: The next definition, the "qualifying principal residence," refers to an expectation that it would "become the principal residence of the individual within 24 months after the end of the taxation year."

I believe the minister explained this at second reading, but I just wanted to clarify and be sure that this is intended for the situation where the renovations are performed on a property with the intention that the eligible senior would move there within that time frame, thereby not requiring them to live there prior to the renovations being performed for the property that they're going to live in. It seems reasonable to me, but I just wanted to clarify that.

[1925]

Hon. K. Falcon: That's exactly what the point is here — to encourage the kind of renovations that may be necessary to allow an elderly parent to move in with you so that they would be able to continue to have the independence that most seniors want to have, living with close family members, but are currently unable to do so given the condition of the home.

It may mean, for example, as I mentioned in second reading, that a bathroom may need to be installed, say, downstairs, because the senior would not be able to manage the stairs, or it could be renovations that would allow lifts or ramps to be installed that would allow the senior to be able to live in your home but would not be possible without those renovations first taking place. So the member opposite is correct.

B. Ralston: Just so that's clear then. If you complete the eligible renovation, are you entitled to deduct it in the year in which it's incurred, with the idea that prospectively the senior is going to move into the residence? Or do you have to wait until the senior's actually moved into the residence, and you may have to wait a year or two to do that?

Hon. K. Falcon: You would file in the year it is incurred.

B. Ralston: I suppose, then, you're accepting people's word on their tax form. What is the provision for declaring if, say, unfortunately the person…? It's prepared for them, and, say, they die in the intervening time, and they don't get to use the residence. What's the provision for recapturing that credit?

Hon. K. Falcon: Later on it will come up, but there is a provision for a death in the year that that may take place that would ensure they would still have eligibility, even if the individual did pass away.

B. Ralston: And in the case that the person simply
[ Page 12351 ]
doesn't move in? They change their mind. They go elsewhere. Their health deteriorates. They require more intensive care. What happens then?

Hon. K. Falcon: In that case, then, they would not qualify.

B. Ralston: Just so I understand it. You perform the renovation. In that tax year you take the deduction, yet there is a lag provision of up to 24 months. At the end of the 24 months, say, for whatever reason the person — I'm not talking about the case of death; that's a specific case, obviously — hasn't moved into the property. What happens then in terms of the tax treatment of the credit — which I gather, if it's given the year previously, the person would no longer be eligible for? What's the provision for capturing that? I'm presuming that, like many other aspects of the taxation system, it's a self-declaration that's required.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that as long as the individual was reasonably expected to be moving into the dwelling where the renovations were taking place, pursuant to the idea that they would receive a credit as a result of having these folks move in…. As long as they were reasonably expected to move in, then I am advised that it would qualify. The question will be intent. There would be a fairly careful look at that intention to move in to ensure that it was real, etc.

[1930]

If it found that, in the case of the review, they were not eligible, then there could be a reassessment done for certain. But I understand that it really boils down to the question of intent and the reasonable expectation the folks held that they were expecting that individual or individuals to move in.

B. Ralston: Turning, then, to the next definition. Again, I have a sense, from listening to the minister and reading the material, of what is intended, but perhaps the minister could outline at a more conceptual level what an eligible renovation is.

There's some language here. It is of an enduring nature "integral to the residence or the land." It would "ordinarily be undertaken by…a person who has an impairment to enable the person to gain access to, or to be mobile or functional within, the person's residence or land."

Without being prescriptive in the sense of setting out a list of eligible expenses, I'd appreciate the minister at least just commenting on this section in order to aid interpretation at a future point, should that be necessary.

Hon. K. Falcon: The section here of "qualifying renovation" is to try and be reasonably expansive in terms of what elements are potentially eligible for the renovation tax credit. The member, no doubt, sort of garnered that in his reading of the section.

The idea is that we want to provide things that "enable the senior to gain access to, or to be mobile or functional within, the residence" and reduce risk of harm to the senior within that residence — so any category of things that could reduce harm — that is "of an enduring nature and that is integral to the residence or the land on which the residence is situated" or, as it goes on to say in subsection (b)(ii), "relates to the purchase and installation of a modular or removable version of an item of a type that can otherwise be installed as a permanent fixture."

Those are the kinds of things, in the discussion I was just having with staff — for example, like a grab bar — that you would install that would be important for an elderly parent, for example, to perhaps provide assistance in the bathroom for getting up but would not necessarily be a permanent fixture if, after the passing of your elderly parent, you might be subsequently removing that.

We have provided on the website some examples of these eligible expenses, for the benefit of the member, that go into a fair bit of detail on what kinds of things this can include. It covers things like grab bars, handrails in corridors; wheelchair ramps or stair and wheelchair lifts; walk-in bathtubs and wheel-in showers; widening passage doors; lowering existing counters or cupboards; installing adjustable counters, cupboards and light switches and electrical outlets placed in accessible locations; and on and on it goes.

There is quite an extensive list for the benefit of those that may be viewing this or for the benefit of the member opposite, which he can refer to.

[1935]

At the end of the day, we tried to write this in a way that allowed us some ability to utilize some reasonable discretion where it was clear what the intent was, and it's to assist the senior to be able to remain in the household and live independently.

B. Ralston: Yes, that's a sobering litany of the prospects for us all, if we get to that age. I'll continue on.

In sub (a)(ii) there's a reference to reducing the risk of harm to the senior within the residence. Would an eligible expenditure include a security alarm system or any other target-hardening things that sometimes police and Block Watch make reference to, making it more difficult to pry doors open, or windows, that sort of thing — just the whole security cluster? It does specifically refer to reducing the risk of harm, so I suppose one definition might be to include those expenses in that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that services like medical monitoring services, security services, etc., would not be eligible. That's not. That would include the example the member provided of the home security system — an alarm system, if you will. It would not qualify. But motion-activated lighting, as an example, would, where a
[ Page 12352 ]
senior approaches the home and triggers motion-activated lighting, which could prevent falls, etc. That would be eligible.

B. Ralston: I'm not sure that I'm quite following. I understand, given the previous definition of "qualifying expenditure" that we discussed, that it would be ineligible for the cost of an annual recurring or routine repair or service. If you have a security system installed, presumably that section would mean your ongoing cost — your annual cost or your monthly cost — of maintaining it. Presumably also the medical monitoring would fall under that definition.

I mean, I guess the jargon would be "capital costs," the initial expenditure to install the system. Sometimes in a home security system that is the upfront cost. I think by the reference to the lights that the minister just made, it seems to be that the intention here is that the capital costs, if you will, but not the ongoing service or monitoring cost would be the way it would be divided.

Am I understanding the minister correctly on this point?

Hon. K. Falcon: On the website we point out some examples of ineligible expenses, and this is always the challenge with these programs. You want to try and be as expansive as possible to what can apply, but at the same time you want to make sure that you don't open the door to unlimited takeup on things that you never imagined might be considered.

Under ineligible expenses we've got a section called "Devices," and that includes equipment for home security, like the anti-burglary equipment that the member talked about. It includes things like wheelchairs, walkers. Any devices that come under the category, I guess, of devices would not be eligible. That would include, as the member opposite talked about, even the capital cost for a burglary system, unless it was motion-activated lighting, which is part of the eligible criteria.

[1940]

B. Ralston: I don't want to pursue this at great length, but what is the thinking behind the difference between the motion-activated lighting and a burglary system?

Hon. K. Falcon: The intent of the program really at the core comes down to: how do we help seniors stay in their homes longer and to live with more independence, more safely, in terms of falls, etc.? The installation of a burglar alarm or anti-theft alarm device is not considered to…. You know, you have to make these choices of where you're going to draw the lines. That was not considered necessary to allow a senior to live independently in the home either on their own or with a relative.

B. Ralston: Well, I think some might see it, particularly in the case of a single elderly woman, as an important part of the sense of security and, therefore, a willingness to live alone in a house. If you had a security system, that might provide a good deal of comfort to some.

I think it may be, given that the regulations in this will be flexible, perhaps an area where the staff might want to reconsider their position at some point if there's a interest in that kind of expenditure.

Moving on now to the tax credit. I think it's fairly straightforward how that's calculated. But I'm looking at subsection (4), which refers to the apportionment between a strata corporation or a cooperative housing corporation and individual units. Can the minister explain how this apportions the qualifying expenditure?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that, in this case, if you have a situation where there is a strata corporation where an expenditure is made for the benefit of, say, a senior in the building…. Say there are ten units in the building. If a senior's in one of the units and a ramp is installed, then the senior would be entitled to their portion, their one-tenth portion, of the cost associated with that. They would be eligible to utilize that as part of their credit to be claimed with respect to that.

B. Ralston: In the next section there's reference to an expense made or incurred by a trust. I would take it this would be a relatively unusual situation. It goes on to say: "the outlay or expense would be a qualifying expenditure of the trust if the trust were a natural person and the property were the principal residence of that natural person." Can the minister just describe the situation in which a trust would be eligible to claim?

[1945]

Hon. K. Falcon: It's similar to the last description in that if the building is owned by a trust, then they would be entitled to, again, whatever their share of the trust is. They would be entitled to that portion being eligible for the renovation credit.

B. Ralston: Looking at subsection (6), I gather that regardless of the number of eligible individuals in one taxation year who claim for the same residence, the total amount of qualifying expenditures can't exceed $10,000, and (b) looks to be a similar provision for an individual or a spouse or common-law partner. So they both may be eligible to claim, but the total of their collective claims can't exceed $10,000. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite is correct. The credit is capped at $10,000 per residence.

B. Ralston: But by $10,000, the minister means $10,000 in qualifying expenditures, not the credit, because the credit is less, obviously.
[ Page 12353 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: That's correct.

B. Ralston: We had referred to the issue of what happens on death in section 145. Can the minister briefly explain the intent of those sections there?

Hon. K. Falcon: This just clarifies that if there is a situation, as the member mentioned in previous questions, around renovations being undertaken to provide benefit and support to an eligible senior that's moving into a residence and that senior happens to die or pass away, this ensures that the individual would still be eligible to claim and receive the renovation credit, as it was all done, again, with the reasonable expectation that the senior would be moving into the building.

Death alone would not be a reason that would be used to disallow that individual to claim the credit.

B. Ralston: Section 146(2) makes reference to the medical expense credit, which is a federal program or federal deduction.

I take it that this is to regulate the interaction of this credit and the medical expense credit. Given the range of examples that we've discussed, there obviously might very well be some overlap in terms of eligible medical expense and modifications to a building to accommodate movement of a person who might have some kind of illness.

Is that what it's intended to regulate? Or perhaps I could at least get an explanation of that from the minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: Section 146 allows an individual to claim the same eligible expenses for both the seniors home-renovation credit and the medical expense credit. The rationale behind that is that we want to ensure that the seniors home-renovation tax credit will provide seniors with additional assistance over and above what may be provided by the medical expense credit. So this would, in fact, end up providing further support for seniors who wish to remain in their own homes longer.

[1950]

B. Ralston: But just so I'm clear, it's not a double deduction for the same expense. In other words, you can't deduct it under both heads for the same expenditure. Or is that the intention?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is in fact a double deduction where there is an overlap. The purpose here is to provide further support for seniors, and this achieves that objective.

B. Ralston: Could the minister, then, give an example of how that might work in practice?

[R. Sultan in the chair.]

Hon. K. Falcon: What we're trying to do here is to make sure that…. We don't want to end up inadvertently penalizing seniors that may have taken advantage of the medical expense credit and then go find out about our program, wish to take advantage of the seniors home-reno credit and find out that, in fact, they would not qualify because they'd utilized the medical expense credit.

As an example…. I don't have a list, Member, I should tell you, of the qualifying medical expense credits. For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that ramps were one of the qualifying medical expense credits that were available. Now, in the event that they undertook and received their expense credit for that through the medical expense credit, they would then be eligible for the same expense under the seniors home-renovation tax credit. So they would, as the member pointed out before, be eligible for a double deduction. That would qualify.

The point here that we're trying to do is to ensure that we are, I guess, being as generous as we can be to try to assist seniors. We just don't want to be in a position where we are penalizing those that had taken advantage of the medical expense credit and then find out that they're not going to be eligible for this program.

B. Ralston: Looking at "Power to make regulations," section 150. I think that confirms that the "improvements" is a list that's subject to regulation and therefore can be varied.

In subsection (2), there's a mention of April 1, 2012. Is that the date at which eligible expenses were…? If you had incurred expenses after that date, you'd be eligible for the program. Or do we have to wait until the bill is —as it will be, for sure, by five o'clock on Thursday this week, one way or the other — proclaimed into law? Is that the start date in terms of eligible expenditures?

[1955]

Hon. K. Falcon: The start date would be, in fact, April 1, 2012.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

B. Ralston: Moving, then, to the next part, the first-time new-home owners bonus.

The eligible individual is a first-time new-home buyer, a resident of British Columbia, and there are some exclusions. The ones I'm interested in are (c) and (d). I think section (e) about being confined to prison was probably pretty straightforward and (f) is "a prescribed individual." I would take it that that's a drafter's interjection just in the event that there is some regulation that would want to be captured, and that would be something that might be done by way of a future regulation.

Perhaps the minister could explain the choice of ex-
[ Page 12354 ]
cluding (c) and (d).

Hon. K. Falcon: Really, what we're saying with (c) is fairly straightforward. We just want to ensure that an individual and spouse must both in fact be first-time buyers and meet the eligibility requirements that are set out. So you can't have a situation where one has already owned a home previously and the other hasn't. They must both be first-time buyers and meet the eligibility requirements that are set out above.

In the case of (d), it's really the same thing, except that if you're purchasing with one or more individuals…. Say, for example, I was going — and purchasing with two of my brothers — to buy a home. Then, again, all of us must be in the position of being first-time buyers and not have previously purchased and owned a home. So that mirrors subsection (c), except it applies to people who are not a spouse or common-law partner.

And (f) — the member is correct. "A prescribed individual" just allows the ability to deal with an unforeseen, unthought-of situation that may arise.

B. Ralston: Looking at the definition of first-time new-home buyer, it says it's an individual who "has not previously held a registered interest" and so on. It says: "…whether in British Columbia or elsewhere." Say you purchased a house in Ontario. You've come out to British Columbia. Is that within the constitutional jurisdiction of the provincial government to specify that? Obviously, the intention would be that you wouldn't want to probably confer that benefit on someone who had previously purchased a house as a first-time buyer in another province.

Perhaps the minister could just explain what is meant by "or elsewhere."

[2000]

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, this is tailored to first-time new-home buyers, so that means that if they've owned a home before, whether in British Columbia or anywhere else in the world, they would not qualify. I'm advised that that is similar to the provision we have in place under the property transfer tax exemption relief that we provide for first-time buyers. It's the same type of provision.

B. Ralston: The enforcement mechanism, then, would be self-declaration — subject to audit, I suppose, as well. You can confirm that if it's not accurate.

I'm looking next at the definitions of eligible transactions. I think the first several are pretty straightforward — a house, a condominium, capital stock in a housing cooperative. Can the minister explain (d), where it seems to permit the acquisition of land providing there's a residence going to be built on the land with substantial completion before April 1, 2013? Is that the intention of that particular section? Then I'll ask about (e) shortly.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member's first point, he was correct in his description of self-declaration followed by audit. He's right that they would have to self-declare in terms of presenting themselves as first-time new-home buyers who have never purchased or owned a home previously, and we would be checking that through auditing to ensure that they have been correct in their self-declaration.

With respect to section (d), this is to capture owner-built homes, people that are owning and building their own homes. It's clarifying that that is qualifying subject to the homes being substantially completed or occupied as their primary place of residence before April 1, 2013.

B. Ralston: Then looking at (e), it refers to the acquisition of a mobile home or floating home. It requires for the "acquisition of the land, if any, to which the mobile home or floating home is attached…."

In the case of a mobile home, quite often, I'm sure, as the minister will know…. Certainly, my colleague from Surrey-Newton is a bit more of an expert on this than I am. Typically, the person who uses that as their principal residence would own the mobile home but only rent the pad or the land underneath it. If that's the situation, is the acquisition…? There is the qualifying phrase "if any." Would that be eligible for this purchase?

[2005]

Then secondly, similarly for the floating home. Obviously, I think typically you would own the floating home but you would either lease or rent the water lot on which you would dock the floating home. I appreciate that these are probably…. Although mobile homes are fairly widespread, floating homes, not so much. I'm sure they may be of interest to those who are thinking of buying one of those.

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. It would qualify whether you are renting the pad, own the land, it's a floating home — whatever the case may be — as long as, in the case of ownership, you have purchased that from February 21, 2012, and before April 1, 2013. Essentially, it is just trying to match — and these in fact do match — the rules around HST.

If you bought it, if you have paid HST on it, then you are qualifying for the rebate that we're talking about here, regardless of whether it's rented, owned, etc. — subject to, of course, the provision there about "on or after February 21, 2012," in the case of the purchase of land, and "before April 1, 2013," in terms of the eligibility dates.

B. Ralston: The next section I want to look at is the tax credit for the first-time new-home buyers, and there is the formula that's set out there. This was referred to back in the definition of "family income." It's either the
[ Page 12355 ]
income of an individual or of a spouse or common-law partner when it exceeds $150,000. I take it that's taxable income. Can the minister explain what the significance of that threshold is and why it was chosen?

[2010]

Hon. K. Falcon: The bonus as it applies is 5 percent of the purchase price of an eligible new home up to a maximum of $200,000 on the price of a home, because that's where you would max out in terms of the rebate amount of $10,000.

We know that, generally speaking, in British Columbia most houses are certainly $200,000 or higher. So it is likely that most individuals, though not all, would qualify for the full $10,000.

We did provide a provision that the bonus is reduced over certain income thresholds. I'll just take a moment to explain that. The bonus starts to become reduced if income is in excess of $150,000 for the year. For single individuals, for example, they would start to see a reduction in the bonus from $150,000 up to $200,000, and then there would be nothing available over $200,000.

It's probably worth pointing out that I'm advised that less than 1 percent of single individuals in the province actually have an income of over $150,000 a year. It's a relatively small group.

With respect to couples, the bonus starts to be reduced, again, where there is family income in excess of $150,000. It gets reduced up to $250,000 of combined family income, and over $250,000 it is eliminated entirely.

I'm advised that the number of couples that earn up to $250,000 a year in B.C. is less than 2 percent of the couples population. So by the time you're up to that maximum, you're a very small group.

There are lots of…. I mean, we can give examples, etc., if the member wants. The principle here is we're trying to help the people that most need the help, but we're trying not to have that income threshold be so low that we're really eliminating couples, in particular, that are working together to buy a home and have decent income but not a huge income. We want to make sure that they are eligible for the full benefit.

B. Ralston: The definition of family income…. This particular calculation doesn't specify it, but I just wanted to be clear that the reference is to taxable income. It's not gross income, is it?

In the definition it says it's "the income of the individual for the taxation year" and, similarly, "the income of the spouse or common-law partner for the taxation year." I would take it that that is their taxable income. I'm looking at the definition of family income that forms part of this calculation.

[2015]

Hon. K. Falcon: Back under the definition of "family income," we're referring to net income, which is line 236 of the income tax form.

B. Ralston: The following sections appear to just talk about the calculation of the tax, and then there are the enforcement and appeal mechanisms. Can the minister briefly explain, in section 162, the circumstances in which an administrative penalty might be considered?

Hon. K. Falcon: There are two types of penalty provisions here. The first I would characterize as being for individuals that are really grossly negligent in applying for the benefit, where it is very clear that they are doing so knowing that they are in fact not qualified to receive the benefit.

In this case, when there is that kind of gross negligence — and, obviously, we would have to do our homework to ensure that's the case — we would impose not only a $10,000 penalty to receive back the $10,000 they received that they shouldn't have, knowingly, but also another $10,000 for the false disclosure that they have been involved with. This is specifically to make sure that people understand there is going to be a serious price paid if they are in fact falsely attempting to receive this benefit.

[2020]

The second is consistent with provisions that are found in the Income Tax Act, which just ensures that they have a requirement to notify the provincial government if there are any changes in circumstances that would affect their eligibility. If, for example, there is a change in their net income that could dramatically impact their ability to qualify, they would have to notify the province within a 90-day period to ensure that the province is made aware of the change in circumstances that could affect their eligibility.

B. Ralston: Looking at subsection (3), there is a reference to a subsequent assessment. Is that the case where there's a reassessment of the individual's or couples' income and it changes in a way that would affect the dollar value of the grant that's being paid? Is that what that's intended to catch — and that there's an obligation to give notice of the reassessment?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct.

B. Ralston: I think those are all the questions I have on this section.

I have a question on section 6, when we get to it, which is "Commencement," but I suppose we should close off on this section.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.
[ Page 12356 ]

B. Ralston: Dealing with the last section, section 6. The main sections, sections 1 and 2, commence, then, on April 1, 2012. If a person has entered into an interim agreement and the transaction completes after April 1, 2012, then I'm assuming they qualify. Otherwise, they would be eligible for the grant. Is that correct?

The Chair: For clarification, we're still on section 5. We haven't passed section 5.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I misread here. It says "Commencement," and it says "6." Whether 6 is included as part of section 5, I'm not sure, or whether that's a separate section. My intention was to speak to that issue of commencement.

Hon. K. Falcon: It is section 6.

B. Ralston: My question is directed to that section.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, we're going to seek a bit of clarification, because I think you may have inadvertently mixed up some of the sections and the dates, which would be easy to do.

To clarify, items 1 and 2 of the column there refer to the seniors home-renovation tax credit. Then you've got section 3, with the commencement date of February 21, 2012, referring to the first-time-homebuyers bonus.

[2025]

Then section 4 has a reference again to the seniors home-renovation tax credit, and section 5, again, the first-time-homebuyers bonus date of February 21, 2012. Maybe the member could now clarify the question.

B. Ralston: I think there was an error there. I'm referring to section 3, which is the commencement date of the first-time-homebuyers…. Just for the sake of those who may be following this, although it might be a fairly rarefied group, if you made an interim agreement, if you have made a deal, it is the completion date of the transaction that's the relevant date. Presuming that it's after February 21, 2012, and all the other eligibility requirements are met, would you qualify then?

Hon. K. Falcon: To be clear, if you have entered into an agreement of purchase and sale prior to budget day of February 21, you would not be eligible for the first-time new-home buyers bonus. We are trying to deal not with historical purchases and historical behaviour but to shape prospective behaviour to support new purchases of new homes in the province of British Columbia. That means they must have entered into an agreement of purchase and sale on or after February 21, 2012.

This is maybe a good way of explaining — not for the member opposite, who knows this well — to the members of the viewing public that that's why there is budget secrecy around these things. You have to make sure that this information is top secret. When it comes out, it could affect purchase decisions. We want to make sure we're affecting purchase decisions on a go-forward basis, not ones that took place prior to that.

B. Ralston: One last question, then. The final date on which an agreement would have to be concluded in order to be eligible would be March 31, 2013. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: March 31 is correct.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee at its rising report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: We'll take a short recess before we deal with the next bill.

The committee recessed from 8:30 p.m. to 8:39 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

BILL 38 — PENSION BENEFITS
STANDARDS ACT

On section 1.

B. Ralston: I'm looking at the former act. Perhaps, just as a way of introducing part 1, which has all the definitions, the minister can give a broader view of just what the legislative purpose was in amending this act. More broadly speaking, obviously it's to renovate and update it, but if there's anything that he specifically wants to draw attention to. It is a complete rewriting of the former Pension Benefits Standards Act from 1996, and there are a number of nuances in it, but that would be the first question.

The second question, just while I'm up, is…. The minister has spoken of a proposed amendment. I know — and he's aware of this as well — that there is intense public interest, likely, in that amendment.

[2040]

I'm wondering how he wishes to deal with that amendment. It might be useful for those who would choose to follow this to get some sense of the minister's intention on that amendment early rather than later. It might save
[ Page 12357 ]
us some explaining.

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the opportunity. This is essentially a complete rewrite of the pension act. As the member would know, the current act was brought into force in 1993 and was based on an act largely lifted, I understand, from the Alberta pension legislation of 1967. So to say it is an older piece of legislation would probably be a bit of an understatement.

In recognition of that fact, a B.C. joint expert panel on pension standards was appointed and produced a report in 2008 which made a series of recommendations that are to be found in this rewrite, some of which we will no doubt be discussing today.

They are based on what is seen to be best practices in terms of providing appropriate flexibility, oversight and regulation of pensions and pension standards, and making sure that we meet the unique challenges — not altogether unique, but some of the unique challenges — that many pension plans face, particularly in the low interest rate environment we find ourselves in.

That'll be what we'll be discussing here today with respect to the proposed amendment that has considerable public interest. I thank the member for that. I will share a copy of the floor amendment with the Clerk.

But this has to do with the issue of deemed trust provisions. This was in existence under the old act, section 43.1(3), the key part being a sentence that referred to amounts deemed to be held in trust under subsection (1) deemed to be separate and apart from and form no part of the estate of the participating employer.

I think the removal of that raised some concerns from certain folks out there. I think — through an overabundance of caution, perhaps, but to ensure that people aren't misinterpreting its removal — that we are by floor amendment, proposing that…. When we get to section 58 of this bill, we will have available the floor amendment, which I will share with the Clerk now. We'll have the opportunity to ensure it is included.

[2045]

So in layperson's language…. For those out there that have an interest in this, who had written to the member opposite and myself, amongst others, asking that that provision be put back in, we are putting that back in to accede to those concerns — as I say, maybe, as staff would advise me, through an overabundance of caution. Nevertheless, if it provides more comfort to folks out there, I think that's entirely appropriate.

With that, Member, perhaps we can move right into the bill.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for tabling that proposed amendment to section 58. As the minister is aware, through the correspondence we have received and that I know other members have received, this relates most immediately to the Catalyst situation and puts back into the section some of the language that relates to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

There was a view, an interpretation, that by taking that out, it diminished the rights of those pensioners in the present financial situation of Catalyst. So I'm sure this will be welcome news to those people who are directly affected and to others who may have an interest in it.

Perhaps I can just begin asking some questions about the definitions section. When the two acts are compared, as the minister has said, there are a number of additional definitions that have gone into this rewritten act. I want to ask some questions about some of them, not all of them.

In particular, can the minister explain why it is necessary to add a definition of what is called "actuarial excess"? That's not in the previous act. What was the legislative purpose in adding that definition, and what does it refer to?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actuarial excess distinguishes the hypothetical value of assets over liabilities, which may be used to reduce contributions in an ongoing plan from actual surplus, which is the actual value of assets over liabilities in a plan that has been terminated and is being wound up. What we're doing is distinguishing. Under the old act, they were both contained together, as I understand.

[2050]

We are now trying to distinguish between the two — between the hypothetical value of assets over liabilities from the actual surplus that is realized as a result of a windup of a plan. That is the distinction that is being made there.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:51 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 2:41 p.m.

On Vote 31: Attorney General operations, $368,337,000 (continued).
[ Page 12358 ]

L. Krog: The minister will recall that the 2009 pre-election budget committed some $8.2 million to justice transformation. It was budgeted $3.9 million for justice reform and $4.3 million for the community courts. And 2010 budgeted only $1.4 million. In 2011 it no longer existed as a line item. Then, as the minister is well aware, in February 2012 the Premier announced another judicial review, with the Green Paper as its starting point.

I'm just wondering: can the Attorney General give me information or respond to any questions surrounding what happened to this as a line item in the budget? Where has it gone? And what has happened to the justice transformation project as we understood it?

Hon. S. Bond: Good afternoon. I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the estimates of the ministry, joined by my two very capable deputies and a number of staff, both here and in rooms filling most of the building.

In response to the member opposite's question, I am told — of course, I did not hold this portfolio in 2009 — that in fact, there were one-time dollars that were added to the budget in those particular budget years. The budget line has not continued.

Having said that, the community court funding will continue to be covered out of this year's budget. In fact, there is no ongoing budget line attached to the line item that was there in 2009.

K. Corrigan: There was a bit of a miscommunication between my colleague and me. We are going to actually do Solicitor General questions first, and then we will go to Attorney General. I apologize if there are any people running through the halls as result. I apologize for that, because we had told you earlier that we were going to do it in that order, and we did intend to do that.

So we will get back to Solicitor General questions. I think that was actually my miscommunication with my colleague.

[1445]

We finished off last time talking about Corrections. I'd like to continue on with a few more questions on Corrections.

I had said that the Fisher report had made a recommendation on an inmate-staff ratio of 20 to 1. That report was referenced. But actually, I wanted to make a small correction. I believe it was as a result of looking at the Fisher report and other information that Prof. Neil Boyd made the recommendation in November of 2011, referring to the Fisher report that had said: "Ten centres were closed…. Inmate counts have continued to rise over the interval…with increased counts, crowding and decreased staff-inmate ratios... Throughout this difficult interval the corporate culture has been impacted, staff morale has suffered and the personal costs have been high."

Then Boyd goes on, after quoting that, to say: "The difficulties documented in 2008 appear to have worsened. The provincial government must respond to these concerns. The most appropriate remedy is to reduce the inmate-to-staff ratio to the pre-2002 level of 20 to 1." Does the minister agree or disagree with that?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, we've said clearly — and I have said this both publicly and to the BCGEU — when we've had discussions about the inmate-to-corrections-officer ratio that there is not a one-size-fits-all number. In fact, there are a variety of models one can use to supervise inmates in facilities. As we build new facilities, they are built with the concept of looking at direct supervision, indirect supervision.

So we believe that, first of all, the safety of our corrections officers is our first priority. In fact, in institutions across British Columbia there is a variety of inmate-to-corrections-officers ratios. So the report recommends that it's 20 to 1. We believe, in practice…. I take the advice very seriously of experts who advise me about the importance of the model.

We would suggest that as we look across the province, there are a variety of ratios. In our view, what determines that is how we keep corrections officers safe and manage our inmate population effectively.

K. Corrigan: Well, over the last few weeks there have been two more instances at Wilkinson Road where corrections officers have been attacked. The blame by their representatives is associated directly with overcrowding. Does the minister acknowledge that there is overcrowding and that part of the solution to that overcrowding would be to lower the ratio of inmates-to-corrections officers?

Hon. S. Bond: Anytime there is an incident in our corrections facilities, we're concerned about that. The ministry team that work with us…. Their number one priority is ensuring that there are as safe as possible circumstances for corrections officers to work within. To attribute it to one factor in a place where…. To say that we have a challenging group of people to supervise is an understatement. So, in fact, all of those things are taken into consideration.

As I said earlier, while there may be a…. It is difficult to calculate a direct supervisor-to-inmate ratio. So first of all, any incident is thoroughly investigated. They are not tolerated. In fact, if there is a role for charges to be laid, that can be done internally, or where necessary, the RCMP or municipal force are involved in looking at potential criminal charges.

So we take those circumstances extremely seriously. They are reviewed. A critical incident review is done in the most egregious cases. But in essence, we look at those situations. If there are any recommendations for improving the services that are provided, we look at making sure
[ Page 12359 ]
that those are followed and changes are made.

[1450]

K. Corrigan: Will the minister acknowledge that which the union is saying — that overcrowding was a major factor, a primary factor? Will the minister acknowledge that overcrowding at that facility played any part in those incidents or the rising level of violence in that facility?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, you know, at the risk of not wanting to…. I try very hard to answer questions as accurately as I can in here and in the House.

The fact of the matter is that there is an internal investigation underway. As easy as it would be for me to jump on the same bandwagon and suggest that it's all about overcrowding, no, I won't say that today, because I want to be true to the fact that we have an internal investigation underway.

In fact, one of the incidents — and I had to be sure that I could speak of this — took place in segregation, and it involved one inmate and two corrections officers. So it's not as simple as just saying it's about overcrowding.

We are adding capacity. We're adding new corrections officers. My number one concern is always about the safety of these officers. I have been assured that there will be an internal investigation that looks at the aggravating factors.

Yes, our facilities in many cases, if not all of them, are overcapacity. We double-bunk prisoners in British Columbia, as do most other jurisdictions. But we're not standing still. We've added 200 new corrections officers. Over the course of the next number of months and years we'll be adding 240 more. We're adding new capacity at the same time.

It would be premature for me to assume that the issue is related to overcrowding. Certainly, in the case of segregation, one inmate and two corrections officers, I can't think that that would necessarily be the only factor we'd be considering.

K. Corrigan: Are there cases where there is double- or even triple-bunking happening in the segregation units?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, there could be potential for double-bunking in segregation. To the best of our knowledge, there is no triple-bunking.

One of the most important pieces to this discussion, before we just sort of assume that that's the only part of my answer, is the fact that there is a policy in place that very clearly assesses risk and how inmates are actually placed. So it's not simply: "Okay, the two of you are in there together." There is a policy and a protocol which is very carefully adhered to.

Again, we need to assess risk both for the inmates — as you can imagine, it's a complicated population to manage — but also in terms of consideration for our corrections officers.

K. Corrigan: I want to ask specifically about the new correctional facility that is being planned for the Okanagan. I believe it has been announced that it will create 240 full-time jobs. How are these positions going to be funded?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: We have currently been granted planning money, and we're moving forward aggressively on the planning stages. Just as we would with any other Treasury Board request, we build a business case that looks first at capital and then at operating.

The corrections centre will see an addition of 360 cells, so there are a commensurate number of jobs that are attached to that. They will be hired and recruited through the B.C. Corrections process. Obviously, it would be a mix of individuals, because you're not going to staff up a brand-new corrections facility with all brand-new corrections officers.

So there will be a process through which this facility is staffed, but we are in the planning stages at the moment.

K. Corrigan: I am going to turn to questions on policing now, and I would like to ask some questions on the RCMP contract.

My first question for the minister is that there's been some inconsistency, I guess, in who knew what when about the surprises that came with the contract — shortly after the contract — that was signed between the province and the federal government to provide local policing via the RCMP. Then within days or a couple of weeks of that there was an announcement from the federal government that there were going to be some pay increases. Was the minister surprised or not surprised by that news?

Hon. S. Bond: I think we've had lots of discussion about this in the public. I think anyone would…. Certainly, we were aware, as were all the municipalities. And as you actually dig down deeper into their budgets, most of the municipalities built in a certain degree of pay increase because there had been notional discussion in two, I would describe, fairly casual conversations — an indication from the RCMP both to municipalities and to us that we should be prepared for some increases. And I think in every public statement that I made about a new contract…. We knew that the costs would not be static.

The surprise part was that a package of wage issues was taken through the Treasury Board process and, through federal Treasury Board, approved in the budget. So just days before the new contract was to be put into place, there were additional elements in a package of information that was new to us and to municipalities. Obviously, that is a concern for me, and I have conveyed that to the
[ Page 12360 ]
federal minister.

But of course people were aware, including us, that there would be some increase, that the wages would not be static. Those were built into many, many of the municipal contracts, we found out later.

The challenge is that the increase is higher than the notional amount that we were advised of. Again, in a very casual staff conversation, that information was provided. Secondly, it included other elements that were new.

K. Corrigan: I wonder if the minister could tell me the parts that were not expected — the parts both that were higher and the parts that were not expected.

[1500]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, core compensation was higher than had been anticipated, and there were three other categories. We're still waiting for clarification about how they line up in terms of the entire package. There is a category called senior constable. That has actually been adjusted. There are benefits that we're still trying to clarify exactly what the puts and takes are, if you wouldn't mind me crassly describing it that way — and severance.

Those are the areas that we're looking at. One of the reasons…. It's important to have this as part of the context. We have been assured as recently as last week or the week before, I guess, in a letter from Minister Toews, that when you take the increases against potential decreases that the RCMP is looking at across the country, there will be minimal, if any, impact directly on municipalities. In fact, over time, it's expected that there will be a net benefit to municipalities.

Obviously, the part that we are disappointed about is the fact that these items were not made part of the discussion that we had. In fact, as of today I still am not in possession of specific details. But I do have a letter — as I said, I don't think it was last week; I think it was the week before — where Minister Toews clearly states that when you take the increases against the decreases broadly across the RCMP, there will potentially be a net benefit to municipalities.

K. Corrigan: My understanding was that, apart from some other increases, the total increase for 2012-13 is now projected to be about 0.71 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: I thought it was my hearing, and maybe it was. The increase is expected to be 0.7 percent. I'm not sure if that's what the member opposite said, but you know, when you negotiate a 20-year contract and you get a 0.7 percent increase in the first year…. And that still doesn't completely consider what other reductions might be taking place to balance that off.

So it was my hearing. It is expected to be a 0.7 percent increase, and again, I don't have the benefit of knowing what reductions might be balanced off against that.

K. Corrigan: Well, it was 0.71 percent that I had said. So it sounds like we're in agreement. It's my understanding that the reductions of the staff relation representative and the external review committee…. Are those the reductions that the minister is talking about? If it is, it was my understanding that you get to that 0.7 percent. That includes those reductions.

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct that those reductions do bring the number to 0.7 percent. The issue that is yet to be clarified is what other reductions are being made. In fact, the federal government is intending to cut $195 million out of the administrative side of the RCMP.

[1505]

While that's difficult, we also agree that there needs to be some efficiency on the back end of the RCMP. So we're not talking about reducing officers. We're talking about administration and those kinds of things. The commitment, at least made publicly, was $195 million in cuts, broadly speaking, across the RCMP. Obviously, the positions that were mentioned are nowhere near that magnitude. The question is: what benefit does the reduction to the magnitude of $195 million bring to municipalities across the country?

We have to remember that we have the largest contingency of RCMP officers in the country, so we are quite skewed in terms of, you know…. We have, I think, 60 percent of the members located here in the province. So what we expect to see is benefit from that $195 million reduction that will help mitigate some of these other personnel and wage increases that we've seen built into the Treasury Board package.

K. Corrigan: Well, the $195 million of cuts that were going to happen by, I believe, 2014-15 for the RCMP — that will be accompanied by cuts in service, necessarily. When you're talking about administration, you're talking about services that are provided. We've already seen that there's going to be closure, for example, of three of the six forensic centres in Canada.

Did the federal government, the minister or somebody in the federal ministry, discuss those cuts before making the decision to make them?

Hon. S. Bond: The member referenced the lab situation. In fact, the labs are somewhat different in that there has been a review about the efficiency and effectiveness of the labs underway. You know, I think that when you look at reductions in that particular area…. There's been a lab review. Were we aware that they were going to consolidate? We were certainly aware of the fact that they were looking for efficiencies and looking at how they could continue to deliver service. That was a review that was underway.

In terms of the $195 million of cuts, that was a federal Treasury Board budget decision. I'm not aware of
[ Page 12361 ]
what any additional cuts may bring, but as I said earlier, there is a desire by the RCMP to look at their administrative and corporate structure. There is no indication that it will be about officers or front-line service, and that's very important.

I think Canadians do want their organizations to be lean and efficient in these challenging times. Do they want service impacts? No, of course not directly on the front line, but we understand the importance of looking for efficiencies, especially when there is an administrative component that can be dealt with.

So we await more clarity about the $195 million in cuts. I look forward to that so that I can then provide final certainty for municipalities and look at how Minister Toews has assured us that there will be long-term benefit.

K. Corrigan: In these $195 million of cuts — which, to me, are going to have to affect some kind of service levels…. I mean, you don't just cut $195 million and have no change. But my question is…. We talked specifically about the lab, but more generally, is the federal government discussing these cuts and where these cuts are going to be and in negotiation or discussion with the minister so that the provincial government, and therefore the municipalities that are served by the RCMP, have some idea and have some input into those cuts?

[1510]

Hon. S. Bond: I hope to be able to provide some context momentarily. We're just trying to get the number. It's not in my budget, so I don't know the number.

The $195 million in cuts becomes a lot more significant depending upon the size of the complete budget. We would assume it's in the several billions of dollars. It's certainly not easy to cut $195 million, but it's a lot easier than cutting it out of a smaller budget.

I don't think we should assume that there are front-line service cuts. In fact, we have received a direct assurance that there will be every attempt to avoid…. The intent is not to effect front-line service cuts.

I guess I've tried in vain to explain the value of the contract management committee previously, but I will try it again today. The fact of the matter is that for the first time in British Columbia the contract requires that before costs are passed on to British Columbia, we have the right to be involved in those decisions. It was not easily won, and there is no shortage of telephone calls between me and a number of federal ministers about a number of issues.

We also asked UBCM to put in place a provincial advisory group, I guess you'd call them, and there are a number of representatives selected by UBCM who represent communities of various sizes who have RCMP detachments. They will regularly meet to discuss issues, to present British Columbia's position.

The national contract administration committee…. I'm sure that's not the right name, but I will get it. The contract management group will be co-chaired by my assistant deputy minister of police services, who is right here with me — Clayton Pecknold. He will actually be our voice at the national table, and he's co-chairing that table.

When other provinces were looking for leadership in terms of a new contract, they looked to British Columbia. My deputy, the Deputy Solicitor General, led those negotiations through a very difficult set of circumstances. In the end of the day we gained new rights.

Now, does that help us deal with things that have come in the past or that happened before the contract came in place? No, it doesn't. But it does mean that moving forward, there will be a different approach and a different opportunity for British Columbia. I have every confidence in the team that we have that will go to the national level and take our views there.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm sure we all have lots of confidence in the representation on that committee, but I'm just trying to figure out what is covered by that committee and what isn't. Is the minister saying, then, that once the committee is up and running, the federal government would not be able to announce that they're going to have $195 million worth of cuts without discussing it at the committee?

[1515]

Hon. S. Bond: Maybe the best way to answer that question is to read article 21.0, the "Contract Management Committee," which is part of the contract. Section 21.3(a) says: "Issues and proposals that will or may affect governance, cost, quality or capacity of the service, or an RCMP program, will be brought to the committee's attention in a reasonable and timely manner in order to allow for meaningful consultation and collaboration on such issues prior to decisions on such matters being made."

Same section, sub 21.3(b): "Without limiting the foregoing, the committee will be consulted in advance with respect to any proposed addition or deletion to the cost items included in the cost base, as well as any other proposed change that affects the cost of the service, such as allocation formulas or costing methodologies."

Those two paragraphs and a few others are the ones that we fought extremely hard to gain in our contract. In fact, other provinces did not sign a contract that included them. Fortunately for them, they had a "me too" clause, so anything that British Columbia and the block of provinces and territories gained will be added to their contract.

We fought very hard to get those principles included in the contract, and we expect the federal government to live up to the spirit and the intent of the contract.

K. Corrigan: My understanding is, however, that the
[ Page 12362 ]
regular cost increases that are associated with the contract, the increases for increased compensation for the RCMP and several other items which I'll go through in a minute are not included in the oversight of the committee. Maybe the minister could let me know whether or not that's outside of the contract and, therefore, whether the oversight committee is going to or not going to cover those items.

Hon. S. Bond: I think the only caveat I would add is that these are federal employees. This is a federal organization. Certainly, when we discussed the language that we wanted to see in here, it's pretty clear. It says: "Issues and proposals that will or may affect governance, cost, quality or capacity...will be brought to the committee." And it also talks about the fact that it is "cost items included in the cost base." I'm thinking that cost base includes salaries and wages.

In fact, one of the other things that we wanted very much to ensure was a look at multi-year financial planning so that we could provide the kind of certainty that municipalities deserve.

[1520]

In section 21.4 there is a whole series of commitments to talk about that "the commissioner will cause a multi-year financial plan to be provided" and the commissioner "will make best efforts to provide a multi-year financial plan in accordance with this article."

Each year the commissioner will "cause a multi-year financial plan to be prepared and delivered to the committee no later than September 15 for each RCMP program required."

I mean, these are the kinds of details that previously in British Columbia did not exist. Municipalities got the bill and paid it. Now there will be a series of expectations regarding multi-year financial planning, core costs — all of those kinds of things.

We also have the ability, for the first time, to direct reviews. Our committee will have the ability — well, the national committee, but with the advice being provided by our UBCM-created committee, which we added…. That wasn't part of the contract. We believe that we had such a great relationship working our way through this that we wanted to see that kind of involvement continue. We may, actually, specifically direct reviews to be conducted on an RCMP program. We've never had that ability before.

Again, this is a contract. We expect the parties to live up to the expectations in the contract. Over time we will have the opportunity to ensure that all parties adhere to the contract that we signed.

K. Corrigan: Well, thank you for that. The UBCM had sent out a member release on April 5 saying: "The new agreement does not take into account general salary adjustments that are provided to the RCMP members from time to time to reflect inflation and market conditions as in the case with every employee group of governments. There is currently a dispute around retroactive pay for RCMP members which is under consideration by the courts."

I made the assumption that because there were those and other items, which I'm going to get to in a minute, that are outside of the contract or are not taken into account in the contract, that meant they would not be covered by the committee.

But I'm glad to hear that whether or not they're part of the contract, it is expected that there will be oversight by the committee. I'm just confirming that that's the case.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the intent of the contract management committee is to provide oversight of the contract, and in our view, that certainly includes when you say "cost," that means cost. And that includes wages, whether they be base…. Having said that, they are federal employees, and we don't want to leave the impression that we're going to be in a position to veto decisions. That's not the intent of the contract management committee.

In fact, our view is that, you know, we will be aggressive about protecting British Columbia's interests, and that does include potential increases. As I said earlier, none of us believe that a 20-year contract is going to be static. What we want to be sure of is that we know the magnitude of the kinds of changes that are being considered by the RCMP.

I think having a multi-year financial plan that looks three years out is a pretty big step in the right direction for us to be able to actually say, you know: "How are we going to manage this?" or "We disagree with that."

One of the things that we've expressed concern about is the expectation around capital. We should actually have a chance to say: "We don't need that kind of detachment built here. We'd like to build something different, and here's what it would look like, and here's how we'd like to save money." Now we have the chance, we believe, to engage in that.

We're going to make sure that in the first year or two of this contract we ensure that people are paying attention to it. You know, we've also built in two other steps. One is an opt-out clause at two years, and at the five-year point we're going to come back and review the contract. I think that's prudent. It allows us to say: "It's worked" or "It hasn't worked. What are we going to do to fix it?"

[1525]

But I have been reassured by both the commissioner and Minister Toews that this is a significant gain that British Columbia helped to earn and that they intend to be a partner in managing the contract in the spirit that it was intended.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to talk about those numbers. The estimated increase of the contract to munici-
[ Page 12363 ]
palities is 0.7 or 0.71. That's 2012-13. The estimated cost increase for 2013-14 is 2.75 percent; 2014-15 is again 2.75 percent; and 2015-16 is 3.67 percent. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: Those are the most conservative estimates that we have, and they are based on assumptions regarding Surrey–Green Timbers. I'm not prepared to accept those assumptions in terms of where we will end up, because we've only just begun to talk about Surrey–Green Timbers. So, in fact, that is the most conservative estimate — in other words, the worst-case scenario related to costs that may be accrued as a result of administration facilities related to the Green Timbers building.

So those are the most conservative numbers that we have at this point in time. We're going to certainly be working to improve those numbers.

Secondly, I want to go back to the RCMP operations, so police operations. From the best we can tell in terms of the RCMP across the country, the cuts that are being made would be on an operating base of $2.8 billion.

K. Corrigan: Well, I mean, those numbers may be conservative, but they're the ones that the province has provided to municipalities. So there are the province's own numbers, my understanding is, reading this document I have.

[1530]

I wanted to just check about some other things, though. When we're talking about those increases, whether they're estimates or not, of 0.71 percent the first year, 2.75 percent, 3.67 percent, they include Surrey–Green Timbers, and I'll get to that in a minute. But those increases, I just want to confirm, do not include things like equipment and maintenance and so on.

I just heard again that municipalities have just received a directive, essentially, from the RCMP in Ottawa saying that municipalities are now required to purchase rifles for every one of their vehicles, and they're going to cost…. I'm sure of the cost, but they're going to cost thousands of dollars each. A directive has come down, and now they're just dumping costs onto municipalities.

Two questions about that. First of all, could the minister confirm that those kinds of increases are not included in the estimated increase under the contracts that we've just been talking about and, secondly, whether or not those kinds of increases would be discussed in advance at the contract management committee?

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly don't want to quibble about words, but there was an assumption sent out about a program that relates to how many rifles and weapons and things officers have. The province of B.C. has not signed off on that program and doesn’t necessarily agree with the assumptions that have been made. We have signalled that we have…. Well, we've actually not signed it off. So this will be one of the issues we expect to have a discussion about at the contract management committee.

The member opposite is correct. Those kinds of things are not included in the contract renewal material, but that is exactly the kind of issue that was brought to our attention in terms of negotiating the contract — that suddenly we're all going to have a new piece of equipment or a new this or that without any input. We have not signed it off. We don't agree with the assumptions, and it will certainly be our expectation that there is a discussion about that at the contract management committee.

K. Corrigan: I just want to be clear. For this year, where the estimate is that there's a 0.7 percent increase, that would not include…. I'm going to give the minister a list of items.

I just want to have clarified whether or not each of these things are part of that 0.71: the inflationary increases for equipment and maintenance; PSEC salary increases; potentially, the retroactive salary increase for RCMP members due to the court challenge; the RCMP wage increase that was announced March 30; the wellness days; the service pay extended to members with four years of service; the shift premium increase; and the senior constable provisional allowance increase from 4 to 5 percent.

Could the minister confirm whether or not those items are or are not part of that estimate of the 0.71 percent and then, going forward, the 2.75, etc.?

[1535]

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct about the fact that these are the items, and I mentioned them previously, in terms of severance, senior officers, all of those kinds of things. Those were part of the Treasury Board package that was agreed to by the federal government, but also with the caveat that savings garnered from the $195 million will help to mitigate or counter some of those increases. So it would be incorrect to assume that there are necessarily significant additional costs added to those pieces.

Obviously, one that all of us are concerned about is that there is a court challenge underway. I obviously have to be careful about what I say with any case that's in front of the courts. That has been underway for a significant period of time — long before the contract. It is a significant court case. There is no doubt about that.

At the end of the day, no contract management committee is going to have the ability to deal with the outcomes of that court case, so it is a looming potential risk, and municipalities are well aware of that risk.

In terms of the other items on the list that was articulated — again, it is in that package that was provided to us by Treasury Board after the federal budget. Well, in fact, we found out about it after that. We are waiting for the additions and subtractions that would tell us what eventual impact, if any, there will be.
[ Page 12364 ]

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a few questions about Green Timbers, which is the new divisional headquarters for E division in Surrey. Is it correct that the present estimate of the annual cost for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are an additional $7.7 million a year?

Hon. S. Bond: This is the potential, as I said to the member opposite, and she obviously has the chart and pointed out these were the province's numbers. Yes, they are our numbers, and as I said earlier, these are our worst-case scenarios in terms of the impact on RCMP municipal forces regarding the administrative headquarters.

We don't accept these assumptions, and in fact, have yet to begin negotiating. So the numbers that are presented in this chart are clearly estimates based on the fact…. We're not going to negotiate to this number, and we have a series of concepts that we would like to consider. Those will be taken at the negotiating table.

The numbers that were articulated certainly are in our chart, provided by us, and basically, our most conservative view of what the potential impacts would be. Rather than dealing in surprises, those are the numbers that we are placing in the chart, but again, we're not going to negotiate to those numbers, and we disagree with the assumptions.

[1540]

K. Corrigan: Because we are talking about the same chart, obviously…. To be clear, then, is the minister saying that…? Who is the minister saying that the assumptions came from? Did they come from someone else? If they did, was the ministry, then, the one that put together the chart to say what the impact would be as a result of someone else's assumptions? How did that work?

Hon. S. Bond: The assumptions came from the RCMP, in terms of what expectations they had. Obviously, in a negotiation, there's usually more than one party at the table. We certainly intend to be there and don't accept the assumptions that have been presented.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to just ask a couple of more questions about Surrey–Green Timbers. The contracts have been signed, I understand. The building is being built. It's going to be in move-in for next year, I understand.

Is that the state of it right now — that the contract is signed, it's being built, and moving in next year? I guess I might as well just confirm that to start with.

Hon. S. Bond: We just need to be very clear about how this works. The building is actually complete, and people will be moving into it. We are tenants in the building. What we will be negotiating are the tenancy costs for us to be a part of that facility.

We were not a party of the partnership that took care of building the building. Now our job is to negotiate the tenancy costs that we will have in Green Timbers.

K. Corrigan: At a time when there should have been, perhaps, some leverage, why was this not negotiated as part of the overall RCMP contract?

Hon. S. Bond: Part of the complexity is that the building has actually been built and belongs to the real estate portfolio of Public Works and Government Services Canada. So it isn't actually part of Public Safety Canada. They are the holders of the real estate for the federal government.

[1545]

The other factor was that jurisdictions determined that the new contract would not cover new headquarters, that new headquarters would be dealt with outside of the contract. It wasn't simply British Columbia. It was a decision of the block of jurisdictions that negotiated the contract.

Again, the complexity is that the holders of the real estate portfolio are not Public Safety Canada. So we're going to negotiate with the owners of the building, who are not Public Safety Canada.

K. Corrigan: If a municipality made the decision — those that have not signed on, that one or two or more of them — that they were not going to sign on to the contract for RCMP policing, would those municipalities be expected to contribute anything to Surrey–Green Timbers?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, if there are municipalities…. There are a number of them at the moment who are contemplating their future with the RCMP. If they chose not to sign a contract to have RCMP policing, they would have no requirement to deal with Surrey–Green Timbers. They'd have a lot of other things to consider, though, not the least of which would be the loss of federal support for, basically, the formula that's in place for policing currently.

I should also say at this point that any municipality is certainly entitled to opt out of their RCMP contract. I'm pleased to say that the vast majority at this point who asked us to negotiate with the RCMP have signed their contracts. But certainly, it is within any municipality's purview to choose to set up their own regional police force, which we could certainly have a discussion about, or they could set up a municipal police force.

Again, I think those decisions need to be carefully weighed in light of the loss of support that would come from the federal government. But they certainly would not need to be worried about space or costs in Green Timbers.

K. Corrigan: I thank the minister for that response. It sounds like, from the minister's answer as well…. Maybe I could just confirm this. If a municipality decided that
[ Page 12365 ]
they did not want to sign the contract, they would be able to have fairly free rein to set up whatever kind of municipal policing that they would like — like the other municipalities, existing municipalities. In other words, they would not be forced to amalgamate with another municipality. They could set up what kind of municipal force they had and what it looked like.

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: I think that the most important decision that municipalities have to make is that they are aligned with the Police Act, and the Police Act requires municipalities to provide policing. It's not the province.

Obviously, we contract with municipalities who have RCMP contracts for policing, but in fact there would be a significant decision to make on the part of municipalities. The primary criteria is ensuring that they're in line with the Police Act. They have a responsibility to provide police services in an efficient and effective way, and I would expect them to line up with the intent of the Police Act.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to confirm, as part of the response, a very specific question, though. Would the minister anticipate putting on conditions, such as requiring that a municipality amalgamate with another municipality, if they decided that they wanted to create their own police force?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not going to speculate about what form policing might take if municipalities chose to exit from their RCMP contracts. My responsibility is to ensure that, through the Police Act, we have policing done appropriately in the province. There is a section where the minister actually may, if considered necessary or desirable, "provide or reorganize the policing and law enforcement."

At the end of the day, the minister does have the ability to look at, for example, regionalization. I've been very clear about my position. Certainly, we've seen that here on the Island with Esquimalt and others who want to…. You know, there are those who support regionalization and those who, like myself, support integration as much as possible. Not that I'm opposed to municipalities having a discussion about it, but there is a section of the Police Act where the minister does have the authority to reorganize policing.

K. Corrigan: So what I'm hearing is: "No promises." A municipality could say, "We've decided that we don't want to sign the contract, and we would like to go it alone," and the minister is not willing to say that the minister would give that municipality her blessing or not try to impose some kind of condition such as requiring an amalgamation. The minister is not willing to say that.

Hon. S. Bond: It's not at all about that. I have said numerous times publicly and continued to say it recently to a number of members of the safety committee of the UBCM. Municipalities are responsible for policing. If they choose a decision other than their current model, obviously that would be a very significant decision for those communities to make, particularly in light of the federal support that's provided for RCMP policing in the province. There is a lot to consider.

I am not going to…. I am simply pointing out to the member opposite that there is the possibility for the minister to look at the organization of policing in the province. It's simply an observation that in the Police Act that is a power that's available to the minister.

Currently, my job is to…. My desire is to bring the RCMP contract negotiations to completion. I’m actually trying to honour the work and the request of the members of the UBCM who asked us, virtually unanimously, to go and negotiate a contract for the RCMP. My preference is to bring the RCMP contract negotiations to a completion as quickly as that's reasonably possible.

I'm simply pointing out that there are a number of routes for municipalities to consider, which would include setting up a municipal police force. In fact, I've heard speculation in the media recently where there are several municipalities pondering whether or not they would consider a regional police force.

In essence, there are a number of options available to municipalities. I am supportive of them serving their constituents in the best way that they think possible, but my goal right now is to bring the RCMP negotiations, in terms of the municipal contracts, to closure.

[1555]

K. Corrigan: Now I'm not sure about the answer to this question, but I'm going to ask it anyways. The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority police board: does that come under the responsibility of the minister?

Hon. S. Bond: The transit police board is set out by legislation, and it does fall under my authority. In terms of the operations of the transit police and their relationship and direction through TransLink, obviously there are a number of questions that would be directed to the Minister of Transportation. But the transit police board is under my responsibility.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm not concerned today about the operations of TransLink, but I do want to ask a question about the board itself. I'm wondering who sets the pay for the transit police board. Who sets the pay for those board members, and how much do they get paid per meeting? Do they have a yearly income? What is the pay for those individuals, the directors?

Hon. S. Bond: We'll get the exact numbers for the member opposite and get them back as shortly as we can.
[ Page 12366 ]

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that. As much detail as possible would be appreciated — the amount per meeting, the number of meetings they have per year, that kind of information; whether or not there is a yearly amount, expenses, all that kind of stuff. I would highly appreciate that.

I'm going to move on, then, for a few minutes and ask a few questions about victim services.

The minister or past ministers have been very helpful in the past and provided very detailed information to me about victim service programs, transition house funding. I don't need to spend a lot of time on it, but I just wonder if it would be possible to have the assurance from the minister that that information could be provided to us again this year — a list of the programs and the funding.

Hon. S. Bond: We'll certainly make that information available.

K. Corrigan: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

My next area where I'd like to ask a few questions. I wanted to talk about the office to combat trafficking in persons. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me how many people are employed in that office at this point.

Hon. S. Bond: There are three full-time-equivalent positions assigned to the work. Because of the reorganization we did…. Certainly that wasn't without concern, expressed by some. In fact, the point of bringing it into the new configuration was that not only would there be three designated, full-time-equivalent positions, but there are other people in that unit that actually are supporting that team of three.

[1600]

K. Corrigan: Previously, before the reorganization or the change, there was an executive director, a manager of finance administration, a director of policy and stakeholder relations, and then three more staff: a program and research analyst, aboriginal program and research analyst and another program and research analyst in the Vancouver office. So that was six positions. I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what the budget of that office is now, and is it a stand-alone office?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure how to characterize the answer to the question about six versus three. The office has never been funded for more than three FTEs. Actually, British Columbia certainly has been and will continue to be a leader in this particular line of work.

There was a decision made to reorganize, and it was based on how we could continue to focus on the issue of trafficking in persons. It's something that I have a great deal of interest in personally, as I'm sure other members in the Legislature do, that we have to sort out. It's a hidden crime, and we need to figure out ways to more appropriately deal with this.

We currently have three FTE positions. What we did was roll the office into the broader office in the crime prevention and community safety department. Finance, administration, policy and human resources are now provided by the branch staff. In fact, they're able to support the office, which wasn't the case previously. What happens now is that our specialized team actually can focus on human trafficking and prevention, protection and prosecution.

It was a conscious decision to roll the office into the broader crime prevention and community services department. The OCTIP budget, then, has been absorbed into the operational budget. It has not changed this year. It will continue to be the same.

One of the things we did do to expand their opportunities was we made a particular focus of including the office of civil forfeiture — including human trafficking as one of the items that could be included in civil forfeiture grants. Also, there is an ability to provide funding across the province through victim services contracts.

The work continues. It's an important part of the ministry. It's just continuing in a different model than existed previously.

K. Corrigan: The minister talked about that there were only three full-time positions, but the OCTIP org chart from the 2010 three-year status report shows that there were six positions.

[1605]

I'm wondering if the minister can explain to me what the discrepancy is and why there is a discrepancy. Also, I didn't hear numbers attached to the present budget. My understanding was that it had been previously $500,000 a year, which was reduced to $300,000 a year in 2010, I believe it was. What is the budget now?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, there have always been three full-time-equivalent positions that were funded. There were temporary work assignments. There were a number of other ways that people were involved in the operations of that office.

What's critical now is that some of those jobs have been assumed — administration, finance, all of those kinds of things — by the rest of the crime prevention and community services department. The number of FTEs has remained the same. What's important is that, each year, the core budget has been $300,000. There has been a variance in spending. In fact, over the last number of years $300,000 was the budget, but $500,000 was expended.

We rolled that unit into the greater organization to allow for some of the jobs to be managed, including finance and all of those things, by people who already do that within that part of the ministry and allow our experts to actually manage what their expertise is in, and
[ Page 12367 ]
that's human trafficking.

We have in that part of the ministry 50 staff that have been trained, in terms of orientation or training, in looking at the issue of human trafficking. While we have three FTEs, we've trained 50 more people within the ministry to actually help us and help that team.

The office is continuing to provide training, orientation and support in our communities, because it's important to us. One of the things we're very proud of is that our on-line human trafficking curriculum has been widely distributed and continues to increase. It is the most accessible training on human trafficking in the country.

We made a conscious choice to move away from a stand-alone office. I think that was the question the member asked. We rolled it into the section of the ministry that I mentioned. We think it's continuing to operate effectively.

In fact, we held a forum in the spring — in February; the calendar all blurs — where we brought together providers and Benjamin Perrin and others. It was a fantastic day spent trying to figure out how to, first of all, provide the information about the change.

I think people were surprised. We could have done a better job of talking about why the changes were made. I readily admitted that. It remains a priority, and I think that the team is working very well in the new alignment that we've put it place.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can tell me specifically what kind of work is happening — outreach and research related to the aboriginal community with regard to human trafficking.

[1610]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, we have a very dedicated team who are very passionate about this. I can perhaps provide some examples.

We are looking at targeted issues, and if we look at the work that the office has done, we have recently — very recently — partnered with Children of the Street to co-facilitate workshops at the Gathering our Voices Aboriginal Youth Conference, for example, which was held in Nanaimo. The organization is the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, and there were over 400 youth from B.C. attending the workshops which looked at the in-depth issue of human trafficking and sexual exploitation, the warning signs of human trafficking and sexual exploitation and how to get help. That's one example.

Grants have been provided to aboriginal teachers to hold a conference in the north about recruitment and luring of youth for the purposes of human trafficking. Also looking at Elizabeth Fry assisting business leaders in terms of what the signs are of human trafficking, a program in Williams Lake supporting their anti–human trafficking committee.

So there are a variety of ways that we're looking at dealing with this very critical issue, but we're also continuing to consult about how best to support aboriginal communities and youth. But some good results are coming out of the work that's been done.

K. Corrigan: Previously there was — I acknowledge that it was a contract position within OCTIP — an aboriginal program and research analyst. I'm wondering if that kind of dedicated position exists anymore.

Hon. S. Bond: As I mentioned previously, there were some temporary hires involved in the org chart that the member opposite is referring to. That position was a temporary hire, but we are bringing back another individual next week that will be with us for six months to actually look at completing some of the work that was done. Again, we're going to start with a six-month position to look at how we complete that strategy and build on the important work that was done.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to confirm, because the minister talked about $300,000 budgets…. So there was a $300,000 budget, but there was in 2009-10, it's my understanding, a $500,000 budget. Maybe that was the expenditures. Could the minister confirm that was the expenditures then?

[1615]

In addition, how much federal money was attracted in order to support that unit? Does the minister know how much federal money was there as well? It was several hundred thousand dollars, is my understanding.

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. There have been budget fluctuations in this particular office, in looking at the numbers. There was certainly uncertain funding and numbers that were higher and numbers that were lower.

In fact, we now have a predictable budget with a ministry support team that is around the office of trafficking in persons. We will continue in this year to see a budget of $300,000. I think we did make a conscious decision to reorganize.

There has been uncertainty in funding. We have hired temporary positions. We have looked at how we support the three FTE positions.

We're going to continue to make this a priority. Certainly, in years where it was more difficult financially, decisions were made, and there were budget changes made. Our view was, and the rationale for looking at how we could protect the expertise we have…. It is allowing them to focus on the work they do and building in supports in other ways.

The member is correct. There have been fluctuations in budget years. Certainly, in more difficult budget times the budget was lower. This year we will see a budget of almost $300,000, and we expect that to be a certain budget,
[ Page 12368 ]
moving forward.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a couple of questions about tsunami preparation and tsunami debris on B.C.'s coast. First of all, I'm wondering if the minister can give us an overview of the work that is being done in order to prepare for the oncoming tsunami debris.

Hon. S. Bond: The lead on the tsunami debris file is the Minister of Environment. In effect, issues related directly to the coordination of the tsunami effort would best be directed to the Minister of Environment.

K. Corrigan: The Ministry of Justice, in its public safety role — is it being involved? What kind of role is it playing in preparation for the tsunami debris?

[1620]

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to be joined by Becky Denlinger, who is the head of emergency management British Columbia, and doing a fantastic job.

We are participating in the provincewide Tsunami Debris Coordinating Committee. Having said that, it is co-chaired by a member of the B.C. Ministry of Environment and a member from Environment Canada, but we are participating in a number of subcommittees.

Certainly, the committee is in the middle of a very significant workplan. Through emergency management B.C., we are involved in and, in fact, are chairing one of the subcommittees. In essence, the initiative is being led by two representatives — one from Environment Canada and one from the Ministry of Environment in B.C.

K. Corrigan: Is there a budget associated with this specific event that is coming, which is associated with this ministry?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, certainly not directly to my ministry. Any questions related to that need to go to the Minister of Environment.

K. Corrigan: I don't need to know about the makeup. I understand that's where the lead is, but I wondered whether the minister has a specific budget in this budget. I assume from that answer that the answer is no — that there is nothing specifically in the budget for these preparations.

Hon. S. Bond: That would be correct. We do not have a specific budget line.

K. Corrigan: It has recently been announced that the federal joint emergency preparedness program is being dismantled — essentially, that it's going to end. The current applications for funding are being taken for 2012-13, I believe, but there will be no new funding for the joint emergency preparedness program.

I looked through the eligible types of areas where grants can be given, and one of the areas is training of volunteers as well as equipment, and so on. Does the minister know whether or not those grants would have been appropriate to the preparation…? Would the criteria allow for something like picking up of tsunami debris or preparing for that? Would that have been an appropriate use of those kinds of funds?

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: We would think not. These categories are related to emergencies, and while it will be a challenge, it's certainly not an emergency by any stretch of the imagination compared to the other emergencies we deal with on a virtually weekly basis.

Just to that point around the joint emergency preparedness program. When we met recently with the minister responsible, all of the ministers from other jurisdictions who attended that meeting — it was hosted by myself here in Victoria — made clear to the federal government our concerns about this program.

We'll continue to work together as a group to ensure that both JEPP and HUSAR, which is another area that I'm concerned about, obviously…. We brought this very specifically to his attention and agreed to disagree about the decision that he had made in terms of HUSAR and JEPP. Ministers from across the country spoke out very personally about the importance of these programs.

While there was not an immediate reaction from the minister to suggest that he would be reinstating this program, he certainly heard very clearly from all of the ministers present, led by our side of the table, that this was a concern to all of us.

K. Corrigan: I wonder if the minister could tell me when that meeting was.

Hon. S. Bond: We believe it was May 4. We'll just double-check with our calendars, but I think it was started on Thursday evening, May 3, or maybe it was the fourth — whatever the Thursday-Friday combination was that week.

A Voice: Three to four.

Hon. S. Bond: Thank you. I was right.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could outline what the minister believes the potential impact could be on British Columbia because of the ending of the joint emergency preparedness program. If the minister would indulge me, I don't know what the other program is. That's the HUSAR. I'm wondering if the minister could explain that as well.

[1630]

Hon. S. Bond: You know, I can't speculate in terms of what the ultimate outcomes will be. What I can say is that we were concerned, and we were concerned enough as a group of ministers to ask Minister Toews to reconsider the JEPP program. HUSAR is a subset of JEPP, and it is the heavy urban search and rescue team. There are five of them in the country; Vancouver is home to one of them. It has very specialized expertise, and I'm very concerned about losing that expertise.

Suffice it to say that we brought the matter to the minister's attention and virtually unanimously expressed concern about the cuts in this area. The minister responded by reminding us that he had to create efficiencies in his ministry, as did every ministry in the federal government. That didn't lessen or dampen our expression of concern, and I will be continuing to monitor what impacts potentially exist and looking at how we will manage.

I'm very concerned about HUSAR, in particular, and will be looking at the impacts of that potential loss.

K. Corrigan: I'm not actually going to ask another question, because I think I will be done. We're going to turn to asking questions about DriveABLE now, and my colleague is going to take up those questions.

I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the minister and staff for all the answers and the in-depth information that I received.

[1635]

N. Simons: My questions centre around the senior driving testing policy. Can the minister explain why the policies were changed in 2010?

Hon. S. Bond: The changes in 2010 looked at a broad-based approach to dealing with medical issues for senior drivers. In fact, the most significant addition in 2010 was the addition of DriveABLE.

N. Simons: Was the minister aware that the person in charge of the research for the new policy is also the person who recommended her medical test be used by doctors and mandated that her partner's company be the only allowable testing organization?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite would know, in 2010 I wasn't the minister responsible for this portfolio, but I'm well aware of the file now, and I'm well aware of the implications of that question.

It is inappropriate to suggest that there is a conflict of interest. These are two very well-respected scientific researchers, and their work has actually been the work conducted. The member doesn't reference the names, but I will, because others know them as extremely accomplished individuals: Dr. Allan Dobbs and Dr. Bonnie Dobbs.

They have received ethical approval through the University of Alberta's ethics panels. These are internationally respected researchers. I've said this before, and I say it respectfully again: if there are any accusations about conflict of interest, those are very serious. There are methods to deal with that.

Certainly, the staff in the ministry have worked with this team, in particular, with Dr. Bonnie Dobbs. She has provided exceptional experience and research in the United States and a number of other places.

From that perspective, I am advised that when this program was put into place, there was an appropriate degree of oversight and that, in fact, these individuals have exceptional international reputations.

[1640]

N. Simons: Bonnie Dobbs, PhD, chief researcher for the guide to fitness to drive, 2010. Bonnie Dobbs, PhD, co-developer of the SIMARD-MD test for cognitive functioning mandated to be used in every doctor's office in this province for every senior citizen at age 80.

Bonnie Dobbs, wife of Allan Dobbs, PhD, creator, founder, chief scientific officer of the company given a contract — an exclusive contract, I might add — to provide driving assessments for seniors in this province.

One, two, three — just mentioning that to seniors causes them great distress. I'd like to just put this into context for the minister. It's a letter from an 82-year-old woman in Sechelt.

"I'm the lady who left a stack of testimonials on your desk before your meeting with seniors in Sechelt, after which you phoned me. I just want to let you know that OSMV let me have the road test last Monday. Wednesday I phoned Victoria, and I was told I passed. I did well on the test. Just before closing, I went to my insurance agent and asked him to check to see if I was on their computers. I wasn't, but after a phone call, I was okayed and walked out of the office a happy, free person.

"As with most upsetting things in our lives, this whole experience had a very bad effect on me, and I have suffered from depression over the whole business. One of my daughters told me that the family was worried over my state of mind and that I had become quite a different person. I'm only telling you this to let you know that this unnecessary upheaval has wrought havoc in seniors' lives.

"As I did well on my test and have been awarded my licence back for the next five years, one only has to wonder why I had to go through this in the first place. And so I want to thank you and others of your party who stood up and fought for seniors who are being treated so poorly."

I know of seniors who have been treated poorly. I know of seniors who've had their licences revoked only to fight and pay and spend and exert energy and money and stress to get their licences back. What scientific evidence, beyond a verbal recommendation as to the attributes of those who develop this test, did the minister have to convince her that this was a program worthy of a million-dollar contract?

Hon. S. Bond: It's unfortunate that we can't have this discussion without the tone in the room changing as dra-
[ Page 12370 ]
matically as it just has. The member's colleagues actually spent two days working with me through every issue that was imaginable.

First of all, I'd like to correct the record. The member is wrong — short and simple. SIMARD-MD is not mandated — period, full stop. It is a checklist entirely up to a doctor whether or not they choose to use the SIMARD-MD. Secondly, the member is also wrong that it is a requirement for every person over the age of 80. That is incorrect — full stop.

So what we need to discuss, I think, in government is how we do treat seniors with the respect that they deserve. To the member opposite: I had a father that lost his licence, and I know how difficult it is. What we need to do is actually treat seniors with the respect that they deserve. That's why I initiated changes to the mechanisms across the province, and I'm going to continue to look for ways to improve service to seniors.

But let's be clear. As painful as it is, there are seniors in British Columbia for whom it is unsafe to drive. I would appreciate the member opposite stepping back for a moment and understanding that we need to find a way to ensure that all British Columbians are safe on the highways — seniors, as well.

Let me be perfectly clear. Two percent of seniors in this province are recommended for the DriveABLE assessment, not every senior over 80. I am very glad to have this venue to correct the record in terms of the member's statements. It is not every single senior over the age of 80. That is inaccurate, at best.

[1645]

The recommendations come from physicians, not from the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, not from the minister. You know, I've had families come to me and say: "We're facing one of the most difficult decisions in our lives. How do we actually help our parents stop driving? We know it's not safe."

There are a small percentage of seniors in this province who are not able to drive anymore, and we have to find an appropriate way to measure that. The process is that a doctor makes a recommendation, and it is not every senior.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: I'll say it again. It is not every senior in British Columbia over the age of 80. That's the fact. The member may not like it, but that's the fact.

What my job is to do is look at public safety, generally. I don't think we have to look very far to see very tragic circumstances. I have resisted citing them because I don't think it's why we should make decisions. There are huge, enormously tragic accidents where seniors who are driving should not be.

In essence, this is a way to use science to try to find a way to respectfully deal with those who turn 80. If there's no issue in terms of their doctor, there's no further assessment once they turn 80. They come back at 82. I think most British Columbians think it's reasonable that once you hit 80 years of age, you do need to touch bases and make sure you're able to drive the way you would expect to be able to drive.

This is about cognitive impairment. That's what the principle was based on, not for every person over the age of 80. And SIMARD-MD is not mandated.

N. Simons: I'm emotional about this issue because I wouldn't want my mother to be put through this. Every single senior I've spoken to…. I've held nine town halls across the province. I've had 200 people at some meetings, 50 at others. Some 45 people showed up on Texada Island, where a friend of theirs, at age 80, got a letter from the superintendent of motor vehicles saying: "Go see your doctor."

Every single senior who's referred to their doctor is going to be taking a cognitive test. The 2010 guide to fitness to drive mandates that until the rollout of the SIMARD-MD test can take place, other tests will be approved — until. That means that the SIMARD-MD test…. By the way, for the public listening at home, MD has nothing to do with medical doctor. In fact, neither of the creators of the SIMARD-MD are medical doctors.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Neither of the co-creators of the SIMARD-MD are medical doctors, as far as I know. The minister might be able to correct me on that one. The fact remains that every senior at age 80 will get a letter requiring them to attend a doctor's office.

There. Good. I have an agreement.

Now, every doctor is required to administer a medical driving test, a medical fitness-to-drive test. A nod would make things faster, but if that's not the case…. That test includes eyesight, range of motion, a number of physical tests. It also includes, probably, either a Montreal cognitive test or an MMSE. Or, as mandated under the guide to fitness to drive, until the SIMARD-MD test is approved throughout the province and used throughout the province in a process with the B.C. Medical Association….

It's not like I haven't done research on this. I know what it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be the SIMARD-MD test, and until they can get that trained everywhere, other tests are going to be used. Contrary to what the minister might have said just now, every senior is going to have to do a medical test at age 80. And every senior is going to have to take the cognitive test as designed by the person who wrote the policy.

The only academic journal, the only academic evidence regarding the SIMARD-MD test — it wasn't peer-reviewed, wasn't scientifically validated; we're just supposed to assume that it works — suggests that too
[ Page 12371 ]
many people will be sent, subsequently, to DriveABLE for testing.

Does the minister know that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in North America where DriveABLE is the mandated test? Will the minister acknowledge that that is the case?

[1650]

Hon. S. Bond: What I want to be clear about is that my comments were related to DriveABLE. Certainly, if I misunderstood his commentary about 80-year-olds…. Yes, in British Columbia when you turn 80 you get a letter to go to your physician. I don't think most people think that's unreasonable. And it is not simply about cognitive impairment; it's about vision. It's about their heart. They get a number of things tested. As a British Columbian who actually had elderly parents, I would expect that at 80 years old we might touch bases with them to see if they're physically well enough to drive.

My goal is actually to have seniors drive as long as reasonably safe and that's possible. This isn't about taking people off the road who could still be driving. It's about ensuring that people who have a cognitive impairment or have an issue with driving safely — for their safety and others' — have a process through which we monitor and make sure that they are safe and so are people in British Columbia.

So yes, once you're 80 you go. If you are well enough to continue driving, you go on until you're 82. Then two years after that you get a letter, when you're 84. So yes, there is a process of looking at and assessing seniors' driving in British Columbia.

In fact, we write the driving guide for the entire country. We did it in 1997, and we did it again in 2010. So actually, British Columbia is a leader thanks to the exceptional work of people in this ministry who continue to do great work, and we're actually leading the country.

SIMARD-MD. Madam Chair, I'm not going to be repetitive about this. It is not mandated. There are a number of other tests which can be and are used in doctors' offices to determine whether or not a senior has a cognitive impairment.

My point to the member opposite was: yes, at 80 you are checked, and I think people think that's reasonable. Only 2 percent of seniors then are required to go on to have a DriveABLE assessment — 2 percent. Of those, a number are successful. A number previously would not have had a chance to drive their vehicle, and that's what mattered to them. I responded to that by saying all of them will now have an opportunity to be on the road.

So I have no dispute with the member opposite holding forums to support seniors across the province. What I would hope is that the information is completely accurate when those forums are held.

[1655]

This isn't about every senior in British Columbia. DriveABLE is not about every senior. It's about 2 percent of seniors, some of whom are putting themselves and others at risk. So it is a medically based assessment, and that's a pretty important piece of context for seniors to know.

N. Simons: Just for the minister, to assuage any concerns that she may have, I make it clear in all my discussions with seniors that most seniors will not be required to take DriveABLE. I'm very clear about that. But I am worried, because every senior who is turning 80 is in fear of this letter, which doesn't even start: "Dear person." It just says: "You have been identified as someone who's 80." It's just the most callous letter you could imagine.

Anyway, that's not the point. The fact is that the content of the letter causes concern. I'd recommend that the minister actually read the Fitness to Drive, where it says that until the SIMARD-MD is available in every region, other tests are allowed. I would suggest maybe talking to staff to make sure that that is in fact the case, because that's what's written.

I would like some evidence to show that we've written the policies for other provinces. I've heard that before. My question to the minister is this: what other jurisdiction mandates DriveABLE as the only permissible test to assess seniors' fitness to drive?

[1700]

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, the member opposite made the point about the letter and said: "The letter — that's not the point." It's precisely the point.

I just want to reassure the member opposite. I do my homework. I've read the guides. I've read the letters. I've given direction about what changes I expect to see in the kind of correspondence that went to seniors. It isn't acceptable — the tone that was used, or the format.

In fact, we have spent the last number of months meeting with seniors organizations in this province to look at how better we can communicate with them. It's not acceptable. Instead of assuming that the minister hasn't done her homework or doesn't care about that, the question could be asked.

In fact, when I made a commitment to change DriveABLE…. We're changing DriveABLE. A majority of the problem is with the respect that needs to be expressed in the communication, in the way the test is administered. There are significant changes to DriveABLE because I did my homework. I will continue to do that.

While the member opposite was skeptical about our ability to influence…. If I use the word "policy," I should be completely accurate. The Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, called the CCMTA, who are the people who actually look at medical guidelines for the country, met on the final stages of adopting the B.C. guide in May.

In fact, the B.C. guidelines around driving are being
[ Page 12372 ]
contemplated as the national guidelines by that organization. So of course we don't create policies for governments. They do that all on their own. But make no mistake about it. British Columbia is considered a leader in how to try to work through the issues related to seniors driving.

DriveABLE is mandated in British Columbia. It is not in other jurisdictions, but to suggest it's not used in this country is inaccurate. It's used in Ontario, Manitoba, the Yukon, a number of other places. I should point out that when it's used in other provinces, people actually have to pay for their first assessment. The fees would be considerably higher than even a person would have to use here in British Columbia after the first time.

There are changes being made related to DriveABLE, including how the materials are written, how the individual is treated when they arrive for their assessment — the ability, for example, to have someone sit with them during the beginning orientation part so that they're not intimidated by the screen. It is not a computer test.

It is about evolution. I actually care about how the test is administered, and I do care that seniors in this province are treated respectfully. I think there were changes that were necessary, and I made those changes. I will continue to look at changes, but I'm also going to say this. There are seniors in British Columbia who are not able to drive any more. We have to have a process in place to deal with those seniors who can't medically manage a complex skill like driving.

I will continue to refine this process to make sure that it is as respectful and appropriate as possible, but I am not apologetic for having a system of assessment that is based on medical assessments and that unfortunately, as painful as it is, will result in some seniors not being able to drive.

N. Simons: So much damage has been done. I have seniors who have sold their houses because they can't live independently anymore. People on Texada Island have no choice for their transportation, so when they get a letter saying they have 45 days, it's a potential elimination of their independence.

[1705]

Now, after complaints, the minister decides to accept changes. Did the minister not know, when this policy was implemented, that it had never been peer-reviewed scientifically or medically?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm relatively new to this portfolio and actually work extraordinarily hard to understand my files and my issues. I find it fairly objectionable that there is an assumption that I don't do my homework.

The fact of the matter is…. I'm very sorry about loss of independence — and I've experienced it in my own family — for seniors. That doesn't give us the licence to make accusations about individuals, about their professional reputation and about the process that's in place.

To say that I waited until there were complaints…. The member opposite hasn't even stopped by my office to actually have a conversation with me directly about why the changes are made. In fact, my own colleagues came to me on numerous occasions about concerns that they have. So there's been an ongoing process of improvement.

Since becoming minister and responsible for the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles, it's been a priority for us to look at how we deal with this situation more respectfully, more carefully, more thoughtfully.

I would remind the member opposite that I live in northern British Columbia. I fully understand what it means to have to drive for a lot of hours to take a driving assessment. One of the first things we talked about was the ability to increase the number of sites where the assessments are available. We continue to do that, adding one in the Kootenays very recently. We'll continue to do that.

But we also have to be responsible with taxpayer dollars, and I'm not going to stand here today and promise we're going to have a DriveABLE assessment in every community in British Columbia, with an office. We're not going to do that. In some parts of the province it means two people in a year are having the assessment — two people in a year.

What I have asked, and what we are working on and have been successful at, is looking at a road test that can be replicated in smaller communities that actually allows the driver to experience the kinds of decision-making you need to know whether they can manage. You typically can't do that in a small community that doesn't have stoplights or a variety of other things. So we're looking at designing a test that can be replicated in smaller communities so that people don't have to travel.

I know a little bit about what it takes to travel for services, and I don't agree with that either. I've said that clearly from day one — that I don't think that's acceptable. It isn't going to be fixed overnight, but I think we've made some significant progress, and we're going to continue to work hard to meet the needs of seniors.

N. Simons: I'm going to quote from the 2010 policy, for edification of those opposite. "Until the use of the SIMARD-MD has been fully implemented, the OSMV will accept the MMSE or MoCA as cognitive screens for making driver fitness determinations" — 2010 B.C. Guide in Determining Fitness to Drive, July 2010. Now, that's just a little bit of homework.

My question is not about whether it's two people or not. Everybody receives this letter. If you can see how upset or if you think I'm too emotional, it's because I've spoken to a lot of seniors who've been hurt by it. The minister's office has been aware of the numerous problems associated with this program. It's everything from technical problems with the computer tests….

When I brought that up before, the minister vehemently denied that it had anything to do with being a com-
[ Page 12373 ]
puter test. It's a touch-screen test that has documented technical problems. Documented technical problems that have caused some seniors to be unable to get their tests results scored properly.

Secondly, they're required to take on-road tests — not in their own car. And as you know, seniors are comfortable in their own car. They're required to take a test in someone else's car.

My question to the minister: does the minister think that the program was appropriately implemented when seniors are being requested to drive 3½ hours in order to attend in front of the Kentucky Fried Chicken, waiting for someone with a DriveABLE briefcase to go and do a road test in a car unfamiliar to them, because it's not safe, after driving 3½ hours to get there, for them to do the test with someone else? Does that make sense to the minister?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the fact of the matter is that changes were necessary in the DriveABLE program. I respect that there needs to be a different tone, for example, in the letters that are sent to seniors.

[1710]

I have clearly stated on the record and elsewhere that we need to look at accommodating seniors closer to their place of residence. It is unacceptable that there are long distances involved, and one of the things that I'm working on is ensuring that there is a quality of service that's consistent across the province in terms of supporting seniors through this process.

Certainly, that work is well underway, and we've seen significant collaboration with seniors organizations to look at how we can better ensure that seniors are treated with the respect that they deserve. Again, I'll point out to the member opposite that while only 2 percent of seniors actually face the DriveABLE test, I don't want seniors in British Columbia being afraid of that assessment. The screen test is precisely that, and I have offered briefings and demonstrations to the members opposite.

I have, in fact, held a workshop for the opposition. I think only two people came to the first one — or three or four. So there was an opportunity. I have done it in a number of opportunities for all MLAs to go through the actual screen assessment. There's no doubt. The screen assessment in and of itself doesn't require a mouse. It doesn't require a computer, but it did cause people to be nervous about that. I understand and respect that.

That's why I'm looking at, for example, the ability, when they go in, to have their initial orientation to the screen test before they do their assessment. They'll be able to have someone come in the room with them to sit down, to support them, to help reduce that anxiety. So I am not at all….

Again, I won't make a personal comment. But it is not at all lost on me that seniors have had concerns about this program. I have responded quickly and aggressively to try to make sure that it is a more appropriate process. I'm not going to be engaged in the game of frightening seniors across the province. I won't do that. What I will do is attempt to make the program as reasonable as possible and, certainly, as respectful as it should be.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister for those responses, and thank you for taking the concerns of seniors to heart. Obviously, maybe some more changes are in the offing, and that would be wonderful. There are a lot of areas of potential improvement. Much of the concern, originally, came from the fact that access to these tests was prohibitive for people — and the cost.

For someone from Texada Island, they have to take two ferries to get to their test. That's a cost of approximately $200, and they have to bring someone with them. It's entirely unfair, depending on where you live in the province. I'm hoping that the minister can look at that.

I had a question earlier about the medical or scientific evidence to show that this test was valid, and we didn't get an answer on that. I'm wondering if, in addition to an answer for that question, the minister would be prepared to make public the contract with DriveABLE.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: We're going to have a recess — obviously we're getting called down to vote — until we come back after the vote.

The committee recessed from 5:14 p.m. to 5:24 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite asked about making a contract available. Actually, DriveABLE is a service that's provided through fee-for-service. Individual service providers are reimbursed for their DriveABLE assessment work. There isn't one broad contract with DriveABLE. Individual certified providers are licensed to provide DriveABLE in B.C., and they are provided their funding through fee-for-service.

N. Simons: I'll try for the third time. Can the minister show us the scientific or medical validation of the appropriateness or validity of this test?

[1725]

Hon. S. Bond: It is a scientifically validated test, and I'd be happy to set up a detailed briefing. I'm not in a position today to outline all of the process that was involved. The test was done on hundreds of participants, both those who were medically able to participate and those who weren't.

We'd be delighted to set up a detailed briefing on the scientific validation, and as always, I'm very open to providing those kinds of briefings to members of the
[ Page 12374 ]
opposition.

N. Simons: According to my colleagues, two requests were made for further briefings and both were ignored. Perhaps with the renewed commitment to that, that might change.

Is there any sort of licensing agreement between the ministry and DriveABLE? How is it that DriveABLE became the only option available to British Columbians, if not a contract?

Hon. S. Bond: Our staff has been extraordinarily busy. I don't ignore requests for briefings. We have not…. I think both critics opposite know how freely we provide briefings. The fact of the matter is that we're happy to accommodate that. Obviously, it hasn't fit into the work schedule of our team, but we're happy to do that in terms of DriveABLE. I always attempt to make the staff available as soon as that's workable.

I will reply one more time to this question, because it's been answered. We do not have a contract with DriveABLE. The way it used to work, actually, was that seniors had to go out, take the test and pay for it, and they were reimbursed. I don't think that's how we expect seniors….

We should be clear that other jurisdictions actually…. People pay to have their assessments done. British Columbia pays for them to take their first assessment, their first road test. In other provinces, for example, there are fees charged to have this cognitive assessment done — a cognitive assessment, which can include DriveABLE.

The research and work was done by the ministry team, the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles, and DriveABLE was selected. It is mandated in British Columbia. The first assessments are paid for.

Independent service providers provide the assessment. The seniors do not have to pay in advance. The government then pays the service fee, the fee for those services, directly to the independent service providers. Those providers are certified and licensed, and they are based on the same standards that are used in Ontario, Alberta and the United States.

In fact, there are a number of service providers who provide the service. We pay the service provider.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to clarify that my assistant has made a request — I believe it was to the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles — for a further demonstration of the DriveABLE program. That was made several months ago, and a follow-up request was made, according to my assistant.

I've been told that a second request was made and that we haven't had a response to either. So maybe we'll just both clarify with our offices about what happened. I'm relying on what my assistant told me.

[1730]

Hon. S. Bond: There would be no reluctance. It would be a matter of timing. We'll clarify when the ask was made and how we can accommodate that request.

N. Simons: Did any other agencies or organizations that provide driving assessments and testing for seniors have an opportunity to apply for this sole-source non-contract?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I think we need to point out the fact that administering a DriveABLE road assessment or the DriveABLE program is not something that the motor vehicle offices are able to do. It is a specialized assessment.

I'm advised that should there be other driving assessments that actually deal with cognitive impairment… DriveABLE is the only assessment tool that's available at this point in time. Certainly, if there were to be other assessments of the same nature that were as scientifically based, we would obviously consider those.

N. Simons: It's one thing to say "scientifically based" and another to show the scientific basis. The minister has failed to tell this House where the scientific evidence is. I would harken back to another statement the minister made, which is undeniably incorrect.

The minister said that Dr. Dobbs is internationally renowned. She was hired by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct a scientific review. That review served as the basis for their medical guidelines and later served as the scientific basis for the AMA guide to assessing the older driver.

Forgive me if I'm unable to take everything that's said as the gospel truth when I've seen so many errors in the past in explanations — even just now, today, talking about whether or not SIMARD-MD would be mandated or not. That's basic information. The basic information that the person who designed the policy, designed the medical test and is associated very closely with the only company that apparently doesn't have a contract but is required to be the only testing facility for seniors….

Oh, only 2 percent of the seniors. They all get a letter. They all get told to go to the doctor, and they all have to do a medical test, including a cognitive one. Then they get told by the office of the superintendent that they might have early signs of cognitive failing.

I know too many seniors who've told me that they don't go back to their doctor anymore because they blame their doctor. The doctor, in many cases — and I've spoken to many doctors — has no idea why the office of the superintendent has brought them in for testing when they saw no problem. That concerns me.

Why did the ministry eliminate the position of the medical adviser for the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles in 2010?

[1735]

Hon. S. Bond: The effort to provide the medical guidelines, which were actually very thorough, saw the need for the medical director…. Actually, the requests from physicians and others dropped dramatically, so there was no need to continue that position, considering the production of the medical guidelines.

The work to improve DriveABLE will continue, and we will continue to look for respectful and appropriate ways, including shortening the distances that people have to travel to take the assessments. That's very important, and I certainly understand that.

I think that as we move forward, there needs to be a recognition that there are seniors in this province who are not in a position to drive anymore. What we need to do is find, and ensure that we have in place, an appropriate process that allows for individuals who have a cognitive impairment to be dealt with respectfully, with the best medical assessment that's possible.

I can assure the member opposite that every answer given in this House by this minister is given with the best advice of the professionals in this ministry. I will continue to look for ways to improve the program. As painful as it is for some seniors and their families, we have to do a better job of educating our communities and preparing families to deal with the issue of seniors reaching an age where, as unfortunate as it is, there are some who will not continue to drive.

In fact, it is our responsibility to look at how we can respectfully, responsibly ensure that they are safe on the roads and, wherever possible, extend their driving lives. That's our goal. We want to make sure that wherever reasonably appropriate, we can continue to see seniors drive as long as it's safe for them and for the people of British Columbia.

We will continue to make changes to improve the program. I certainly recognize that changes needed to be made, and we're working to do that.

K. Corrigan: I'm just going to ask one last question. It's sort of a combo question. The minister had announced a while ago that there was going to be a peer review of the program. I would wonder what the status of that peer review is — when we can expect it, who's doing it and if that peer review will be made public.

I guess I'll just tack onto that another question because this is our last question that we're going to ask. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to me, then, where we're going in terms of changes. Also, if there are individual contractors, who is overseeing the program? There was this entity called DriveABLE that I thought had a contract. I'd like to understand who is overseeing and what the status of DriveABLE is.

Hon. S. Bond: There is obviously a formal peer-review process. We understand that that work is nearing completion, if not will be completed. We're happy to get the details in terms of who did it, but it's a formal scientific review. It will be published in a scientific journal when that work is complete. We will await the outcomes of that review work that has been underway. I think it's an important step.

Certainly, the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles is ensuring that independent service providers who are accredited to provide DriveABLE services…. It's not something, certainly at this point in time, in this model of delivery, that the average motor vehicle office can actually perform. The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles is responsible for providing the fee-for-service to those independent providers.

H. Bains: My questions will be about community court. We'll wait a minute — change of the staff.

[1740]

For the minister's benefit, I think, a bit of a background. When Vancouver community court was being established, at the same time a community court for Surrey also was promised. At that time it was decided, according to the previous Attorney General, that they would go ahead with Vancouver first and then they would look at Surrey, although the Surrey mayor and the council and others from Surrey advocated very, very strongly at that time, suggesting that they had infrastructure in place, they had staffing in place, and what was needed was a will and a decision by the provincial government to carry through that decision.

So perhaps I could ask the minister, for a first question: what is the update on a Surrey community court as we stand today?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member's question. Certainly, the concept of the community court has been one that's very popular. I think it would be fair to say that while Surrey may have been on the leading edge, I know that most communities I visit like the concept of the wraparound services and the idea of community court. Certainly, the mayor of Surrey has been very outspoken with me and with my staff about the desire to see Surrey move forward with a community court.

We are currently partway through a three-stage review of the existing community court. So we want to make sure that what was promised was actually delivered through the outcomes of the community court. I think the principle, most people would agree, makes a lot of sense. It would work in some settings perhaps better than others, because you need the supporting resources to make it work.

Before we contemplate additional community courts, we want to look at the outcomes, look at whether it is effective and working well. That is currently underway. It's not expected to finish, certainly, in the next few months — definitely before the end of next fiscal. What we want to do is make sure it's working.
[ Page 12376 ]

Absolutely aware of the member opposite's concern and also the mayor of Surrey's view about a Surrey community court, but there would also be a long lineup of people after them looking at the concept. I want to make sure it works first, and we're in the process of that review.

H. Bains: At the time when the community court concept was being considered and looked at — and I think a lot of study was done and looking at other jurisdictions, a city such as New York and other places, where a community court system has worked and produced results — I don't believe anybody had any doubts that the community court system is the one that we need to experiment with here in this part of the country.

The minister can correct me, but I believe that two community courts were being looked at, at that time: one in Vancouver, one in Surrey. No doubt that Vancouver needs one. With all of the infrastructure and demographics that we have in Vancouver, certainly a community court type of system was needed. It is there, and from all accounts that I've heard, they have seen some successes coming through that community court.

[1745]

Now, talking about Surrey being the second-largest city right now after Vancouver — soon to be largest…. From all accounts, the projections are there as far as the population growth is concerned. With it comes all those elements and positives and negatives of a big city, which means we have those issues now in Surrey that we had in Vancouver.

When you talk about addiction issues, which many times can be considered as contributing factors to crime, petty crimes, and to people going through the court system as a revolving door, not getting the help that they need…. The community court system is the one that actually looks at their individual needs and provides them the support that they need. Going through that system, you could curb the cycle of crime that continues on with those kinds of issues.

My question to the minister is…. Surrey community court was considered at that time, along with Vancouver. Then, if I remember correctly, it was budgetary constraints that left Surrey out. Now the minister is saying that they are doing reviews of the current community court system. Fair enough. I think that is the right thing to do. But from all accounts that I've heard, it has produced very positive results, as was expected when the court system was set up.

The question to the minister is: if it's working in other jurisdictions, if it is working in Vancouver, why not in Surrey? And how soon can we see a community court system so that we can provide the support that many of those folks in Surrey need right now?

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the member opposite's outline of some of the challenges that Surrey is facing, undoubtedly — and certainly the fastest-growing community and city as well. But again, I think that, anecdotally, we certainly hear that…. Again, I think there is a broader acceptance, that the principle of doing court differently is broadly accepted. As I've said, in most communities that I go to, all of them want a community court.

What I want to do is move beyond anecdotal and move to the evidence-based review that says: "What are the outcomes? Is recidivism reduced?" That's an important factor for us. Is the court efficient? Is it actually delivering the kinds of efficiencies…?

I don't know about the history. There's not a lot of recollection here in terms of saying that it was one or the other. All I know is the ultimate outcome is that Vancouver moved ahead and Surrey didn’t.

So I'm certainly aware, as I said, of the interest. The mayor of Surrey has spoken to us and has written to me on several occasions about a community court. Again, I would look forward to the outcomes of the review to ensure that the model itself is helpful. Again, we are not in a position….

We don't do those reviews by ourselves. We're doing this in partnership with the court, and we want it to be appropriate and thorough. I hear the member opposite, and we'll put another tick mark in the Surrey "we want a community court" column, because there are a lot of very aggressive, outspoken advocates for a community court model. I just want to make sure it's working and that that is tested and proven before we look at expanding it.

I think that I'm also looking forward to looking at dedicated courts more broadly. I think that we've certainly heard from the child and youth rep that we need to look at a domestic violence type of emphasis, and that has worked in other jurisdictions. I think there are a variety of models across the country.

We have a drug court in Vancouver which is very successful, one of just a few of them across the country. All of the ministers advocated to Minister Nicholson that we all wanted more of the drug court model, because the outcomes there…. A study was done of the outcomes of drug court, and it was very, very successful in terms of reducing recidivism.

So I think we want a similar review that would give us, I would hope, the same confidence before we look at replicating. I'm well aware of the concern, and note's taken.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to have an opportunity for a few minutes today to question the minister, no reflection on my colleagues whatsoever.

[1750]

The minister mentioned that there has been a review of the community court in Vancouver. I'm sure the Deputy Attorney General can advise, but it seems to me I was advised last year that there was a review underway and there was going to be a report back as to its status. So how long has this review been underway? And when can we
[ Page 12377 ]
expect some actual tangible answers to the questions of whether it's successful or not?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, a good and appropriate question.

There is a multiphase evaluation going on. There was an initial evaluation that looked at things like the number of cases, the types of cases and whether staff and services were integrated.

That work has been completed, but what was missing and is needed is…. If you're going to look at the impact of the community court, particularly on an issue like recidivism, you don't have a long enough window of time. In essence, that's why the end of 2012, which is this year, gives us the window of time necessary to begin to look at recidivism rates and whether, in fact, it is making a difference for….

Ultimately, what we want to do…. We're not interested in doing court differently just for the sake of doing it differently. We actually want to see better outcomes for the people who go through that process.

Again, I wasn't there in the 2010 part of this, but I'm advised that the initial work was basically numeric and looked at things like caseload and which types of cases. Now we want to make sure there's a trend and that issues like recidivism are actually being addressed by the court.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if the minister has available through her staff or if the ministry is keeping statistics on this area. She mentioned this inferentially in her previous answer around comments received from other justice ministers across the country.

There seems to be growing statistical evidence that our prisons and our courtrooms are filled with people who suffer from some form of mental illness, who have some dependency on drugs and alcohol. They are the repeat offenders. They are recycled through the courts time after time.

The minister has been very supportive of Mr. Cowper's review of our justice system. I'm just wondering: is that kind of information, is that kind of approach…? Can we expect something as dramatic from Mr. Cowper as a recommendation — that frankly, from a public perspective and in terms of taxpayer dollar for value, the existing court system is not functioning to either protect the public or prevent repeat offenders from recycling through that system?

They are in fact not criminals by nature. They are supporting drug dependencies; they are delusional — all of those things. Is Mr. Cowper going to be considering that as part of his review?

[1755]

Hon. S. Bond: I don't disagree particularly with any of the observations the member opposite has made. We know that there are some significant concerns about the people that end up rotating through courts and through correctional facilities. Many of them are drug dependent. There are many mental health challenges.

I can't speculate on what Mr. Cowper will report back. As I said in an earlier conversation, our goal and our commitment is to create a White Paper after Mr. Cowper reports back to us.

What I did ask him to look at, because I am very interested in the work that's been done…. Not, specifically, from the perspective the member opposite has asked about, mental health, but I asked him to consider dedicated courts. So a roundabout way to get there, partly prompted by the child and youth rep's concern around domestic violence issues, but secondly, because of the success of the drug court.

I have been at a celebration looking at some of the outcomes of that court. I think, certainly, that my colleagues across the country also recognize the importance of providing those other wraparound services.

The member opposite is exactly correct. We have to stop the repeat offenders. We talk about the impacts in our system in terms of corrections and all of those issues. One of the first things when I became Sol. Gen and minister, AG–Sol. Gen, we went through and looked at the process that individuals go through.

The most striking memory I have of that briefing is the fact that a very high percentage of individuals who come out of the corrections facilities go right back to the beginning of the line and end up working their way through the court system and back into the corrections facility all over again. I am a big advocate of looking at the system and saying: "We can't keep doing things the same way we're doing them and hope for different outcomes."

A long answer to the question. But basically, I've asked Mr. Cowper to look — I'm hoping; he's got a lot to look at — in particular, at the concept of dedicated courts.

L. Krog: I want to express to the minister my very sincere appreciation for the candour of her answer because I think she appreciates the problem. But this very much begs the next question.

Given the minister's acknowledgment of the nature of a number of our offenders, what possible benefit is there going to be from this province's support of mandatory minimum sentences for people who are not criminal by nature but are suffering from a mental illness or a drug addiction? What possible benefit will it be in terms of either protection of society or a benefit to those individuals?

Hon. S. Bond: I know the member opposite and I have agreed in many ways to disagree on this topic. I think one of the things that we are unclear about is the complete impact of Bill C-10.

I am on the record, and I think as a government we are clearly on the record of believing and in fact asking for
[ Page 12378 ]
mandatory minimum sentences in some cases. For me to suggest otherwise would be inaccurate.

We've had a significant discussion about Bill C-10. I don't think that these issues operate in isolation either. I know that within corrections itself…. And this isn't the ultimate best answer. We work very hard within corrections to work with individuals. We went through this recently in terms of the kinds of supports there are for individuals with addictions and mental health challenges, including mental health officers in our corrections facilities.

Obviously, I'd rather we were working on the prevention side of that. But I think the safest answer and the most accurate is that we're going to agree to disagree on the validity of Bill C-10 and at the same time continue to look at different ways to provide the important supports that individuals that have been described need to be dealt with in a potentially different way.

L. Krog: Conscious of the time, we're going to have to move on to another topic fairly quickly, and that's the issue of Boss Power.

The minister responsible was quoted as saying — and this was the minister on Voice of B.C. last October: "Basically what we did…. We brought the tenure back. We basically set aside $50 million in 2008 when we made the decision for possible claims."

[1800]

The minister is well aware there were three evaluations prepared for the benefit of the court. The report for the B.C. government, P.R. Stephenson of AMC, put the value with a top-end evaluation at $6.7 million April 24, 2008; $3.5 million as of March 12, 2009, valued it at $5.6 million. Mr. Spence suggested that, in fact, the range or the value claim was about $8.7 million, which was $6.7 million plus 30 percent. And, of course, the plaintiffs in the claim, represented by Nathanson, Schachter and Thompson, valued it at $59.4 million.

The question is very simply this: who made the decision to settle at $30 million, given that the independent report and the government's own report indicated a value on this claim substantially less?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, and certainly with due respect, we provided legal advice. This is not part of our estimates debate. Our job was to provide legal advice, and that's exactly what we did.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response. Is the minister saying, then, that it was the Ministry of Attorney General that recommended that $30 million was a reasonable settlement?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite: this is not within the purview of our estimates. Our job is to provide legal advice to government, and that's what we did.

The Chair: I'll remind the member to stick with the estimates questions, please.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair. I certainly will.

The ministry, through counsel, provided affidavit material to the courts in this matter. It was the ministry's officers who conducted the legal case. It was the ministry who acts for the government with respect to this particular case. It's fairly clear, the minister has acknowledged, that the ministry gave legal advice on this matter, which would include advice as to settlements. Otherwise, the ministry wouldn't have obtained through counsel these valuations for court purposes.

Again, my question is to the minister — and I think it's a perfectly legitimate question: was it the ministry's advice to settle this claim at $30 million?

Hon. S. Bond: This is not part of the estimates debate of the Attorney General. Our job is to provide advice to the government. That's what we did.

L. Krog: The minister has just answered the question, said it's her ministry's job to provide advice to government. So I'm asking: did they advise the government to settle at $30 million?

Hon. S. Bond: That's been asked and answered.

The Chair: Member, you might not be happy with the answer, but the minister has answered.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I appreciate I might not be happy with the answer, but I can be sure the public won't be happy with the answer either. This claim was settled for $30 million when the court expert recommended a claim of about $8.7 million. I've asked the minister over and over again, and she said the ministry had provided advice. Obviously the valuation of this claim came through the ministry, through staff, and I'm again asking this question. I think it's a perfectly legitimate one. Did the ministry advise the government to settle this claim at that amount of money?

Hon. S. Bond: Madam Chair, that's been asked and answered.

The Chair: Perhaps you could move on to another question, Member.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'm going to ask this question then. Did the ministry have any advice with respect to the setting aside of the amount involved, $50 million originally, which was what the minister responsible said on October 27, 2011?

Hon. S. Bond: The job of the Attorney General's min-
[ Page 12379 ]
istry is to provide legal advice to government on numerous topics. I should also remind the member opposite that this issue is not settled yet, so I am not in a position to be able to comment.

L. Krog: Perhaps the minister could confirm what she means by: "This matter is not settled." The public is certainly under the impression that $30 million later, last fall, this is settled.

[1805]

Hon. S. Bond: It's simply that contracts like this are complex. There is some finalization regarding the settlement. Obviously, that would preclude me from making specific comments about this case.

L. Krog: Then let me ask this question of the minister so we are very clear for the record, as the next ministry's estimates are to follow.

The minister is saying that she can't answer any questions about who made the final determination with respect to whether $30 million was a fair settlement, a terrible settlement or a great settlement. Those questions are properly directed to the Minister of Energy. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: My answer to the member opposite was that we provided legal advice to government, which is the role of the Attorney General.

L. Krog: The minister is probably familiar with a letter that was cc'd to her. It's dated March 20 from the Coalition for Public Legal Services, with a number of criticisms about the lack of funding for the justice system in the province.

It includes a statement, starting on the first page at the bottom — it has been cc'd to your office — talking about how we are adding more money to the justice system with reference to a comment made in the Attorney General's budget estimates for 2010-2011, etc. Then it goes on to state that this is contradicted by the Attorney General's own budget estimates in the following years.

What they assert is that in 2008-2009 it was $530.644 million; in 2009-10 it was $465.198 million; in 2010-2011, $457.639 million; and in 2011-2012, $443.204 million. Can the minister confirm whether those figures are in fact accurate or not?

[1810]

Hon. S. Bond: I know the member opposite is trying to cover as much ground as he can, and that's absolutely right. I don't have the letter in front of me, and I would want to. I mean, I answer questions, certainly, with advice. I haven't got the letter in front of me, and until I see it, I'm not in a position to be able to agree or disagree with what it suggests.

L. Krog: Surely somebody here from the ministry has the budgetary figures, and they can confirm whether or not the figures I have quoted are accurate.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sorry. Either we need to repeat the numbers, or we need to make sure we have a copy of the letter so that I can actually answer the question accurately. No one here heard the numbers, and there's context for each one of them.

M. Farnworth: I have some brief questions to ask the minister regarding the Office of the Public Trustee, and they're from Mr. Roberts, a constituent of mine. It concerns the management of the assets or the moneys that come out of the public trustee. Is any of the money that's managed…? Are any of those moneys paid out in commissions at all?

Hon. S. Bond: As I know the member opposite would know, obviously, the Public Guardian and Trustee is independent. I'm also not in a position of being able to discuss individual cases. What I can say is that when the Public Guardian and Trustee is managing, there are fees associated with that. Those fees are set by regulation, by cabinet, so in fact there is a schedule of fees, and those fees are comparable to the private trust industry.

When you look at the total income or the total revenue, in essence, it would cover about two-thirds of the cost of the office. In fact, there is still a subsidy. I'm hoping that will be helpful. I can't speak specifically to the individual case, but yes, there are fees, and they're laid out by regulation.

M. Farnworth: To be clear, I'm not talking about a specific case. Rather, these are inquiries on behalf of an individual and not dealing with any specific case.

Two further questions. Could the minister provide a schedule to me of what the fees are? That would be great. You don't have to have it today, but if it's sent to my office, that would be terrific.

[1815]

Is there ever an excess — is the minister aware — in terms of the fees for a shortfall? So if there is a shortfall, how is money recovered? If there's an excess, where does it go?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm lucky to have a resident expert.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: That's right.

We'd be happy to provide the member opposite with the schedule of the fees. Jay Chalke assures me that there's never been an excess — or rarely — when you talk about overall revenue. In fact, we end up subsidizing. It hasn't been the situation of having an excess.
[ Page 12380 ]

When it comes to an individual, for example, who may not be able to make those fees, there is a waiver provision so that based on hardship, a fee can be waived. The Public Guardian and Trustee has the ability to do that as well.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for her answer. I guess one final question: in terms of individual cases, are there ever excesses? If so, do we have any figures on how often that occurs or what the number would be?

Hon. S. Bond: No, because as best as I certainly understand the question, the fee is a percentage, so in fact there can't be an excess.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if the minister is contemplating, within the context of this year's budget, any funding for what we used to refer to as community law offices, which were funded through legal aid. They provided an enormously valuable service. There were only a few million dollars a year. They were provincewide. They dealt with people who had significant issues with various problems, including residential tenancy problems, EI problems, problems with the ministry —securing appropriate payments.

Is there any possibility of funding for that, and again, is that something Mr. Cowper is considering as part of his review?

Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, he probably has more familiarity with the impacts of a community law office model than I do. But what I have done — and we discussed this earlier — was ask Legal Services Society to come back with their advice and recommendations about a model that is beneficial for the province.

It is likely or possible or certainly within the realm of possibility that they could come back with recommendations about that type of model, which included community law offices. That work is underway. It is being done separately from Mr. Cowper, but certainly a very thorough look is being done about the provision of legal aid services and support to those who need it in communities.

L. Krog: Again, skipping through the issues very quickly given the limited time involved. The Premier back on May 30, 2011, said with reference to the Missing Women Inquiry…. She committed to "making sure that we can hear from as many voices as is absolutely possible."

[1820]

Given the Premier's public commitment on that, can the Attorney General explain today why, when the commissioner himself — a respected jurist, a former Attorney General — made a time request for an extension, the government's response was not to satisfy his request? Nor was it to satisfy his request for further funding to ensure that a number of groups who had been given status or standing for the commission weren't in fact given any funding, thus limiting the effectiveness of this inquiry in many people's minds, notwithstanding that I think there is probably no story of horror that is more familiar to British Columbians than this.

In those circumstances, I'm wondering if the minister can explain why the government, given the rather paltry amount of money involved versus what government spends on other issues…. I'm going to be sarcastic here. Forgive me. When we can spill $180 million worth of power over a dam, why can't we find a million and a half bucks to properly fund so that people could appear in front of this inquiry and be satisfied at the end of the day that the public gets good value for its money?

In other words, my assertion is that the government was being penny wise and pound foolish in this, and I'd like to hear the Attorney General's response.

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly regret that that's the view of the member opposite. I agree that this is an egregious mark on British Columbia's history, and I for one — and certainly this government — do not want this to happen again. It is tragic and unbelievably, I'm sure, painful for families who have lost their loved ones.

We worked to ensure that the commission of inquiry took place. We provided legal support for those who we believed were most profoundly impacted. That's the families of those women that were missing and murdered. Commissioner Oppal also worked to provide support through two pro bono lawyers and two additional lawyers to those organizations that wanted to participate — recently focused on two lawyers to specifically deal with aboriginal families and concerns that had been raised.

In effect, we are as concerned as the member opposite is. He should express his concern about what happened in our province, and I share that. We believe that at the end of this process, there will be a series of recommendations that will be valid and will be important to ensuring that this doesn't happen again.

I understand there are those who feel that there could have been a different route taken. I believe the format, the model that's been used, has been in-depth enough that the recommendations will be valid and will make a difference in our province.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, you're not going to say "noting the hour" to me at this stage, but I suspect that's probably what you're hinting at. So I will be very brief and just express my gratitude to the minister and the staff who, given the nature of this blended ministry, had some difficulty bouncing back and forth to answer all of the questions.

I wish we had more time, but from a crass political perspective, I hope the opportunity will be reversed on some future occasion.
[ Page 12381 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate that. You can imagine that we're going to agree to disagree on that too. But I do also want to say a very profound thank-you to the men and women on this team. It is a very, very complicated and busy ministry that is supported by exceptional staff, both on the SG and the AG side, despite the fact we're now called the Ministry of Justice and we are acting like a ministry of justice.

I want to say a very deep thank-you to everyone. They literally have put their lives on hold over the last number of days. I very much appreciate that, and I thank the members for their questions.

[1825]

Vote 31: Attorney General operations, $368,337,000 — approved.

Vote 32: Solicitor General operations, $611,807,000 — approved.

Vote 33: judiciary, $67,041,000 — approved.

Vote 34: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 35: independent investigations office, $9,300,000 — approved.

Vote 36: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $1,000 — approved.

Vote 37: Emergency Program Act, $14,478,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 51: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,075,000 — approved.

The Chair: We are now recessed until after the dinner hour, which will be seven o'clock, when we will begin the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

The committee recessed from 6:27 p.m. to 7:02 p.m.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

On Vote 19: ministry operations, $50,234,000.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister and to the staff for coming out tonight. Luckily, it's not one of the beautiful summer evenings in the Victoria area that we have up north this time of year, so we aren't missing out on too much outdoors, that's for sure.

I just want to start off by saying that we on the official opposition side recognize the very important role that mining has to play in the province, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues for the provincial revenue stream, thousands of jobs — jobs in rural areas especially, areas like I represent that are an important part of the community fabric — and the personal taxation dollars that come out of those jobs as well, an important revenue stream.

We know that many of the opportunities we're facing now in the province in mining are generated by the high commodity prices we've seen in the last decade or longer, an example being that copper was at 75 cents U.S. a pound in 1998, and it averaged $3.96 U.S. a pound in 2011. Today it closed at $3.48 a pound, so a little bit of a drop — but overall since 1998 a five-time increase in copper.

We see similar numbers on other base metals: gold, a five-time increase over that period in commodity prices; silver, seven times; and molybdenum seven times as well. So many opportunities resulting from those high commodity prices — an important part of what we're doing in B.C.

Along that theme, on the official opposition's side and knowing that this is an important part of the budget, we have been supportive of a number of government initiatives in the past year, Geoscience B.C. being one of them. We supported the $12 million in 2011 going towards that organization that's done important mapping work, for instance. The mining flow-through shares tax credit that's worth about $7 million a year — we voted in favour of extending that to December 2013 along with the government side.

[1905]

Another example: Genome B.C., the $75 million that will go to that organization between 2010 and 2015. They do some important genomics research, and part of that is in mining. It could prove very beneficial around tailings ponds, especially detoxifying contaminated water.

There are some areas that we think the government could be doing a better job on. I'll be, understandably, questioning the minister in the budget estimates tonight around those.

Skills training has been one of those areas that we'll get to in the budget estimates questioning. We don't believe that there has been enough focus in that area. Understanding that there are different ministries involved in that, however, it's mentioned in the service plan and in the budget estimates under this ministry.

Social licence, in a general sense, is what I'll be talking about. That's become a big topic in the mining sector when I talk to industry representatives.

Two elements of that are the environmental assessment process, which I'll be touching on in relation, again, to
[ Page 12382 ]
these budget estimates — some important points there to cover — as well as First Nations consultation and accommodation, which has been pointed out by industry as an area that needs a lot of work.

In fact, the Fraser Institute, as we know, pointed out two years ago and again last year in their annual reports about investing in B.C. that one of the areas — out of 70-odd jurisdictions they surveyed — that investors found severely lacking was the question around First Nations rights and title. So lots of work to be done there. I'll be asking the minister a few questions in that area.

Finally, the attention that this important sector deserves — the fact that we had a backlog. I'll be talking and asking the minister a few question about the backlog issue of mining permits.

Unfortunately, that was addressed through contingency funds. For people who might not be terribly familiar with that term, it means that the staffing required to ensure that backlogs don't arise in the future is not a core-funded feature. It's simply a one-off funding to address backlogs. So there are concerns there from industry and others around…. If the backlog issue was created by a lack of staffing, as a former Minister of Mines pointed out, then we have to be worried about the future, of that happening again.

We used to have a Minister of State for Mining as well, and no longer is that a position in government. I appreciate that the current minister holds about six different portfolios, so naturally, less attention. One person only has so much attention. Attention spent across the board on mining needs to be increased.

I'll start off my questioning tonight around some of the targets that were in the service plan and that have been announced by the government over the past year. Again, I'm coming at this from the aspect of: if you don’t measure it, you can't manage it. But part of measuring is ensuring that the measures that you're taking are verifiable, have some validity and that people have confidence in the numbers and they're not just being thrown out there.

One of the targets that is in the service plan is eight new mines being opened in the province by 2015. I wanted to start off tonight by asking the minister who was consulted in establishing the target of eight new mines.

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I get started, though, on my right is my deputy minister, Steve Carr. To my left is David Morel, who is the assistant deputy minister in the mines and mineral resources division, and behind me is Les MacLaren, who is the assistant deputy minister. Neilane Mayhew is the assistant deputy minister, executive financial officer, for the ministry.

The way we came to that goal, hon. Member, was we looked at all the projects across government — how advanced they were — our staff did. And it came back that if we were able to focus our efforts and resources, we could achieve a goal of eight new mines. As we looked to advance the projects, the policies that we had, how we could streamline them and if we all worked in a cohesive manner, we felt that we could achieve the goal of eight new mines.

[1910]

D. Donaldson: From that response, I take it the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C., the Mining Association of B.C. — two of the industry-represented bodies — or First Nations bodies such as the B.C. First Nations Energy and Mining Council, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, First Nations Women Advocating Responsible Mining, or communities: none of these were consulted about establishing a target for number of new mines opened.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is a goal, and the goal was achieved by looking at what was advanced in government. Every one of these projects goes through consultation and accommodation discussions with First Nations.

Obviously we're in regular contact and discussion with the two organizations that affect mining, both the mineral exploration guys and the other, but we know, advanced within our system, what is where in an application process.

So we did the assessment on what we had in front of us — without anything new coming in through the door, because we know that they can take time — and we looked at how advanced some projects were. That assisted us in establishing the goal.

D. Donaldson: Well, let's talk about goals, then. Goals, in order to be judged and evaluated, need to be measurable. There was a news release lately put out by the ministry regarding five of what were considered new mines being opened. Copper Mountain was one of them. As the minister is likely aware, Granby Consolidated Mining in 1884 began work on this site; from 1988 to 1996, a little more recently, Newmont Mining and Princeton Mining were working on that site.

How do you judge what a new mine is? Copper Mountain was cited as one of the new mines being opened, and yet we see that it's had a lot of previous work. What were the criteria for including or judging whether it is a new mine or not?

Hon. R. Coleman: Copper Mountain is not counted as one of the five.

D. Donaldson: Well, I'm reading from a news release that came out the same day as the mining plan, just a couple of weeks ago, that new mines include Copper Mountain, which began production in June 2011, and four others announced under the Canada Starts Here jobs plan. Perhaps the material the ministry is putting out is incorrect — which is a concern, because we're try-
[ Page 12383 ]
ing to verify the accuracy of this eight-new-mines goal.

I'll continue on with that questioning. If Mount Milligan mine, which was again in that news release…. The minister confirmed that that's one of the new mines that this government is counting as a new mine. Mount Milligan, by Prince George; New Afton, by Kamloops — that was another one mentioned in the news release; Barkerville, by Quesnel; and Red Chris, by Dease Lake. That's four.

Since then there's been another release from the government, talking about Treasure Mountain close to Hope. That would be five.

We're now not counting Copper Mountain. We'll have to make sure that that's corrected in the record. Copper Mountain is not a new mine. Then what are the other three?

[1915]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, with Copper Mountain what I said was it wasn't included in the eight new mines, but it was in the literature as a new mine. The reason for that is that they've moved into a new pit, an area that's basically starting a whole new operation there. Eventually, they will join a couple of other pits together, and they've been doing some additional stuff. That mine's been closed, as the member knows, for some time.

I'll give you a list of what we have. What we're doing, basically, on all of them is we've identified, like I said, projects that would be advanced, that would be coming through. Whether they all actually achieve mine status doesn't mean…. The total of eight have been identified as who's going to get approved. They will have to go through their processes.

At this time under construction we have Mount Milligan and New Afton. We also have Bonanza Ledge, Red Chris and Treasure Mountain. Those have been permitted.

Then we have a number of expansions — at Elkview, Endako, Highland Valley, Huckleberry, Mount Polley and Quinsam coal mine. These are all ones that are being approved relative to expansions of their mines.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that.

Part of the goal of eight new mines was announced as part of the jobs plan in the fall of 2011. For many of the mines that are now counted as new mines, the work predated the fall of 2011. For instance, Red Chris — the environmental certificate through the EA process was issued in 2004.

If a number of these new mines predated the jobs plan, then how does the minister think that the jobs plan was the reason that these new mines are on their way to becoming a reality?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, there'd been a long lag between some of these. Our concentration is getting them done. They're going to be new mines when they open up, and that's how we'll measure them.

D. Donaldson: So I'll take that that the jobs plan actually didn't have anything to do with possibly opening these mines, including Red Chris, which was started in 2004, about seven years before the actual jobs plan in the fall.

I'll move on to revenues as part of goals. Again, it's important to have measurable, valid, realistic numbers around the mining improvements that the government wants to make.

This is according to the service plan. The mining sector gross revenue in 2010 — $7.1 billion. Out of that, $400 million was accrued in provincial revenue. That's mostly from the royalties, I assume.

Those were from the existing and operating mines, obviously, and exploration. So $7.1 billion, resulting in $400 million in provincial revenues. That's about a 5.6 percent ratio.

Now, out of the eight new mines and the nine expanded operations, the goal by 2015 in the service plan…. The literature the government put out around the service plan is that $1.6 billion in mining sector gross revenues from that are anticipated and $150 million in provincial revenue. That represents a 9.3 percent ratio.

Could the minister explain the difference between those two ratios — 9.3 percent for the ones that are being planned and 5.6 percent in gross revenue per provincial revenue in the ones that are existing?

Hon. R. Coleman: While they're getting that information, I just want to tell the member opposite that the jobs plan is about focusing government on achievements relative to the eight new mines and the nine expanded mines for job growth. It's about, actually, streamlining across government, having a coordinated piece of work done so that all the permitting and everything is moving in the right direction.

The challenge that we've been faced with as a ministry is to accomplish those goals. That's what it is — set out to goal.

For instance, the Red Chris is a good example for the member opposite. Yeah, they may have applied for something many, many years ago, but it was actually the focus that was brought to that file in the last year that has streamlined it somewhat to get it to the level it was so we could permit it.

[1920]

That's the type of thing that all the ministries — not just this one but Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation; all of us — are focused on, through a deputy ministers committee, to achieve certain goals. On the mining side that's to achieve the goals we're trying to achieve.
[ Page 12384 ]

I'll see if I can get you the answer to the other question.

The nearest my folks can figure out is that you're comparing apples to oranges. We probably need to get some more questions, if the member wants to give me some more detail.

Basically, in the mining strategy it talks about annual increased mine operation revenue of $1.6 billion. That's operating revenue that comes out of the mine operation. The $150 million a year in government revenue is generated, but it's different than the revenue that might come out of production value versus operating revenues. That's where the numbers may differ between the service plan and that, and the ratios may be different.

It could also be relative to the type of ore that may be involved in a particular mining operation versus another. As the member probably knows, the largest amount of mining in B.C. is in coal. That's where the largest amount of our production is, and that is obviously affected differently than other types of minerals.

So I guess we'll just ask a few more questions. Maybe we can suss it out for the member, and if we can't, we'll get him details.

D. Donaldson: Yes, I see now in the service plan the production value of $7.1 billion in 2010 and in the mine strategy annual mine operation revenue of $1.6 billion. So if you could just elaborate on the difference between those two.

Hon. R. Coleman: The mining strategy talks about increased annual mine operation revenue of eight new mines, not about the global number for the entire…. The larger number is the global number for operations of mines in B.C. That in itself may be different between whether it's production value or operating revenue, depending on the number.

[1925]

D. Donaldson: I understand there are 19 operating mines in B.C. I believe ten are coal and nine are metal. The production value is $7.1 billion in 2010 for those 19 that are operating. What is the operating revenue for those 19 mines, if it's not $7.1 billion?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the challenge is going to be getting to what the number is that we're going to try and compare it to. I'll give you an example out of the PricewaterhouseCoopers industry report they just did for the mining association. For instance, gross mining revenues in 2011 were $9.886 billion. In 2010 they were $7.905 billion. The revenues go through a breakdown.

What we're going to try and do is get the right description to match up to your questions, to get you the right numbers so they all fit together for you. It may take a few minutes.

D. Donaldson: Considering the constrained time frame we're in, if the minister wants to provide that in writing to me at a later date, then I can further address some of the other topic areas.

The point I'm trying to get at is that if we use the 9.3 percent ratio on what's happening right now, then instead of generating $400 million in provincial revenue, we'd be generating $660 million in provincial revenue. So there's a $260 million difference yearly, depending on which ratios you use. I understand that perhaps we're talking about something that, the minister pointed out, is operating revenue versus production revenue, so I'd appreciate the numbers being worked out and clarifying that.

Going back to the goal of eight new mines opened and nine expanding mines by 2010, obviously the government put some thought into the numbers. As the minister said, it was all based on projects across the government and what stages they were at, not specifically consulting with the mining sector, First Nations or communities.

Was there also, perhaps, a goal looked at? One would think, if you're considering a number of mines, you're also projecting into the future and hoping to come up with a certain revenue stream from mining. Overall, we know in forestry there used to be almost a billion dollars of revenue generated for the province. Now I believe it's down to about $300 million.

Between the $400 million currently and the $150 million projected with the new expansions, we're up to about $550 million. Is the goal of the province to try to get back up to the level that forestry was at, with mining? Was there an overall revenue goal in having these new mines expanded and opening?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have a revenue goal per se, and the reason for that is that each mine is a bit different. Basically, as they come on, we will have projections that come through them. For instance, one could have $1.5 billion in capital costs. Another one might have $450 million in capital costs, depending on the size of the mine. So that's a predictive that's a little bit difficult.

[1930]

That's why we looked at what we had in the hopper and said, being conservative, we'd have $150 million a year in government revenues by 2015 with the eight new mines. I think that's achievable, given the progress of the mines.

The same situation, of course, is affected, because when you start construction, you're not necessarily at the level of production where it's bringing you a substantial amount of revenue. You could have the mine approved and under construction and created, but it would still maybe take a year or so for it to be fully up and running — or longer, depending on the size.

There are some pretty big plays out there that if they were to be successful, it would be substantial enough that I think they would put us over that $150 million figure, but it all depends on when, where and how, of course.
[ Page 12385 ]

There's a lot of work being done to make sure that there are no barriers to try and have success — that we get through all the environmental assessment processes, that we get through the First Nations consultations, that we get through all the things in a coordinated manner through government to get to where we get the new mines created or done.

Some of them will be smaller than others. Some of them will have a different ore body than others. What we've done is we've averaged it across as best as we can, to say: "This is our projection." But the revenues wouldn't get booked by Finance until the actual year that the revenues would come into production.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I have an additional question on the revenue stream, but the minister brought up construction. We already noted that two of the mines…. Specifically, I'm going to ask about two of the mines that are under the eight new mines being opened. Mount Milligan mine in Prince George and New Afton Mine in Kamloops both are under construction. When were the mining permits granted for those two mines?

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: The minister and the staff will be looking up the answer to that, and we'll proceed once we get those answers.

We'll get back to the revenue stream. The minister talked about a goal in the eight new mines — and didn't necessarily need to consult with stakeholders because that was an overall goal.

Likewise, could the minister enlighten us as to whether there were any conversations with ministry staff about an overall goal of what the government percentage of the overall revenue the government is attempting to achieve? What percentage would mining play in that? Obviously, that's a high-level question, but unless you know where you want to go, then it's hard to get there.

[1935]

Hon. R. Coleman: For the member opposite, we don't have the percentage of mine revenue compared to all other resource revenue, but we'll try and get that out of the fiscal plan for you. It's not a comparable we would have within our stuff here.

New Afton was initially permitted in 2007 and Mount Milligan in 2009.

D. Donaldson: Well, I'll address the second answer first. The jobs plan came out in September 2011, touting the eight new mines as a goal, and now we learn that two of those projects listed under eight new mines were actually permitted in 2007 — that would have been three years previous to the jobs plan — and 2009, two years previous to the jobs plan. Red Chris received its environmental certificate in 2004. That would be seven years prior to the jobs plan.

How can the minister argue logically that the jobs plan had anything to do with three of those new mines?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the jobs plan is about getting these mines up and running. Just because something gets permitted doesn't mean it's up and operational yet, so you still have the work to do, and you still have to be focused. That's what the whole idea behind the jobs plan was and the mining strategy.

In actual fact, we only permitted Red Chris less than a month ago, to actually give it a permit. So even though it may have done something, that's a good example for the member himself to look at, if it received its one certificate back a number of years ago. The environment has to be created. The commitment had to be made to Highway 37, to electrify the highway, because there had to be power up there so they could decide to make an investment. They had to go through the work to get to the permit.

It was certainly brought to my attention that Red Chris needed some work and attention paid to it when I became the minister and received responsibility going into the jobs plan. That's what we're doing. We're focusing on all of these to make sure we get them done. The reason for it is that we want people to know how we're coordinating across government to create jobs in the future.

These are all future jobs, so they're all part of the jobs plan. We could just as easily have not concentrated and streamlined and consolidated our processes, which would have slowed things down and not got them done, but the intent is to make sure everybody is focused in government. So by actually telling people what you're trying to do, what your goals are, that actually gets people focused on the targets.

D. Donaldson: There's one thing, setting goals, and then there's another thing, saying, "Look what we did," but it's already been done. So if we're looking at criteria for how you evaluate what a new mine is, and the minister said mining permits aren't part of the criteria…. Obviously, an environmental certificate isn't part of the criteria of what defines a new mine, according to the minister. Then, it's hard to know what the evaluation criteria are.

I think most people would say a mining permit is a pretty valid benchmark as far as what a new mine criteria is. We'll leave it at that, but again, these numbers can't just be thrown out. They need to be verifiable in order to have validity. When we're talking about eight new mines, and it appears like at least half of them have predated the goal set…. It's easy to achieve your goals if half of it has already been achieved before you announce that's the goal.

As far as the percentage of revenue generated by mining in the overall budget, that wasn't specifically my ques-
[ Page 12386 ]
tion. My question is: does the minister sit down with staff and set a goal regarding what percentage of the revenue stream on a yearly basis in advance is going to try to be achieved by mining revenues? Again, a goal, as the minister says, is something to shoot for.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let me answer this. So there are three ways you get to a final mine. The first thing is their environmental. You can do your environmental, and you can sit on it for ten years. That doesn't mean we have a mine. Then you can have a mine permit, which still doesn't mean you have a mine.

The final stage is getting the thing into operation, which is making sure all the other things are done, permit-wise and everything else, to get the mine to full operation. That's why we have a number of opportunities we're looking at for new mines. We know that some of them may or may not get done because of the investment climate or whatever the case may be.

[1940]

We're working on a number of them, but we feel that within that box, there are at least eight new mines and nine expansions that'll take place.

With regards to the other, what we're asked to do annually is basically sit down with the Ministry of Finance. We give them what we think are our…. Our staff sit down with the Ministry of Finance staff, and we give them what we think the current mineral tax estimates are for any particular fiscal year.

For instance, for fiscal 2012-13 there's $336 million from coal mines and $55 million from metal mines. That's what happens. What happens is as we put the budget together, ministries are asked, based on all the information that they gather, to give…. Well, obviously we submit our budget for costs, operations and that sort of thing.

Then we also submit…. At the same time, we're asked what we think the mineral revenues will be, in this case, for government going into the next fiscal year. That's done going through the fall. Usually those are locked down in the numbers about mid-January. They watch the numbers. We watch how, obviously, the prices of copper or gold or coal are, and then we do an estimate based on the information we have, in conjunction with Finance.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. That's on a yearly basis, so in a mandate of four years, the government didn't sit down and say: "Four years from now we want to hit this target."

I understand the yearly cycle, but my question was more: recognizing the importance of mining in the province, did the government project, four years ago, four years ahead? Well, I guess it wouldn't be four years ago, but in 2005 to 2009, for instance. Or in 2009 did the government sit down ministry staff and say: "Okay, by 2012 we want mining revenue to represent this percentage of the overall revenue stream"?

Hon. R. Coleman: Usually what we do…. I'll just go back to my experience in forestry. We try and lock down the numbers and try and have a prediction. We usually try and stick close to the first year. We have a three-year fiscal plan. I haven't got it in front of me.

I suspect that what's predicted for the next year is the same for the next two years after that because there are so many fluctuations that can affect government's predictions of revenue. They lock down their revenues closer to the budget on an annual basis versus the locking down of the numbers going out a number of years. It depends on when things come on play.

The other thing is…. I remember one year where we were looking at forestry revenues, for instance, and we watched the number of housing starts. The U.S. dropped from…. It was two million housing starts in the U.S. the year before. We were trying to figure out our numbers in July. The housing starts dropped down to 1.4 million. By September they had dropped to a 1.2 million prediction out of the housing stats in the U.S. By December they were down to 700,000 and, actually, the next year went down to 400,000.

What we try and do is lock in the number in the fiscal plan for a specific year tighter to the fiscal plan's time frame, and we keep the next number of the two years out. Although we might be optimistic about numbers, we're not going to be optimistic about numbers for a fiscal year until we're closer to the day when we can actually lock down numbers, knowing what we've got in production.

[1945]

D. Donaldson: Going back to the criteria again for judging whether a mine is a new mine. The opening is obviously a criteria, a mine opened. And yet we have a number of these — the five listed as new mines counted towards the eight new mines — that aren't opened. Could the minister enlighten us as to when Mount Milligan will be open, when New Afton will be open and when Red Chris will be opened?

I think by any standard people would consider the major criteria for a new mine would be opened and in production, and yet these three I just mentioned are counted as five of the new mines in achieving the goal of eight by the ministry.

Hon. R. Coleman: What we've said about these five mines is that they're contributing to our goal of five new mines by 2015. We think they'll be up and running.

For instance, Mount Milligan we expect to be in production in 2013. New Afton — I’m not sure of the date, but I think it's pretty close to 2013 or late 2012. I know they've done an underground mine to an all-new ore body that nobody knew was there before. Last time I was there, it was about 500 metres of underground tunnel-
[ Page 12387 ]
ing that they had completed already and were continuing. They were down, and they were starting to take some of the material out, because they were actually building the roads — for lack of a better description — or tunnels. But full production would be a little bit further on, probably 2013.

D. Donaldson: So we've got mines counted as new mines, and they're not going to be opened till either late this year or next year. And Red Chris, I didn't get the estimate from the minister on that; although if it's included in the new mine list, one would expect the minister and ministry to have a handle on when it would open as well.

Hon. R. Coleman: New Afton is the fourth quarter of 2012, and Red Chris, the last we checked, is mid- to late 2014.

D. Donaldson: Thank you to the minister for that. Perhaps it would be more prudent, then, to wait till these mines actually began production before they were counted in the ministry's reaching their goals. We'll wait and see on those numbers. I'm going to get a little bit more into that as we progress tonight, especially around the skills shortage and labour shortage.

On the new mines goal around eight new mines. In the literature for the service plan, the eight new mines are accounting for…. Well, they're lumped together with the new mine expansions, and the jobs, direct, is 2,000 new, according to the ministry, and 3,000 indirect for both the eight new mines goal and the nine expanded mines.

[1950]

How many direct and indirect out of those 2,000 new jobs and 3,000 indirect are associated with the actual eight new mines?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said earlier, each one of these is a different size and different impact. Depending on which ones get to us and get through the process between now and 2015, we'll have the measurement of the eight new mines, although I do think we're in pretty good shape.

Mount Milligan, for instance, is 400 estimated jobs. New Afton is 250. Bonanza is 70. Red Chris is 300. Treasure Mountain is 25. Those would be the permanent jobs with regards to those mines. It does not take into account the construction jobs, which are usually higher during the period of construction of a mine.

D. Donaldson: So that's 1,050, approximately, if my math is…. Pretty good — 1,045, actually, on five of the eight, regarding direct jobs. We know that the mine expansions have created new jobs. I believe it was approximately 85 in the Huckleberry, close to my constituency.

The remaining three mines, then, are going to be smaller job generators than what we see in the average over these five. If so, what are those three new mines? The government must have some ideas around that if it has estimated that the jobs they create aren't going to be quite as fruitful as the five that the minister just quoted to me.

Hon. R. Coleman: That would mean I would be prejudging the environmental assessment process or prejudging other things that could happen. In actual fact, there are a couple of mines out there that would dwarf most of the ones I just talked about. One in particular, if it did go ahead, would be one the largest copper mines in North America, for instance, and would have a huge impact on jobs in B.C.

But it all depends on process. For instance, there are 23 new major mine development proposals in the EA process alone in B.C. Thirteen of those are actually considered to be active. Of those, 11 are in the preapplication phase and two are under review. You can imagine how much work is coming through the ministry with regards to that.

The challenge is that each one of those can come through. They could actually, anywhere along the process, decide to suspend what they're doing, depending on a number of things.

One could be world price of the particular ore that they're taking out. Two could be financing, because it's very expensive to finance a mine. There are a number of issues in and around that and also whether they match up to other contracts that these particular companies might want to make with the people who they're supplying the ore to and how that would be structured.

That's why it's impossible to say to you: "Here are the eight mines." If you can say the eight mines, we wouldn't be saying 2015. You know, 2015 is our goal. We know we have enough in the hopper, just by what I described to the member opposite, that we should be able to get three more of these through the process and get them up into some sort of investment by the time we get there. And there could be more.

What we'd like to do is actually exceed the goal of the eight new mines. If the 11 that are in the preapplication phase and the 13 that are considered to be active…. That means that they're further advanced than some others, but like I say, we have 23 major mine development proposals in the EA process alone in B.C. right now.

D. Donaldson: Yes. Well, I agree with the minister on how sometimes these projects can end up getting suspended. An example of that is a very worthwhile project in Stikine that happened to get suspended. That was Galore Creek.

[1955]

All guns were blazing on that one. I had many friends and others I know in Stikine who were working full out on a Friday with the knowledge and the promotion that they'd be working for the next three years — no prob-
[ Page 12388 ]
lem. Then on a Monday they came in and got pink slips.

Certainly, the volatility, even when a mine is under construction, the potential to be suspended, is obviously high. That was epitomized by the Galore Creek project. It harkens to why you would count the mines that are under construction or on a list, as are Mount Milligan and Red Chris's New Afton. As the minister pointed out, things can be suspended quite quickly, so I would caution against placing those on a list as achieving goals around eight new mines being opened.

I'd like to move on to another area that I said I would address in the questions today. That had to do with streamlining and social licence and permitting — that kind of theme area. I questioned quite thoroughly the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations when it came to the permit backlog that was accumulated under this government and on how it has been addressed.

It was interesting to find out that out of the $25 million in funding that was announced just around the same time as the jobs plan in the fall…. It was supposed to be over two years, and $7.1 million was actually what was received for this coming fiscal year by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Addressing the permit backlog is also in the service plan for this ministry — not specifically the goals, but trying to address it under a streamlined kind of process. The goal of having a 60-day average turnaround on notice-of-work applications for 2012-13 is something that has been put forward by this government, so 60 days is the goal on average. When it came out in questioning with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, in 2007 the average was 55 days.

Can the minister explain why a goal would be set today that actually takes longer than it did in 2007, five years ago?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just before I move on to answer this question…. To the previous questions the member had asked before that: our goal is to make sure that there's no way that we will be the barrier to success with regards to how we do business. We haven't said that the goal is achieved on those five. We're saying we think they're pretty close to getting to where they should be.

I would say, for instance, with New Afton…. Part of my ministry has gaming in it. I'd be willing to bet, after they've spent about $500 million, that they're actually going to go into production with the work that they've done and what they've done on that site. I think it's a case of…. I expect we'll probably be doing an opening this year.

The difference between five or six years ago and today is that legal cases have actually made their consultation processes more complex. Our consultation with First Nations is more complex than it was even five years ago, and we have a huge amount of activity, of course. So we're trying to get to where we can streamline that consultation process as part of this, as we get down to the 60 days.

[2000]

D. Donaldson: As part of the timely review and streamlined process that is part of the service plan for the ministry for this coming year, I wanted to ask the minister whether Bill 19 has any implications or impacts on that. Bill 19 was passed by the government majority in the Legislature in the fall, and as the minister knows, it would exempt some low-risk activities from requiring a permit from the chief inspector of mines.

In other words, for the chief inspector of mines, it would be up to his or her discretion whether a mining permit was required and could exempt some of the activities and some work on the land base in mining from requiring a permit.

Could the minister enlighten us as to how many exemptions have been issued under Bill 19 since it was introduced in the fall of 2011?

Hon. R. Coleman: There have been no exceptions issued to date because the province is currently still developing the regulations under the Mines Act that will define what kinds of low-risk activities could be exempted from acquiring permits. So none to date.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that information. I wanted to ask you about streamlining versus cutting corners. Streamlining, finding efficiencies, is certainly a valid way. We all know that finding efficiencies is a laudable goal. Cutting corners often will lead to delays in decisions.

In 2002 in the B.C. environmental assessment process specific wording around First Nations in the objectives, around the formation of project committees under the EA process, under project report, were all removed by this government. That has led to results such as the Prosperity decision where the federal environmental assessment process was able to consider in a more wholesome way First Nations evidence and issued a fairly damning indictment of the plans around that mine.

Yet the B.C. environmental assessment process approved it because, as then federal Minister of the Environment Jim Prentice said, the provincial EA wasn't able to consider as many of the factors surrounding that mine as the federal environmental assessment process was able to.

I'm introducing this because when the mining plan was released a couple of weeks ago, the minister, on a radio show, said he was pleased with the omnibus bill that's being introduced federally that includes new rules around mines and the environment, specifically the environment as it relates to mines.

One of the impacts of these new rules is on the panel that's reviewing the latest proposal by Taseko Mines, called the New Prosperity proposal, that they've submitted under an EA process. The new rules on the federal
[ Page 12389 ]
panel that will review this process…. This is from the directions, the mandate given by the federal government: "The panel shall not have a mandate to make any conclusions or recommendations with respect to the justifiability of any significant adverse environmental effects."

In other words, they're saying the panel, after hearing testimony from experts — First Nations experts as well as western science experts from all sorts of sectors — and hearing all of this firsthand, can't make any conclusions or recommendations to the cabinet on this.

[2005]

My question, then, to the minister is: in regard to streamlining, does he support these limitations as an example of streamlining and what he's pleased with in the omnibus bill?

Hon. R. Coleman: I am supportive of the omnibus bill from the standpoint that if it removes duplication, I think that's better for everybody. It doesn't mean that we're going to cut corners or anything. The member should know that New Prosperity won't be considered under those new rules. The bill would come into effect in July, and my understanding, in talking to the federal government, has been that the New Prosperity application is under the old rules and won't be actually considered under that.

About two-thirds of all projects that are currently undergoing provincial EA processes also require a federal assessment, so that's where the duplication comes. These represent about $28 billion in potential investment as well as thousands of jobs that are often held up as a result of the duplication. The hope is — and there's a lot of work to be done now, between…. We're still doing work, actually, in discussions with the federal government, prior to this bill being dealt with federally, with regard to the plans and outcomes and what expectations we have with regard to how the process will work.

I really can't give you how I think this federal process is going to work yet. Even as early as this morning I was in briefings, working and communicating back and forth with the federal agencies and with my colleague the Minister of Environment, who is the lead on the file and has been brought up to date on just their discussions.

It's really about…. There are some things in there that we have some concerns about; some that we don't. We like the idea of getting rid of the duplication, to align the two separate EA processes. We particularly like the fact that there would be some timelines put on the process federally, similar to what we have here in B.C., so that we can get to some level of certainty for people who actually want to invest in Canada and, in particular, in B.C. with regard to the land base.

D. Donaldson: So this panel that is being set up to assess, from an environmental perspective, the New Prosperity proposal is going to have limitations placed on it by the federal government in order that it cannot make recommendations or, basically, conclusions from the testimony and the hearing evidence that they have in front of them.

Is that what this minister thinks of when he thinks about streamlining? Would he envision, when the federal government devolves responsibility in a streamlined process, that he would like to see environmental assessment panels gutted of their decision-making ability and that decisions around major projects such as the New Prosperity mine rest solely with the B.C. provincial cabinet?

Hon. R. Coleman: Sorry. To the member opposite: you're straying into an area that doesn't affect my ministry. Nor do I have enough information in front of me to be able to answer the question for the member. I realize it probably should have been canvassed in the Ministry of Environment's estimates, but I think this bill — I'm not sure when we did Environment estimates — probably hit the legislature in Ottawa after those debates.

I'll take that question from the member and see if I can get him an answer.

[2010]

D. Donaldson: Yes, well, that would be good, because under the service plan, there's wording about trying to streamline. Under goal 1, "Thriving and competitive energy and mining sectors that contribute to jobs and the economy," one of the strategy bullet points is to "coordinate permitting and streamline approval processes across provincial natural resource sector agencies to facilitate timely construction of major projects."

With this omnibus bill…. The minister recommends that perhaps this question is better suited to the Minister of Environment, yet he talks in his strategies around streamlining and bringing together processes. I'm trying to get to the core of the matter, to say that streamlining is well worth looking at when it comes to efficiencies. Cutting the corners will lead to delays in decisions. That's been borne out by the Prosperity example.

The omnibus bill, called the budget implementation bill, which is before the federal parliament right now, significantly changes wording in the Fisheries Act and removes the responsibility in the Fisheries Act to protect fish habitat, which is much more of a general aspect. It goes right to…. The wording is: "protecting only fish that support commercial, recreational or aboriginal fisheries."

Of course, that shows a lack of awareness around ecosystems. There are many other fish that support the fish populations that are commercial, recreational or aboriginal. Just because it's not in one of those three categories, it doesn't mean it's not an important part of the fishery. That's just basic ecological sense. The trouble is that by removing fish habitat from the Fisheries Act, we're losing some abilities to consider the overall impacts of mining projects, for instance.
[ Page 12390 ]

This omnibus bill also allows the federal government to pass responsibility for the Fisheries Act to the province. Two separate former Conservative Fisheries Ministers, Tom Siddon and John Fraser, have come out saying that this is not a good direction to go. They disagree with this kind of devolution of the language. Again, they even use the words "the gutting of the Fisheries Act."

My question to the minister is: does he agree with the new legislation, and is that what he means by streamlining? This is legislation that's going to be enacted in Ottawa with the Conservative majority. They're going to now be able to pass their responsibilities under the Fisheries Act to the province. This has direct impact on potential mining projects in the province, so it's a relevant question for these budget estimates.

Does he agree that this new legislation falls within what he feels is the term "streamline"?

Hon. R. Coleman: I submit to the Chair that this is actually totally irrelevant to the estimates of this ministry. I can't debate a piece of federal legislation during my estimates. I don't have the bill here. All I would have is the same type of briefing notes as the member opposite.

When we talk about streamlining in British Columbia, we're aligning the work of the ministries to get the work done in British Columbia that is within our purview, but we really are not in a position to debate or discuss a piece of federal legislation during these estimates.

D. Donaldson: Well, that's unfortunate, because this legislation will be in place within the budget cycle of what we're considering here under the estimates. Again, I'm as concerned as the minister around finding efficiencies in the process.

But if we're talking about streamlining as meaning a decrease in the environmental standards in being able to consider mining projects, then that's obviously going to lead to delays in decisions because there are going to be a number of concerned people out on the land base that will have issue with that. Of course, they're legitimate issues. I bring up the case of Prosperity as an example of that.

Moving on, regarding timely review, we have a number of potential mining projects, going back, again, to the eight proposed new mines. Once these come into existence, we have the 19 existing mines. The mine inspector positions. A number of them were eliminated by the province. In fact, I believe the remaining mine inspector positions are based in Victoria.

[2015]

Under this budget estimates year, and considering that the minister said that he predicts that there'll be, for sure, the New Afton Mine opening up — he'd bet on it — and, perhaps, the Mount Milligan mine opening up within this budget cycle, are there resources within this budget estimate to increase the number of mines inspector positions in the province?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have the ability to go back if we think that we need more, but right now we have 50 people that are mines inspectors in British Columbia, and they're not all located in Victoria. As a matter of fact, Victoria has some, because from here we do the south coast of B.C. through the southern area of British Columbia.

We have mines inspectors located in Kamloops, Smithers, Prince George and Cranbrook as well.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. Speaking of human resource allocations in the ministry out into the regional offices, does the minister expect under this budget year, considering the increased mining activity, to see an additional complement of staff on the ground in order to facilitate, to monitor and to evaluate those projects?

For instance, would the regional office for provincial mines be moving from Victoria to Kamloops in order to facilitate that kind of development, an idea I've heard being advocated by the member for Kamloops–South Thompson?

[2020]

Hon. R. Coleman: We have no plans to move the office at this time, although I did hear — I think it was from somebody in Cranbrook and somebody in Smithers — when that comment was made, that maybe those would also be good locations for the ministry to move to. There are no plans at this point in time to do that.

D. Donaldson: We have some members, a member from Victoria area on this side as well as a member from Stikine, so that's another conversation we'll want to have within our caucus as well.

Along these lines, on March 25, on a weekend, parliamentary secretaries were announced — some new ones — as well as a new cabinet minister. We used to have a Secretary of State for Mining. Considering there was on March 25 an announcement of parliamentary secretaries for other ministries, did the minister lobby to have a Minister of State for Mining reinstated in this budget year?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I did not.

D. Donaldson: Considering the importance of the mining sector in the province and what I've heard from the sector about having a go-to person in the government, why did the minister feel it wasn't necessary to have a Minister of State for Mining, which is a position that has been around for a number of years and was eliminated recently?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I would think the
[ Page 12391 ]
Minister of Energy and Mines would be a good place to go, could be the go-to person. I think we manage it quite well in the ministry.

You'll notice that this cabinet is not one that has a number of ministers of state in it. It's the choice of the Premier. I have very good relations with both mining associations on the exploration and on the mining side. They know where to find me, and I certainly have direct contact with them, if they need to have a relationship.

As well, I've got extraordinary staff, both in the mining and in the deputy minister's office and the team that I have in this ministry, to handle the issues for those folks. I have not had anybody from the industry, frankly, or from any trade association relative to this ministry ask for a minister of state. Actually, some of the comment is, "We like to have a senior minister to go to," in their case. They have varying opinions, I suppose, but they've never actually ever requested that I would ask for a minister of state.

D. Donaldson: In the last half hour here I'd like to move on to another topic area, and that's training, which is mentioned in the service plan by the ministry. It was a topic I mentioned at the outset.

I believe there's been a lack of focus on the training end when it comes to training people for the mining industry. Government has known, with the high commodity prices, that the trend is upon us and now is reacting after the fact. We know the labour shortage is here now.

Mount Milligan mine announced just at the end of February that they had an additional cost. At that point they said it was $100 million to $200 million directly attributable to a shortage of skilled labour and professional engineers. Actually, just recently they had a new share offering in order to raise $430 million to work on the completion of the construction phase of the mine.

That brings up some concern by some financial analysts who have pointed out that share dilution is indicative of the commodity boom reaching its peak and being on the downswing. We've seen that in other jurisdictions. I'm hoping that this share issue by Mount Milligan isn't a sign of that.

[2025]

Share dilution is when, obviously, more shares are having to be issued to complete construction phase with the overall value of the project not increasing concurrently. Therefore, each share that's already held by shareholders becomes worth a little less than it was before.

That's been a concern in other jurisdictions, and Mount Milligan has had to issue this because of a skilled-labour shortage, as they said. I heard the same concerns at Minerals North in Burns Lake that I attended last week. It was a very successful event, well attended, but one of the major topics of concern was a shortage of skilled labour.

In the service plan and in the mining strategy the literature touches on Northwest Community College's School of Exploration and Mining. However, the Ministry of Advanced Education has not been involved in that as far as what's called ongoing core funding. It's year-to-year funding right now through the labour market agreement. It's very hard to run a school on year-to-year funding without knowing if you're going to be able to have that same level of funding three years in advance. It's a successful operation, but again, a lack of focus.

Dease Lake is another area that is actually serviced less by post-secondary institutions now than it was three years ago, and that's at the epicentre of mining for the province in the northwest. And we have the B.C. Aboriginal Mine Training Association that had to look outside the provincial government when it came to finding funding to keep their programming going.

That leads me to a question I have for the minister around the workers and the need to import workers when we have so many people who are looking for employment, especially in the north. Specifically, what I learned at Burns Lake and what was confirmed in Burns Lake at Minerals North was 92 workers being about to begin work at HD Mines. It's at the Murray River project, a coal project north of Tumbler Ridge. These are mineworkers from China. HD Mines is a joint venture with a Chinese company.

The importation raises some concerns when we have people and many communities in my area that have extremely high unemployment, and the training opportunities just aren't there for them. I understand that these questions are around training, but again, it's in the service plan — skills training. It's a big section in the mining strategy released a couple of weeks ago.

Would the minister be able to describe the training the 92 foreign workers already have when they arrive in Canada? Presumably they're arriving any day, according to the information supplied at Minerals North.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, everyone has responsibility for training across government. There's no question. Of course, we don't have a training component specifically in the ministry. I'm going to go by memory here, but in our secondary school system right now there are about 3,000 young people who are doing dual paths, where they would be able to come out with one or two years of their trade as well as their academic piece, graduating from high school. That is going to expand over time.

Advanced Education has a number of plans they're putting in place in cooperation with the Jobs, Tourism and Innovation Ministry to up training. JTI is also working on increasing the amount of people they can put through the trades piece of things. I don't have those numbers at my fingertips, but I do know that they're up.

At a mine like New Afton, for instance, they have an agreement between them and First Nations to train First Nations youth, their young people, to work in the mine
[ Page 12392 ]
as part of the revenue-sharing and the labour component that they've worked out with them.

[2030]

It's actually very good news for the First Nations in that area because, as the member probably knows in his area, the fastest-growing population of young people in British Columbia are First Nations, as far as by percentage. So obviously, those opportunities for training and those sort of things….

As we get the growth that we're expecting, we would expect that there's going to be probably not just jobs for anybody in British Columbia that can get trained and wants to go to work, but there'll probably be jobs for people elsewhere.

When you get cyclical employment, it's more difficult because they may not want to take up residence. They'll come in and out.

I know that from my riding alone people fly out of Abbotsford every Sunday night to either the diamond mines up in the Northwest Territories, up into Fort McMurray or, in some cases, into the northeast part of the province and those sort of things, and live in camps as a result while they're trying to do construction and large projects.

All of those things have to get managed as we go through this. That piece is all work that needs to be done.

With regards to the one mine the member mentioned. There were some conversations with regards to, early on, the number of workers. It was felt that because they want to go in and go underground and they felt they needed to have a certain skill set…. They work with the federal government on that, by the way. It's not us. They would go in, and that would be for the….

Basically, it takes workers that are highly skilled to work in a safe environment here. Coal mining is inherently dangerous, particularly underground, due to the possible presence of explosive methane gas and coal dust mixtures. So it was felt by the company that for the safety at the beginning to go and do their sample….

What they're basically doing is taking a large bulk sample to see if the mine is actually able to be worthwhile. They will take that bulk sample out. Then they will transport it for testing in China to see whether the particular ore body is suitable for them. That might lead to the decision to build the mine or to proceed to the next level.

Basically, what they're doing is taking the sample under a notice of work. Both of these mining operations, which are Gething and Murray River projects, will transition to Canadian workers as they are recruited and trained — is my understanding.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that information, Minister.

My understanding is that Quinsam Coal, another underground operation, hasn't had difficulties in finding skilled labour or labour from within B.C. or, perhaps, within Canada — but didn't need to import labour.

Would the 92 workers that are coming in to work on the Murray River coal project be paid in the same rate scale as those in Quinsam Coal?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't know for sure, to answer that question. Let me get it for you. I know that it's a federal agency that deals with this sort of thing. What standards they have and what they would have put in place here I don't know, but I will find out.

D. Donaldson: I look forward to that information.

HD Mines announced in June 2011 that they planned to build housing for the workers, a daycare centre, a geological museum, a training school and a community garden for the foreign workers. Now we have the 92 — if they're not here, they're on their way, according to the information from the regional geologists publicly announced at the Minerals North Conference.

To the minister: has the construction of any of these projects started yet? Will local workers also be able to benefit from the training school? Will it be open to local workers, for instance?

Hon. R. Coleman: They have their permits for their bulk sample, but they haven't started any of the work yet. So no, I guess none of that construction would be done yet.

When I met with the one company from China, who initially thought they could just bring in all the workers to do the mine and all that, I made it pretty clear that that wasn't really on here.

[2035]

We understood that for the sensitivity of getting the initial bulk sample out, they needed to be able to have the skilled labour, and to do that, they could go through the federal government to accomplish that. But this was about jobs in Canada, and frankly, we would want the opportunity for our people in B.C. to have mining opportunities here as well. We were pretty clear about that.

D. Donaldson: I would also like to make it clear that this line of questioning has nothing to do with workers from China or any other country. It's just the consideration, as the minister pointed out, that we want to ensure that the opportunities in B.C. that mining presents are…. The greatest access to those opportunities are for the people in the local communities, the people regionally, then the people in B.C. and then outside the borders, in Canada.

That's because we basically come from, I believe, the same point of view that the minerals in the ground are a commonly owned resource by the people in B.C., and it's the people of B.C. who should first benefit the most from the exploitation of those minerals.

Again, on this topic…. It's of interest to myself and
[ Page 12393 ]
others in the mining sector because the 92 foreign workers being brought in for this project is somewhat new — there might be other examples in the province — in regards to mining. If one of the foreign…. Maybe the minister could elaborate, perhaps. It's part of what he eluded to before as agreements he's not certain of with the federal government, but it is around mining and around health.

If one of the workers is injured on the job and required to undergo rehabilitation, is that open to them through the B.C. medical system, or would they not be able to access our services that way?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, just so the member understands, Canadian Dehua, which is the company we're talking about, and its partners have submitted applications to Canada and Service Canada to obtain the necessary approvals to bring in temporary foreign workers to Canada. They would be governed by all the rules relative to medical in what they would have to pay on those things under that agreement.

In addition to that, these will not be allowed to operate unless, obviously, the company's participating in paying the fees and dues that are relative to something like WorkSafe. So if somebody was injured on the job, the expectation would be that they would be covered.

They also have to…. As they're working, we are working with…. Actually, it's Tourism and Innovation working with Immigration Canada to determine the English language requirements for these workers to be employed safely at these mines as they do the extraction of the bulk sample on a temporary basis.

They are also, as a company, training. Canada Dehua is also developing training programs to be able to train local workers to work if the mine goes ahead.

But the first thing would be to get the bulk sample out, and that's why the temporary foreign workers — to do that. It will go back. It'll get tested. They'll make a final mining decision at that point in time. They still have to meet all the other permitting and stuff to get to a full mine. The point they're at is basically the notice of work where they can take out the sample and test it. It's a fairly sizable sample, because it's coal. So it's a big bulk sample to send. It's shipped out to China and then tested to make sure it meets their needs over there.

D. Donaldson: Does the minister know how long it's going to take to do that bulk sample work?

Hon. R. Coleman: We think it's up to a year.

D. Donaldson: Would the minister anticipate, then, that the 92 workers being brought in would be rotated through over a year so that it would be more than 92 people? Would it be similar to a very long-distance camp situation?

[2040]

Hon. R. Coleman: I really don't know the answer to that question, in fairness. The number we were given was 92 workers needed to take out the bulk sample, that they needed to come here, take up residence, probably in a camp, to do the work, get it done and send it back. At that point in time their work would be done.

When I met with the mining company, I never asked them whether they were going to rotate them in or whether they were just going to bring in 92 qualified workers who would just do all the work and go back.

D. Donaldson: The minister also mentioned another example in New Afton where a company and local First Nations have come to an agreement around training First Nations youth.

I believe in many communities in the north the young demographic that the minister alluded to in the First Nations communities is actually a competitive advantage, because many First Nations have such a close connection to the land base and to kin that they don't intend on moving, being a mobile labour force. They would prefer to remain close to where the traditional territories lie and next of kin and extended family live.

Training up young First Nations people to work in the mining industry would provide for companies a stable workforce that is less likely to move on.

To me that's another reason why I believe it's necessary and prudent, and also having a lot of foresight, to fully fund programs like the Northwest Community College's School of Exploration and Mining, which doesn't have core support from the government right now, and to provide the post-secondary training facilities, to restore them to a level in Dease Lake, as well, another epicentre in Tahltan territory where the mining boom potentially could happen.

The question I have in this regard is: under the service plan the minister mentions that there's resource management coordination, where various ministries involved in mining and natural resources work together under direction of a natural resources board. These are Agriculture; Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation; Energy and Mines; Environment; Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; and Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

I'm curious as to why the Ministry of Advanced Education isn't included in that task force, especially considering skills training is such a major focus in the service plan.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we both have mentioned New Afton. I think, just as we move along here, it's a very good story, New Afton is — training of First Nations, job opportunities. The relationship they have with the First Nation is pretty outstanding. It's actually
[ Page 12394 ]
an example of how you can get a mine done working with First Nations and communities in British Columbia. It's a very good story.

Basically, this board is a board of deputy ministers who are…. Basically, as you read them out, they're all the dirt ministries, as we like to refer to them. As we go through, at different points in time, we just request the other deputies to attend when we come to issues that might be relevant.

So in this case, job training and what have you, we would bring them into the meeting, but the management team of the group of people is all the deputy ministers of those ministries. They'll bring in the Ministry of Advanced Education or Education, whatever the case is. They deal with other subjects so that they can coordinate, concentrate on what they're doing and bring it into their discussions. But they need not be there all the time for the dirt ministries. They've got other boards and committees they have to sit on.

D. Donaldson: I'll canvass one final area. I'm cognizant of the time, so I'll try to wrap it into one question for you to finish off this one section of estimates on the mining focus, and it's going to be on aggregates. It's pretty hard to put one question into aggregates.

[2045]

For those out there who might not be totally familiar with the term "aggregates," well, gravel extraction is one of the activities that is under aggregates. There's sand and other extraction as well under that, but gravel is a major component of that, and major gravel mine permitting is under this ministry.

We had the aggregate pilot project in the Fraser Valley to try to address aggregate concerns. This is often a contentious issue because aggregate mines have been permitted, perhaps, in the past and lay dormant for a number of years. Then construction picks up, and the aggregate project owner wants to start up operations again and, lo and behold, there's been some suburban creep, and there are people living close by again.

So the pilot project was meant, I assume, to address this by offering red, yellow and green approaches to aggregate mining — of course, red being that's not going to happen in the proposed area, and yellow, with some mitigation measures. Green is a full go-ahead.

There have been a number of residents in the Fraser Valley who have expressed major concerns about the aggregate pilot project. There are areas that we've heard from — Lake Errock, just east of Mission; Vedder Mountain, the Vedder River around Chilliwack. I've met with people in the Kootenays on this issue of aggregate mining and, in fact, around the province as the practices pick up.

My question is a very brief and straightforward one to the minister. Since his government has been the government from 2001, has there ever been a major mining project in aggregates that's actually received the red light — not specifically, necessarily, in the Fraser Valley — that's been rejected?

Hon. R. Coleman: Fraser Valley aggregate pilot project, one of the things I inherited when I became the Minister of Energy and Mines, has gone on too long. The challenge was that it's not just this ministry, but it's also the regional district. It's municipalities. It's a group of people. Over that period of time everybody came to a whole lot of consensus, even with the industry.

So I've accumulated, or tried to accumulate, all the information with regards to gravel. I'm trying to put it into a singular submission to be able to deal with some of this across government, because I think it's a significant challenge.

It is the lower-hanging appreciated extraction of something from the ground in B.C. Most of those guys' opinions don't get the attention they should. But they will point out to you that whether it's the foundation of your house, the sidewalk at your house, the sidewalk out front of your house, the paving of your street, the roads you want built into a mine or whatever, they all require something, and it's called gravel — and various types of aggregate and what have you.

So they think it deserves some attention. We're going to try and give it some attention by taking together all these discussions that have taken place with this Fraser Valley aggregate pilot project and what we've learned in the oil and gas sector with regards to gravel and how we're handling it to see if we can come back with a number of recommendations to government to deal with it. Hopefully, we'll be successful.

Having said that, I move that the committee rise, report the completion and the resolution of the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General and report progress on the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:49 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