2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 40, Number 3

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

THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

JEFF DAVIES

Hon. C. Clark: Mine is not a traditional introduction. I would like to take note of a special day today. I'm calling it Jeff Davies Day today. I'm sure that every member somewhere on their person has a soup stain on some article of clothing, although it might not be visible, in honour of Jeff Davies today.

It's a melancholy day for lots of us who have worked with Jeff over the years and for members of the press gallery. He is a man of wisdom. He sat up behind the Speaker and gazed down on us all these years. Here he comes now. He's got a soup stain, and he's late. I'm willing to bet there are no batteries in that tape recorder of his either.

We all remember the time that he was sent to cover a federal-provincial first ministers meeting live on CBC. He walked out and knocked down all of the flags, and they fell like dominoes on national TV from coast to coast. He did it in his rumpled tweed coat. He brought that lumberjack chic to Ottawa. We were all so proud of him there.

He arrived at our Legislature, of course, very un–Terry Milewski, if I may say that. He is a guy who doesn't wear his coat all the time, I'm told, partly because he doesn't like to spill soup on it, I guess. His tie he prefers as a better target.

He's brought a lot of laughter to these buildings over the many years that he's reported here. He has for the most part, I would say, been quite fair. Well, at least he says he does his best to be fair. Actually, he has done an incredible job.

Reporting on politics is an essential part of our democratic process. Making sure that citizens are informed of what their government is doing really matters, and Jeff has taken that responsibility on his shoulders and borne it with great dignity. He has really, I think, represented in that respect our press gallery incredibly well. We're going to miss his wit. We're going to miss his innate decency. We'll miss his honesty. We'll miss his fairness around this precinct.

On his first day of covering the Legislature in 1994 there was a riot, as Jeff called it. I hope that on your last day of question period it's a little bit less exciting.

Nonetheless, Jeff, I do, on behalf of all of us here, want to say a very special goodbye to someone who we all feel is very much a part of the fabric of this community here. Thank you, Jeff.

J. Horgan: I want to join with the Premier in recognizing Jeff Davies, CBC legislative reporter, on the last day of his coverage of this place in session. It's a solemn day, not as interesting as his arrival here in 1993. The romance on the B.C. Liberal side — some will remember that — was one of the first stories that Jeff covered. There was the riot as well, but the romance came first. I think it's important to acknowledge that.

[1340]

Over three decades working for the Mother Corp., for the people's radio station. When he was covering the riot — the disruption, I think, the troubles — no, the disruption that happened here in the early 1990s, he was reporting live on his cell phone. Of course, at that time it was the Russian model, the size of a brick, stuck on the side of his head. Jeff is acknowledging that. He now uses that as ballast when he goes fishing in my constituency.

I happened to represent at the time — I first met Jeff as an elected representative — Malahat–Juan de Fuca, which contains some of the best fishing in the south Island. Jeff would then, after interviewing me on a particular issue of the day, say to me: "Is the Butler Main open this weekend? I want to get up to Weeks Lake." Of course, once he got up to Weeks Lake he would come back and report to me that there was automatic gunfire going on there and carnage in the Juan de Fuca. What was I going to do about it? Then he got his microphone out and, sadly, no batteries, so it never made it to air.

Six Premiers, two named Clark, over the course of his time here. That is absolutely without doubt a record. I don't think any, other than those ink-stained wretches that scribble for a living, could match that over that time.

On behalf of the official opposition, good fishing, Jeff. Have a great time. It's been an honour and a privilege to work with you. You're one of the decent, decent people in the gallery, although there are many. We wish you well.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: It's an honour for me to introduce in the House today Glenn Ricketts, along with his partner, Geraldine Hutchings. Glenn Ricketts has been an outstanding public servant and has served in a number of key roles throughout his 40-year career, beginning in the Forest Service as a summer student in 1972.

Glenn closes his exemplary 40 years of service to the people of British Columbia as a chief negotiator in the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and has been with MARR for the last seven years. Today, regrettably for the ministry, is Glenn's last day before he embarks on his retirement. We wish Glenn all the best and thank him for his contributions to the public service and for his success as a chief negotiator at MARR. He has shown a tireless commitment to the job and displayed
[ Page 12670 ]
passion, energy and compassion at the table. Would the House please make him and Geraldine very welcome.

C. James: I have a school group visiting from my constituency today. Christ Church Cathedral School is here with their teacher, Miss Julia Borzoni. She's here with four adults and her grade 5 class of 21 students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

N. Letnick: In the House today we have Brandon Reddy. He's the senior deputy legislative assistant on the second floor of the annex. Brandon got his bachelor's from SFU in 2010 and put himself through school by being a TELUS call agent. I'd like the House to please make him feel welcome right here.

Hon. C. Clark: I want to make sure that we introduce all of the legislative assistants and their assistants who are here in the Legislature today. Thanks to the member for starting with Brandon Reddy. We're also joined by Rick Orlando, Kellie O'Brien, Sarah O'Connor, Suneil Karod, Geoff Ingram, Chantel Elloway, Robert Scherf, Jennifer Wizinsky, Justin Giddens, Gent Ng and Emily Phillips.

They all work incredibly hard delivering public service to the people of British Columbia, and we are delighted that they're all here in the gallery today to observe this very last question period of this session.

Tributes

ERNIE FULTON

G. Gentner: It saddens me to rise today and give news of the passing of a dear friend of mine and a community leader, Ernie Fulton. He came to Canada at the age of 14, and at the age of 15 he ran away from home and got into logging. He became an electrician.

A longtime New Democrat and resident of North Delta. The former president of the Delta North constituency association when I was elected in 2005. He's a big part of the reason why I'm here today. A strong union member and activist, active in the fishermen's union, business agent for IBEW. He was working until late on the Port Mann bridge. He worked in ski patrol, helping kids.

[1345]

He was also, in 2000, a former New Democrat federal candidate in the riding formerly known as Delta–South Richmond. He represented Canada in Argentina at the World Cup championship in light heavyweight wrestling way back in 1967.

He leaves behind his wife, Ailaj, his brother, Victor, and his sister, Marion, living in Belfast, Ireland. My condolences to the family, and my prayers go to them.

Introductions by Members

G. Gentner: On a happier note, in the House it gives me a great deal of pleasure to…. In the gallery is my CA, Sheryl Seale, who is also my producer of that well-renowned radio show called Live from the Leg. She's been here doing some great work.

Interjection.

G. Gentner: Yeah. Guy…. No, I can't do that. Just look at the website, and you'll see some great radio programming.

With her is her stepmother Maxine Kootnekoff, an accountant who is self-employed and works at Sager's Fine Furniture here in Victoria. Unfortunately, Sheryl's father, Dusty Miller, couldn't make it here today. They are constituents of the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads, and Dusty is an ex-Navy serviceman who has been working as a commissionaire corps for the last 20 years.

Interestingly enough, I have been told that Sheryl's parents are old bowling buddies of the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I hear her bowling average is way beyond 150. She has lots of trophies, and I believe that she's got some crusty old bowling shoes somewhere in the attic.

Nevertheless, I pass on those greetings to everybody and thank and introduce my dear friends in the gallery.

Hon. G. Abbott: Today is a day of passages. There is a group that has been serving all of the members of the Legislature very ably for the past few months, the legislative interns. Their role will be ending in just a couple of days. They've got some highlights yet, before they depart the program entirely. It is an opportunity. I know my friend, the Opposition House Leader, will be up in a moment to salute those interns that have been assigned to the New Democratic Party caucus.

I want to say this. Generally, one of the great benefits of being a charter intern, a legislative intern, here at the Legislature…. A mere 36 years ago I had the opportunity to be a legislative intern. It seemed like a big world at ten years old to be an intern.

I did have the opportunity to dine with all of the legislative interns. I think they were curious to see what 36 years around this place would do to a person, and I was very grateful for the opportunity to be there and enjoy dinner. I hate to make this admission, but I forced them to have a sampling of some very fine B.C. wines as part of the dinner, and I must say the only thing that was more delightful than the B.C. wines were the interns that I got to enjoy the evening with.

They are a remarkably intelligent, remarkably articulate group of young British Columbians, and British Columbia will be well served by them in the future. So I thank on behalf of the government caucus Paula Krawus,
[ Page 12671 ]
Carly Lewis, Kristian Arciaga, Derek Csath and Jacob Helliwell.

Thank you very much for your endeavours. It's been a great pleasure to work with you and, in fact, a great pleasure to meet you all and to extend the best wishes on behalf of the House for your great future success.

J. Horgan: I join with the Education Minister in thanking the interns from both sides of the House for their work over the past number of months. It seems like just yesterday that I stood here and introduced Leila Farmer, Ian Madison, Ella Rebalski, Matt Scarr and Colin Whelan as wide-eyed youths ready to learn the ways of the world here in the Legislature.

I'm proud to report all five survived working for us in the official opposition. The estimates debates were better for their participation, I have to say. The levity in the basement was heightened by their presence, and I want to thank them very much, particularly Rebalski for her work on files that I was attached to. But I know that all of them, I think, had a lot of fun, which….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: And the cookies weren't too bad either, I have to say. Thank you for that, caucus chair.

[1350]

I think all of them enjoyed the experience. They're better for it. And we as legislators are reminded of the youthful idealism that we brought into our political lives those many, many years ago. Certainly, in the case of…. Some of us weren't born when the Education Minister was here. I mentioned short pants one time. I'll leave that alone.

To those who served the opposition caucus: thanks a lot. It was fun. We'll see you around.

Mr. Speaker: It's almost like question period.

Hon. G. Abbott: They say that the toughest job in government is giving communications advice to the Minister of Education. I have no idea why anyone would say that, but I am delighted to note that in the gallery today are some folks who do provide very good communications advice. They include — I know a number of us are friends of this gentleman — Scott Sutherland, manager of media relations and issues management; Ben Green, who's a public affairs officer; Jessica Li, public affairs officer; and Teresa Jones, a communications co-op student. Would the House please make them all welcome.

G. O'Mahony: I'm delighted to see in the House today, in the gallery, my two good friends Cindy and Peter Handler, who are visiting us today. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: The Premier has already acknowledged the presence of our wonderful legislative assistants, including Sarah O'Connor. So I would extend this opportunity a little bit to acknowledge the O'Connor family of Lytton — population, 300 — and Sarah's family, which epitomizes the core industry of British Columbia. Her mother's family has owned the sawmill, and her father is a professional forester. Both of them — Sarah and her father, Chris — are free with their advice on future forestry policy, for which I'm very thankful. Would the House please thank Sarah for her presence today.

R. Lee: We have 56 grade 5 students from St. Helen's School, one of the best schools in Burnaby, visiting the House today. This group is led by teacher Ms. Dawn Currie and eight adults. Would the House please join me to give them a very warm welcome.

L. Reid: I have some lovely guests in the galley today. Marie Murtagh is here, her daughter Lucy and her son Will — constituents of mine from Richmond East. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

I also had the great delight to hold a brand-new little soul — five weeks old today. His name is Markus Allen, and his mother was my ministerial assistant Jennifer Burnett. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: Joining us in the House today is a relatively new-born British Columbian by the name of Thomas Gordon Butler. His mother is here with him. She is the Liberal caucus receptionist who is greeted each morning with the dulcet, melodious sounds of "Elishia." Would the House make them welcome.

L. Popham: I'd like to make my CA Samuel Godfrey welcome to the House. I'd like to let him believe that he's the brains behind the operation.

Welcome, Samuel.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

150th ANNIVERSARY OF VICTORIA

C. James: This year marks 150 years since the incorporation of the city of Victoria. Celebrating historic milestones in our province is important, and I also want to acknowledge the thousands of years of aboriginal history in British Columbia prior to European settlement. The place where we stand today is the traditional territory of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations. Coast Salish people have lived here for thousands of years. The temperate climate, natural harbours and abundant resources meant that this area became a centre of trade for aboriginal peoples on the islands and along the coast.

Fort Victoria was founded by the Hudson's Bay Company in 1843, and the township was laid out in 1852.
[ Page 12672 ]
It was incorporated as a city on August 2, 1862. To mark the 150th anniversary, the city and the Greater Victoria Spirit Committee Society have put together an exciting lineup of events and celebrations.

[1355]

The activities focus on arts and culture, community and neighbourhoods, and volunteers and community partners — the cornerstones in the vibrant and active Victoria that we call home today. They're doing it with help from local organizations like the Hallmark Heritage Society, which is the oldest heritage preservation society on the south Island. The society helps citizens to recognize the value of Victoria's amazing stock of heritage homes and commercial buildings, many that have been around for most of the last 150 years.

On the anniversary day, August 2, the city of Victoria will hold a meeting in its council chambers, and a public ceremony will follow on Spirit Square stage, with a First Nations welcome and speeches by dignitaries and representatives. Then a community celebration will fill Centennial Square that afternoon.

I hope members will join me in congratulating Victoria on its 150th anniversary and say thank you to all the organizations and the amazing volunteers who are making this momentous year truly one for the history books.

SENIORS WEEK

R. Cantelon: I rise today to recognize that next week, June 3 to 9, is Seniors Week here in British Columbia. By celebrating Seniors Week, we not only recognize the valuable work that seniors have done and do in shaping our society, but we also acknowledge their rights and ensure that seniors' voices are valued and heard.

There are a lot of us. The members should take note of and listen to the needs of seniors. And the number is growing. The number of seniors in B.C. will double, to 1.3 million people, in the next 20 years, and the fastest-growing segment is the people over 75 years of age.

This is truly a success story. The fact that British Columbians are living longer and that the province has a growing seniors population is something to be celebrated. But this changing demographic also presents unique challenges to our communities and requires all levels of government to adapt and plan ahead.

We all need to listen to and respect the needs of B.C. seniors. Next week take time to celebrate the diversity, wisdom and vitality of British Columbian seniors. I hope all members of the House will join me next week in celebrating Seniors Week here in British Columbia.

WESTMINSTER PIER PARK

D. Black: As the oldest city in western Canada, New Westminster has a long and rich history. In the early years Columbia Street was known as the Golden Mile. Today new projects like the multi-use civic centre, the River Market and the Plaza 88 development are reinvigorating our downtown area.

An important addition to this renewal is the newly created Westminster Pier Park on New Westminster's waterfront. The city wanted to reclaim its industrial waterfront and create an urban park for many years. In 2009 the 3.2-hectare site on Front Street was purchased, and the city secured federal and provincial grants to help finance the project.

Extensive public consultation took place to ensure the park would reflect the needs and the desires of New Westminster's residents. Westminster Pier Park, which stretches from Begbie to Elliot streets along the banks of the Fraser River, now includes two playgrounds, a sports court, a finger pier that stretches out over the Fraser River, a festival lawn gathering area that can accommodate a thousand people, a concession, washrooms, walking paths and much more.

In February the Federation of Canadian Municipalities recognized the Pier Park project with a Sustainable Community Award in the brownfields category. This award acknowledges that the park has been created by remediating a longstanding industrially polluted site.

The Georgia Straight recently proclaimed in a headline, "The Royal City is Rebounding," and exciting projects like Westminster Pier Park are leading the way. The official opening will take place on June 16, starting with entertainment on the main stage at 11 a.m. and the formal opening of the park at 1 p.m. I encourage all Royal City residents to participate in the celebrations.

MONSTER INDUSTRIES LTD.

J. Rustad: Earlier this month we heard about B.C. being prepared for a zombie attack. Well, today I'm pleased to stand and talk about monsters — Monster Industries, that is.

As MLAs we have the responsibility and privilege to get to know our communities and the people who live in them. Talking to constituents and learning about their work is one of my favourite parts of the job.

[1400]

I recently had the pleasure of touring Monster Industries in Houston with owner Kyle Thomson and his father, Ken Thomson, who also works for the company. Monster is a construction and maintenance company based out of Houston, providing services ranging from project management to foundations to pipeline project management.

Monster Industries is an exemplary success story in the construction business, having started out as a one-person welding operation out of a truck in 2005. Their sizeable shop expansion in 2011 was necessary to accommodate the growing needs of this rapidly expanding company. Now with 30 full-time and 20 part-time trades-
[ Page 12673 ]
people, Monster Industries pays premium wages at $36 an hour and provides travel allowances, living allowances and full extended health benefits packages.

The company gives back to the community that's provided the opportunity to become so successful by sponsoring a Houston minor hockey team, by avidly supporting and participating in the Canadian Cancer Society fundraisers and, most recently, by contributing to the Burns Lake disaster fund.

The biggest challenge Monster faces today, excluding an economic dragon slayer with the initials NDP, is attracting new skilled tradesworkers. Whether they're local or new immigrant workers, this monster's need is growing by leaps and bounds. Monster Industries is a perfect example of a small company gone big in northern B.C., where industry is booming and jobs are rapidly opening for British Columbians and beyond.

DAVID TURPIN

R. Fleming: It's a privilege today to rise and recognize the contributions to advanced education and to British Columbia generally that Dr. David Turpin has made in his 13 years as president and vice-chancellor of the University of Victoria. Members of this House will have heard that David Turpin announced that a few semesters from now he will be leaving this position.

All of us can probably well imagine the new and exciting opportunities that retirement will make available to Dr. Turpin. But I think it must be said in the House that the University of Victoria and this community are losing a leader with vast experience, with skill and with absolute enthusiasm for the power of education and knowledge shown during his tenure at UVic.

Over the next year Dr. Turpin looks forward to leading the University of Victoria during its 50th anniversary celebrations. This will make his final year at the helm of the university a very special one indeed. It was after his appointment in 2000 that Dr. Turpin arrived at a campus that had grown immensely in the 1990s with new buildings in the faculties of business and engineering and the expansion of science and humanities. Dr. Turpin will be known, and his legacy will be that he thrived in this atmosphere and added his own dynamism to the scene to take the university in new directions.

He's placed great emphasis on academic quality and on the student experience, positioning UVic as a major destination university that draws students and researchers from all across British Columbia, Canada and the world. His championship of access and success for indigenous students has really resulted in tremendous growth in the number of indigenous students on the campus at the University of Victoria.

Dr. Turpin's focus on research excellence from curiosity-driven and knowledge transfer has served UVic and British Columbia well, particularly in areas of ocean science and technology and in many other areas beyond that. I am pleased that Dr. Turpin was recognized for his leadership in public service when he was appointed a member of the Order of Canada a few years ago.

I would ask the House to join me in thanking Dr. Turpin for all of his contributions.

GRADUATION RATE AND TRANSITION TO
NEW HOSPITAL FACILITY IN OKANAGAN

N. Letnick: Central Okanagan parents have yet another reason to be incredibly proud of their kids. The year's graduation rate in school district 23 has risen to unprecedented levels. The school board set a goal to graduate 89 percent of its students in June 2013, but it looks like that goal will be reached one year early, considering last year's goal was 67 percent.

Significant increases are seen amongst student groups, especially those with special needs graduates, going up from 32 percent in '05-06 to a whopping 53 percent in 2010-2011. Also to thank this week, we have successes dedicated to our admin staff and teachers, who committed to a goal of working tirelessly to accomplish this particular outstanding goal. More importantly, the students, of course, are the real winners here.

Another thing I'd like to celebrate in the Interior is the opening of the new Centennial and Anderson buildings and the successful transfer of 59 patients from the old units in Kelowna General Hospital to the brand-new buildings this past Sunday morning. Starting at 8 a.m. one patient was moved to the Centennial Building every three minutes. Meanwhile, just as the doors closed at 7 a.m. at the old emergency department, the first patient entered through the doors of the new ER off Royal Avenue.

[1405]

More than 40 student nurses from UBC Okanagan volunteered to help with the move, which brought the grand total to more than 200 helpers. With a well-oiled, colour-coded volunteer machine and lots of hard work, everyone was safely moved to their new beds.

Along with the staff and volunteer team, on behalf of the member for Westside-Kelowna and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, I would like to thank KGH administrator Tracy MacDonald and chief of staff Dr. Jan McIntosh for all the work in making this transition to the new Kelowna General Hospital a smooth one.

Oral Questions

CATALYST MILL
OPERATIONS AND WORKERS

A. Dix: My question is to the Premier. The Premier will know that Catalyst Paper employs 1,580 people at
[ Page 12674 ]
mills in Port Alberni, Crofton and Powell River as well as the distribution centre in Surrey and its head office in Richmond.

The Premier will know that on March 6, 2012, Catalyst wrote to her and to the Prime Minister and copied it to municipal leaders seeking action and support for the stability of the company as it attempts to restructure its operations to avoid bankruptcy.

The Premier will also know that the federal government stepped up, municipal governments stepped up, workers stepped up, that the only level of government that did not was the provincial government. Now, after the fact, after the creditors' vote — only after — did Catalyst succeed in getting any attention from government.

I wanted to ask the Premier, now that we've gone through this process, what the government plans to do to help Catalyst and help the workers and communities involved.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is right about this. The unions and the communities are stepping up to try and do their bit to support this business in their communities. But for some of them, it's been a pretty recent conversion.

And I would point this out. For the province of British Columbia, we have been stepping up for a decade.We've been stepping up by making sure we have some of the lowest corporate taxes in North America, by making sure that we are a jurisdiction where we can keep regulation and red tape as low as possible. We are a province that's working hard to make sure that we can continue to attract investment and not least because we've been able to maintain a triple-A credit rating, because we look after the public's books.

We've been stepping up for a decade to make sure that this province is a place where the private sector can thrive, and now I'm glad and delighted — I met with the communities and union leaders the other day — that they are stepping up as well.

Here's the thing. We are not in the business, in this government, of subsidizing individual businesses. The business has brought forward some proposals. We're going to consider them, and we'll make sure that the member has more information about that as the process evolves.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: I think it's fair to say that the citizens and the workers in Port Alberni and Crofton and Powell River who care about this issue, and I think the federal government, which intervened after it was asked and was able to give its attention to this issue in British Columbia — unlike the B.C. government — don't think that stepping up is sidelining the Minister of Jobs and replacing him with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and giving people a meeting after the creditors' vote.

This is a serious issue in British Columbia. It involves these communities. This is a major employer. The government of British Columbia is involved with Catalyst in every possible way.

My question to the Premier is this. What action is she and her government going to take to address this serious problem in the community? The request was made in March. Nothing happened. What's going to happen now?

[1410]

Hon. C. Clark: I know the member would like to stand up and pretend that people will believe he might be an expert on these issues, that he might be capable of providing great advice on these kinds of issues. Let's just remember what happened with the debacle of Skeena Cellulose, when the company came with a request for $50 million and it turned out to cost taxpayers over $400 million.

I am not going to, nor is this government, take advice from that member about how to make sure we ensure a thriving private sector in British Columbia.

We've had a 44 percent reduction in business taxes, which I believe that member would reverse. We've eliminated the corporate capital tax, which again, that member would reverse.

We've created a climate that makes sure that we are able to create and encourage investment, that we're able to make sure we have a thriving private sector. We've created a climate that has meant there have been almost 60,000 net new jobs created over just this past year alone in one of the most difficult international climates.

We are working with the company and the interested groups. Let me say this, as I said to the group that was assembled the other day. Our priority as a government is to make sure, to the extent we can, that pensioners, workers and communities are looked after. We want to do what we can to support them to the extent that we can, and we want to make sure that those communities are supported through this process.

That's why the member for Vancouver-Quilchena is acting as a conduit for those groups, and I'll make sure that the member knows as we have more news, as this process evolves.

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

A. Dix: The Catalyst CEO said: "The lack of substantive and public action by the B.C. government on the issues identified for its attention was disappointing." They were asked to give their attention to this issue, and they were
[ Page 12675 ]
absent without leave.

No number of partisan speeches from the Premier of British Columbia changes that fact. No number of speeches changes the fact that jobs are at risk, that communities are at risk. These are serious issues.

What I'd like to know is: what is the government prepared to do, working with all of the instruments of government, including B.C. Hydro and others, to assist Catalyst at this time and save the jobs that are lost in this community so that they don't become like the 44,000 fewer jobs in forestry since this government came into office? What is the government going to do now?

Hon. C. Clark: This is a very serious question, and the company has been engaged with ministry officials to work through some of these issues over the last little while. The superintendent of pensions has been working very hard with the company as well. I met with him the other day.

Here's the thing. As I said, we are not in the business of subsidizing business. That is not, at our core, who we are as a government, and I don't believe that that's what British Columbians want.

The last time this member stepped up with his best advice about what should happen to support a failing business, it cost taxpayers $425,000 per job, and almost all of those people lost their jobs anyway. I don't think that's the solution that British Columbians are looking for.

We are pursuing a very different path. We are going to try and do what we can to support the communities, the workers and the pensioners. We've been doing that. We are going to continue to do that.

Again, if the member thinks that the example of Skeena Cellulose isn't an example that every British Columbian in the province hasn't learned from, he's wrong. He may be the only person in the province who thinks that that might be a good thing to do yet again.

I don't. It was a failure. It was a colossally expensive failure for taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia, and we are not going to do the same thing again.

[1415]

N. Simons: My colleagues and I have been working hard on the behalf of the people of Powell River and the 410 employees working for Catalyst there. I met with the Jobs Minister, who gave me assurances that everything was under control and that the government was working on the file. Yet now we hear from the Catalyst CEO in a letter: "The minister's assertions that he and the B.C. government were working with the company simply were not true."

My question is to the minister responsible for jobs. Who is right — the CEO of Catalyst, who says the company has been abandoned, or the minister, who says he's working with the company?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite knows that we met with the pension group of employees and that we are working with the superintendent of pensions to deal with the issues that the pensioners have. The member opposite knows that we've also looked at various programs that are available for training for the employees, and the member opposite also knows that we've been working with the community to look at options to support the community.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition just a few minutes ago talk about the notion of providing preferred hydro rates to one single company in British Columbia. That's exactly what the member opposite said, when he said: "Why don't we respond to the request on B.C. Hydro?"

Is the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, suggesting that it's acceptable to provide preferred treatment to a single company in any given sector? If he says that, he should stand up and confirm it right now.

C. Trevena: I suggest that the Jobs Minister listen to the questions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it's difficult to hear.

Continue, Member.

C. Trevena: Catalyst's Elk Falls mill in Campbell River employed more than 400 people. They were good jobs that paid well and helped sustain the community. They're gone, and they're not going to be coming back. The people of Campbell River know what it's like to suffer the loss of a major employer and the toll it takes on the community.

My question is to the Premier. Now that she has replaced her Jobs Minister with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena on this file, can she tell the House what he will be doing to ensure that the communities of Crofton, Port Alberni and Powell River don't suffer the same fate?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm happy to talk about the record of this government. This government was the one that worked with employees at Harmac to make sure that we have a viable operation and a sustainable, long-term profitable company. This government is the government that worked with the old Pope and Talbot pulp mill in Mackenzie to make sure that that operation is profitable over the long term and is successful in this province.

We will work with Catalyst and the employees of Catalyst and the pensioners of Catalyst and the communities of Catalyst in exactly the same way that we worked with those other two operations.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
WORKPLACE SAFETY

G. Gentner: Earlier this month the Province news-
[ Page 12676 ]
paper published a heart-wrenching review of the death of 24-year-old Sam Fitzpatrick, who was killed on the job February 22, 2009. Now, one of the issues that haunts Sam's family even today is the fact that a WorkSafe inspector was at the site only three days before this happened, but the work continued nevertheless.

Kiewit, the contractor, was fined a quarter million dollars for safety violations in this case. Kiewit continues to deny their responsibility and to appeal the fine. However, WorkSafe upheld the fine and confirmed that the violations created a "high risk of death or injury." There are so many questions that are unanswered in this.

To the minister: what steps is her government taking to make sure that there will not be more families like that of Sammy's?

[1420]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you to the member for this question. This was certainly an extremely tragic happening, and nothing that anyone can do can bring back this family member to the people who are bereaved. I certainly want to start out by saying how much we all feel that in the House — on both sides of the House, I'm quite sure.

In this case, this was one of the highest penalties that had ever been imposed by WorkSafe B.C. It was taken very seriously. The penalty itself reflects how serious the compliance issues were that led to this happening.

What I can say is that I think members on both sides of the House are committed to this. Workers around the province are committed to this. WorkSafe is. Unions and employers all are partners in our efforts to continue to address worker safety, to prevent fatalities and to reduce injury rates.

While this was a terrible event, I am happy to say that in the last ten years injury rates and fatalities have continually been reduced in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: Yes, it was a terrible tragedy. No doubt. We don't want to see this fine as being part of the price of doing business in the province. The numbers do tell a story, and we are going in the wrong place in this province.

The ministry recently tabled the 2011 WorkSafe annual report. It shows that the provincial injury rate actually increased and that "the number of fatalities in B.C. remains almost unchanged." That is unacceptable.

What, specifically, is this minister requiring of WorkSafe B.C. to ensure that injury rates go down, not up, in 2012?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, thanks to the member for the question. The member, however, is just completely incorrect with his information. WorkSafe has made changes over the last number of years with a particular focus on prevention, with a particular focus on education, with more inspections than ever before in the history of the organization.

What has happened? Well, since 2001 our injury rate has been reduced by 40 percent. Motor vehicle incident fatal claims are down by over 20 percent since 2002 on the jobsite. Traumatic fatal claims are down over 30 percent since 2002. All of these trends are very much improved.

There is one area where things are going in the wrong direction, and that is occupational disease. Workers who were exposed to asbestos 30 and 40 years ago…. I do acknowledge that those numbers are rising, but those are from occupational exposures that happened decades ago.

RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR
OIL AND GAS COMPANIES

V. Huntington: Alberta's oil and gas conservation regulation and its pipeline regulation require all companies active in the oil and gas industry to be resident in Alberta with fully functional offices and staff in Alberta. Individuals making financial, technical and operational decisions and who direct the oil and gas operations of a company are held strictly accountable and are liable for their decisions under the Alberta Oil and Gas Conservation Act.

To ensure that Alberta is financially protected, these mind-and-management residency requirements are monitored by the liability management group of the Energy Resources Conservation Board, Alberta's equivalent of B.C.'s Oil and Gas Commission.

Will the Minister of Energy tell this House why he has no similar residency requirements for companies operating in B.C.'s oil and gas industry?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. The topic that she raises is one that is of importance in the new west partnership. We are in discussions currently with Alberta with regards to those regulations, and we'll be working through the dispute resolution mechanism that we have in the new west partnership on that issue.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: There are a lot of companies and individuals in B.C. who will be very happy to hear that.

[1425]

When the Alberta ERCB even senses that a company may not have offices or staff or directors resident in Alberta, the liability management group actually conducts a residency audit. If phones are answered in B.C., if mail is directed to B.C., if staff or directors might be in B.C., the liability police swoop down and read the riot
[ Page 12677 ]
act: "Get your hide back to Alberta or your licence will be revoked."

Meanwhile, what do we see in B.C.? Trucks and equipment purchased in Alberta, registered in Alberta, paying insurance in Alberta. Mind and management and even labour are resident in Alberta, being paid from Alberta, paying income taxes and property taxes to Alberta. B.C. is losing the taxes, homes, training, businesses and head offices that Alberta routinely demands from the extraction of its resources.

My own constituent operating in both B.C. and Alberta, who thought there already was a mutual recognition agreement between the OGC and the ERCB, has been forced to move back to Alberta. A business, a family and highly trained minds — all lost to B.C.

Will the minister move to ensure B.C. reaps all of the benefits from this resource, and will he respond with a made-in-B.C. residency requirement for firms in our own oil and gas industry?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. It was a lengthy one, and it's going to be difficult to answer all of it.

The specifics around residency requirements. In the new west partnership, in fact, we do have an open trading relationship with Alberta and Saskatchewan, and companies from British Columbia are allowed to work in those provinces. Companies in those provinces are allowed to work in British Columbia. That was the subject of an extensive debate in this House and approved a number of years ago.

Specifically with regards to the use of equipment and the taxation of equipment, the equipment in question is prorated depending on what percentage of work carries on in each individual jurisdiction, and tax is charged accordingly. With regards to the issue of head offices, I believe I've answered that question already.

EVICTION OF SENIORS FROM
ABBOTSFORD MANUFACTURED HOME PARK

G. O'Mahony: Another sad story has emerged about vulnerable seniors being kicked out of their homes. The Garden Village Mobile Home Park in Abbotsford is being redeveloped, and the landlord has served notice that residents must move.

One resident invested $71,000 to buy and renovate a home in the park for her and her 92-year-old mother, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease. She said: "I see all the people's dreams crushed, being hauled out in a dump truck. So many of us put everything we had into these homes. Many of us have had health problems. We can't start over."

These people are just asking to be fairly compensated. To the Minister for Housing: what steps is the government taking to ensure seniors losing their homes to redevelopment are treated fairly?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under the mobile home tenancy act the relationship is about the rental of the property between the home and the land. In this particular case the owner of the property is actually going beyond what the requirements in law are, which is to give one year's compensation if they want to change the use of the park. They're actually doing two years of compensation and working with the individual residents.

The local government does have the ability to deal with some of this in zoning, and I have given advice to many local governments on how they could go around that, which is a bit more complicated than what we could discuss here today. But the act has been established for a long time, and the relationship between the landlord and the tenant on compensation has been established for a long time.

REGULATION OF
MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS

K. Conroy: Well, the minister has rightfully pointed out that the landlord did go over and above what the legislation calls for, and that's exactly the point. The legislation is too weak, and it needs to be improved. The opposition has introduced, three times, three different bills, but they have been ignored, just as the Liberals are ignoring the pleas of seniors in Abbotsford.

Our legislation called for actual moving expenses to be approved and covered up to $25,000 and for the appraised value of the home to actually be reimbursed.

[1430]

Again, to the minister: will the Liberals stand up for the seniors for a change and bring in tougher regulations so that seniors are fairly compensated when landlords decide to redevelop their homes?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are lots of solutions that municipalities can apply to this particular situation if they wish to do it. They could decide to bare land strata the property without development cost charges — as I've given them advice to do in the past — and allow the property to be sold by individual lots to the tenants. They can choose to do that.

They also, under the law, do have the power of zoning in British Columbia — an authority that is theirs and not ours. Ours is to manage a tenancy agreement between the landowner and the tenant that has a home on the property.

There's a one-year notice and a one-year compensation in the act. They're going beyond, basically, that level of compensation in this particular instance, and the municipality has decided that they're not interested in changing the zoning.
[ Page 12678 ]

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS
AND LOG EXPORT POLICY

B. Routley: Last year less than 1 percent of 5.5 million cubic metres of raw log exports were kept in B.C. — 1 percent. It's really just crumbs. Yet the minister keeps talking about some kind of mythical balance. What balance?

Now we're learning that even those crumbs aren't going to be retained. The minister is overruling his own experts and shipping even more raw logs. Will the minister finally act in the best interest of British Columbians, listen to the unanimous opinion of the timber advisory committee and keep B.C. logs to create B.C. jobs?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, thank you for the question or the statement.

This is an issue that we've canvassed previously in the House. We've canvassed it extensively in estimates.

The log export policy — we've had the provisions for log export since 1912 in the Forest Act — is one that is based on a surplus test under the legislation. It requires an application and an assessment of fair market value.

The member opposite knows that for 30 years TEAC has administered that policy under a set of criteria. After 30 years administering it under one set of criteria, that was changed, and I think it's incumbent on the part of government to make sure we understand and assess that criteria and the reason for that change.

We're in that process. We've had work done on that. We're engaged with TEAC, and those discussions are continuing, which I'm sure the member opposite knows.

N. Macdonald: The minister repeatedly points to a surplus test that no longer exists, since December. That's the fact of the matter. It is this government that has changed the criteria. The minister has essentially removed, when he overturned over 86 times the recommendations of the timber export advisory committee…. That's the fact of the matter.

What we have now is we are heading for, again, a record amount of raw logs being sent offshore. If we continue this way, we are going up to 6 million cubic metres.

We are talking about just the crumbs. There are mills that need that wood. They have a market for their product, and this government steps in and actively interferes to make sure those logs do not stay here.

What about B.C. workers? What about the concept of B.C. logs for B.C. jobs? That's the B.C. NDP priority. That's a priority of British Columbians. Why is it not the priority of this government?

[1435]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite talks about: what about B.C. jobs? Well, what about B.C. jobs in the 1990s, when the NDP government had the worst job creation record in the country — the worst in the country? What kinds of jobs were helped by the fact that they had multiple credit rating downgrades in the 1990s? What kinds of jobs were created when they had a jobs and timber accord that was supposed to create 21,000 jobs, and it cost 13,000 jobs in the forestry industry?

On this side of the House I can say this. In a time of great global uncertainty, at a time when around the world we see unemployment rates of 10, 15 or 20 percent, and at a time when we see countries having their credit rating downgraded — whether the United States or France or the United Kingdom or Spain or Italy or Greece — here in British Columbia, after seven successive credit rating upgrades, a triple-A credit rating. One of the lowest levels of debt-to-GDP in the industrialized world, 44 percent reduction in business taxes and almost 40 percent reduction of personal income taxes — that's how you create real jobs for British Columbians. That's what we're doing with one of the lowest unemployment rates in North America right here in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

L. Popham: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

L. Popham: I have a petition signed by 2,300 people in opposition to the unconfined environmental release of genetically modified apple trees in British Columbia.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Chong: I'm pleased today to present and table the report of the B.C. Assessment Authority: 2011 Annual Service Plan Report.

Motions Without Notice

MEMBERSHIP OF FINANCE AND
GOVERNMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I do the orders, I have a motion. By leave, I move:

[That Norm Letnick replace Moira Stilwell, and Donna Barnett replace Jane Thornthwaite, as Members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services;]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.
[ Page 12679 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this chamber this afternoon we will begin with committee stage of Bill 50, intituled Athletic Commissioner Act. That will be followed by committee stage on Bill 49, intituled Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012; subsequently to Bill 38, Pension Benefits Standards Act and then Bill 56, New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act.

In Section A, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will continue with committee stage of Bill 54, intituled Provincial Sales Tax Act.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 50 — ATHLETIC COMMISSIONER ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 50; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:42 p.m.

On section 1.

G. Gentner: I rise to speak and ask questions of the minister of a bill that may seem quite harmless, and I suppose in many ways it is. But it still is 26 pages long, and there are a lot of questions. This is a whole relatively new venue for the province of B.C. — to actually engage in introducing an athletic commissioner that will regulate pugilistic-types of sports, sports that are involved with striking or seen as being involved with grappling.

Under section 1, "Definitions," I want to start off with one question, and that is that the word "'official' means a person who participates in a professional contest or exhibition (a) as a referee, judge or timekeeper, or (b) in a prescribed capacity." Can the minister explain what exactly that means?

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, a quick introduction of staff support. With me today is David Galbraith to my left, Heather Brazier behind me, and to my right Kara Woodward and Jodi Dong.

I think the best way to respond to this, to the member, is as he can see from part (a) of the definition, "as a referee, judge or timekeeper," those are generally what are accepted as officials, who are the ones who are overseeing a number of events and contests, whether it be in amateur sports or even in professional sports.

The sub (b), "in a prescribed capacity," just allows for us to consider other categories of officials that may not already be considered. We will need to prescribe whatever that may be and add that to the list should there be other officials who oversee this kind of contest and exhibition that are not yet clear for us.

G. Gentner: Therefore, my question is: if we're looking at regulating this in the legislation here and the regulation will define, I suppose, what the prescribed capacity is, can the minister explain to the House when the regulations will be considered and brought forward?

Hon. I. Chong: I am advised that staff are working on those regulations. They will be working on them through the summer. Certainly, there is a target date of this fall, but again, it will depend upon the amount of information they receive back and in their consultations with others.

[1445]

G. Gentner: Can the minister describe the consultation process and who will be involved?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member will know, there are currently nine local commissions that have been established over the course of the last number of years that have looked at the experience of having officials considered with these contests and exhibitions. We also know that there are commissions in other jurisdictions such as in Alberta, with Edmonton, and in Ontario as well. We know there are commissions in the United States.

My understanding is that staff will certainly begin here in British Columbia with the nine local commissions. Vancouver and Nanaimo are just a couple that we are very familiar with. Then we will also have consultations, as I say, with the other provincial jurisdictions before we take a look at what is happening in the United States. Primarily, we would start with our nine local commissions.

G. Gentner: Will the consultation process include organizations such as B.C. Mixed Martial Arts Association?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, we would be dealing with industry stakeholders as well, and include consultation with them.

G. Gentner: Will it include the B.C. Medical Association?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, we certainly would accept information that the B.C. Medical Association would wish to provide to us.

G. Gentner: Now, back to the prescribed capacity. I'm
[ Page 12680 ]
trying to figure out who has the authority. Is it going to be the ministry, or is it going to be within the regulations set down? The prescribed capacity — can you explain it a little further? I just want to understand who will be able to do so.

Hon. I. Chong: I believe in section 46 we will see what is possible. In that section under the minister's regulations would be where we would see this — this prescribed capacity.

Again, I want to ensure that the member is aware what we are talking about with respect to a prescribed capacity. It's with respect to what would be considered as an official.

G. Gentner: We're talking about section 46. Unfortunately, we're never going to get there, so I'm feathering it out now as we go along in the early part.

"'Professional contest or exhibition' means a contest or exhibition of professional boxing or another sport prescribed by regulation." Can the minister explain to me what those other sports will be?

[1450]

Hon. I. Chong: I think perhaps the best examples, and the member will know, are MMA, mixed martial arts, and kickboxing. They are obviously two of the ones that are most commonly known. Again, should the contest and sport evolve over time, there may be others that would be added in terms of the category. Just with this definition, it does leave it open for, as I say, future sports as well.

With respect to the prescribing under 47(2)(a), it would be through order-in-council.

G. Gentner: Will this include wrestling or maybe, perhaps, hockey?

Hon. I. Chong: The member specifically does mention wrestling, and I want to assure him that it does not include wrestling. Wrestling is not considered a professional contest as such, because it has a predetermined result. I hate to shatter people's opinions of it, but apparently that's the situation.

G. Gentner: Well, the minister just shared something that I think many suspect — that wrestling isn't necessarily seen as a sport, a professional contest, and maybe she's suggesting it's more acting being involved with wrestling. I don't know.

"Second" means a person who assists a professional athlete between rounds. Who pays for that? Is it the athlete itself, a promoter or the commissioner?

Hon. I. Chong: I am advised it would be likely that the promoter would be paying for the second.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Gentner: Just some clarification. The minister, by order, can do one of the following: "(b) a corporation…." Can the minister explain what a corporation is?

Hon. I. Chong: The corporation, generally speaking, would be one that would be modelled under similar entities that do exist currently, such as the Safety Authority of British Columbia. That is an entity. It is maybe not viewed as a business corporation, obviously, but it certainly is an entity that can be viewed as a corporation.

What we are looking at are not-for-profit entities, non-government entities which would be able to serve and undertake this oversight role with respect to being the athletic commissioner.

G. Gentner: In the legislation itself, does it refer to that it cannot or can be a for-profit corporation?

[1455]

Hon. I. Chong: With respect to the question of if the athletic commissioner would be a corporation, again, there are forms of corporations which are profitable and not profitable. This would be about a non-profit corporation. It is not about a private corporation. It would be able to undertake this role and would then be able to have revenues returned back to the shareholders.

However, a not-for-profit entity, though, would or could possibly have revenues in excess of the expenses incurred. Then those revenues would not be returned to a shareholder as such but would be returned to the entity for it to deliver programs as deemed fit.

As I say, this is an oversight role. We do have the power to prescribe the appropriate type of corporation by regulations. Again, it's not about having shareholders with share capital, if that's what the member is considering.

G. Gentner: If I have it right, the minister is saying that the intent is that there be a non-profit. In all unlikelihood but nevertheless, according to this legislation, it could be a for-profit corporation.

Hon. I. Chong: No, that's not correct. It would not be a for-profit corporation.

G. Gentner: Where in the legislation does it say that?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member is aware, we are able to develop the regulations, and therefore, as government, we have the power to prescribe the appropriate type of corporation by regulations. Because that is the intent, we will be ensuring that it's a not-for-profit.
[ Page 12681 ]

G. Gentner: Well, it's not in the legislation. We're going to wait for the regulation to come forward and make it a non-profit. In the meantime, corporation means a lot of different things.

Can the minister explain to me why, unlike Ontario or many other provincial jurisdictions, you are throwing in the idea, a possibility of a corporation, I suppose — as just with an athletic commissioner?

Hon. I. Chong: Here in British Columbia we actually do have different models. Again, I think the member may be perceiving corporations to be only those of a private nature with share capital as such. That is not the situation here in British Columbia. We have a model of non-government corporations which administer government statutes. That is the intent here.

If we do not, the section here allows us — prior to setting up a local commission or prior to having someone who steps up — to look at having the individual appointed through the ministry. But we may also want to take a look at other entities that currently are in existence that might want to take an active role in the oversight of this.

The examples that I want to cite, though, as non-government, non-profit entities are entities such as the Safety Authority of B.C., the Land Title and Survey Authority, the Consumer Protection Authority. Those are the kinds of authorities that we are talking about. They are corporations, but they're not corporations for which there is share capital, which is generally issued for private corporations.

G. Gentner: Again, that may be the intent, but it's not in the legislation.

Bill Mahood, who's a spokesperson for the B.C. Mixed Martial Arts Association, told me he's very concerned about the notion of corporation because it has a whole bunch of different connotations.

Can the minister explain to the House what jurisdictions actually do have a corporation acting as the athletic commissioner?

[1500]

Hon. I. Chong: I am advised by staff that we don't believe there is any such model in Canada. Again, I would want to remind the member that we are looking at a model…. If a corporation or an authority exists — a non-government corporation that will be administering government statutes — it is important, as we move forward and establish this commissioner…. Once established, that would be the authority. We have the ability to prescribe, as I've indicated, and that would be how we would proceed going forward.

G. Gentner: Well, the minister mentioned a bunch of authorities and commissions. Would it also be possible whereby some non-profit authorities — I hate to suggest it, but Sport B.C., B.C. sport and recreational advisory committees…? How extensive could it be? Could someone just incorporated as a corporation be included, seen as an acting athletic commissioner?

Hon. I. Chong: The examples that the member has cited — it would not be appropriate. So the answer is no. The athletic commission requires a licensing framework, and those bodies that he indicates do not have one.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Gentner: Section 3. "If the minister makes a designation under section 2 (a), employees may be appointed…and other persons…." Can the minister explain those that may not be appointed?

Hon. I. Chong: This is not about someone who may not be permitted. It is legislative drafting–standard language that is simply enabling. It is a permissive style of drafting. It allows us to have an employee be appointed if that is required, but it's not about who cannot be. More so, it is about enabling.

G. Gentner: Therefore, if a person may not necessarily be appointed who is under the Public Service Act, that person may not be necessarily with the BCGEU, may have different termination standards, as we see in a collective agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: Sorry, we just couldn't hear the member. He was not clear in his last part. I'm trying to make sure I understand who specifically he is trying to reference. So if the member could just repeat his question a little louder, I would appreciate it.

G. Gentner: The staff of the commissioner doesn't necessarily have to be a member of the BCGEU or any collective agreement — correct?

[1505]

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I just wanted to make it clear that the commissioner, once established, may choose to appoint persons that he or she deems necessary to help with the running of this commission. That commissioner will need to determine the structure or level, may also need to consider the experts or those who have experience in this area, and may allow this commissioner to go outside and seek the expert help that he or she feels is necessary.

This section is about enabling, but it is not prescriptive as to who the commissioner must retain to assist with the operations of the commission. I'm hoping that that
[ Page 12682 ]
is clear. I would not say that there are widespread people who are involved in this particular kind of work, especially if the kind of activity that occurs is not frequent, if it's done infrequently throughout the year. So there may be people who are brought in from time to time to assist the commissioner in his or her ability to run the commission.

So again, this section is being enabling, allowing the commissioner to take a look at the extent with which the people need to be assisting.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Gentner: "The commissioner is responsible for the following…." Then it lists what they are — professional contests, etc. I look at Ontario and other legislation, and it also mentions amateur jurisdictions. Can the minister explain why this legislation does not look at amateur contests as well?

Hon. I. Chong: In British Columbia I would say we perhaps have somewhat of a different model. We have provincial sports organizations who oversee amateur sport. So this provincial athletic commissioner would only regulate and oversee professional sports contests.

G. Gentner: Well, therefore, if you're not defining "amateur," I'd like to know…. If you are talking about professionals in the combative sports, what is the age criteria?

[1510]

Hon. I. Chong: There is no prescribed age limit, I think, if that was the question that the member was asking. But I just want to go back to his other question. He mentioned Ontario with respect to oversight of the amateur sports. I'm advised by staff that Ontario, their athletic commissioner, does not deal with the amateur sports side. It is the professional contests or exhibitions, as I understand it.

G. Gentner: Well, time is of the essence. My reading is somewhat a little different, and defining amateur combative sports is, it's my understanding, part of the legislation. Nevertheless, we'll move on. I'll just sit down and wait for us to get to section 6.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Gentner: I'm tabling an amendment to section 6.

[Section 6 is amended by adding the following subsection:

6 (2) (q) that the corporation may not promote or sponsor any professional contest or exhibition or have any financial interest in the promotion or sponsorship of those professional contests or exhibitions.]

I wish to speak on that, if I may.

The Chair: Hon. Member, are you moving your amendment?

G. Gentner: I believe it was submitted to the Clerk's office. Yes, I have so moved.

On the amendment.

G. Gentner: I'm bringing this to the attention…. I know the good intentions of the minister, and her good staff members are well-meaning….

The Chair: Hon. Member.

Under time allocation, shall sections 6 through 52 pass?

G. Gentner: I believe I had 45 minutes, hon. Speaker. We were told we could tag on what we didn't speak before.

The motion will stand, and I so move.

Sections 6 to 52 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:13 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 50 — ATHLETIC COMMISSIONER ACT

Bill 50, Athletic Commissioner Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call Bill 49 for committee stage, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 49 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 49; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:15 p.m.
[ Page 12683 ]

On section 1.

[1515]

R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask quickly about the Cultus Lake Park section of section 1 and to ask the minister if he can describe the road removal. It seems unusual for a roadway to be removed from the existing park. I know it's compensated by additions of foreshore areas in this park, but I wonder if you can describe if it includes just the width of the roadbed, vehicles and parking access or…? Essentially, what is the distance and width of the road corridor through the park?

Hon. T. Lake: There are three public roads, Lindell Avenue, Columbia Valley Road and Edmeston Road, that are being excluded from the park. The removal of existing roads from parks is a longstanding B.C. Parks policy.

I don't have the length and width of the roads for the member but can describe the area. Lindell Avenue is just under half a hectare, Columbia Valley Road is just under 9.5 hectares, and Edmeston Road is just over one hectare.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about the re-enactment of the description of the Gowlland Tod Park range in this section of the bill and to ask, essentially, why this is being done at this point in time. This is a park system that's in my region and is part of the region's blue-green strategy and has enjoyed constant protections and a number of additions over the years. Of course, the province has holdings, along with the regional government, in this system.

I wanted to ask him what is necessitating this part of this amendment bill — what it will do to the existing area of Gowlland Tod Park.

Hon. T. Lake: There was a private land acquisition. We're adding 0.68 hectares to the park, so the description is being updated.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

R. Fleming: I will actually, I think, hand this over to my colleague the member for Stikine to ask questions.

D. Donaldson: I have a few question that pertain to this section, specifically on the Atlin Taku land use plan areas which are in my constituency — and the next sections as well, under sections 5, 6 and 7. I'll just ask a question on section 5, which creates four new conservancies in the Atlin Taku land use plan area.

First of all, are these conservancies by agreement with the Taku River Tlingit?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is yes.

[1520]

D. Donaldson: The Taku River Tlingit…. This is a question that relates to conservancies that are in this act and concerns around the Tulsequah Chief mine, which requires a new road south and west from the end of the road near Atlin. The Taku River Tlingit have not approved or rejected the road. They still have to do their due diligence on the location of the road.

My question, in relation to the conservancies. I noticed that some of these conservancies may lie in close proximity to the proposed road location. If it is required by the Taku River Tlingit, in their views, to move the road location at some point in the process that's unfolding still, and that road would have to traverse through one of the conservancies that's being created by this act, would that be an allowable use — through a conservancy, a mining access road?

Hon. T. Lake: These four conservancies will be listed under schedule E, and under schedule E, no, they would not be able to have a road built through them. Conservancies under schedule F could do that. So if the First Nation wanted to have a road through these conservancies under this schedule, they would have to apply, and we'd have to go through the procedure of a boundary amendment.

R. Fleming: With the indulgence of the minister…. Given the time constraints and given the last day of the sitting, I would beg his indulgence, if I could ask a few questions regarding section 4. I realize that section has already passed. I do not want to go back there in order to vote on it again. I did not oppose it being passed. I just want to ask a couple of questions that we do have outstanding on that section. He seems to be gesturing that he'll allow it, so I thank him for that.

I just wanted to ask on the Stawamus Chief section here, which is, of course, related to the Sea to Sky Gondola Corporation application for removals for the right-of-way for gondola pillars to be placed, allowing transportation from an area that is not in the park to a plateau area that is also not in the park. I understand the features of this. However, it is an application that involves a removal from a provincially designated park, so hence, its inclusion in this section.

I wanted to ask the minister about the process around that, the discussions that have happened in the community. I think the community has had a number of things to say, and my intent to ask questions is not about the merits of the proposal, of which I think there are a considerable number, but rather about the way consultation has been
[ Page 12684 ]
done on this and, given that it's in the B.C. Parks system, who should have lead responsibility for the consultation.

It seemed to me from all indications that I got that it was a very proponent-driven consultation with the public and all of the stakeholders, including First Nations in that region of the Sea to Sky corridor in the Squamish area. However….

I guess my question really is whether the minister agrees that for B.C. Parks applications like this one, and to contemplate others — whether he thinks it should be a public and neutral responsibility by B.C. Parks. To my knowledge, I'm not even sure B.C. Parks was in attendance at some of the community consultations that led to this application. But I would ask the minister whether he thinks in principle that future deletions from parks should be done differently and should have B.C. Parks, who's responsible for park management plans, at least being the public and neutral lead agency in that process.

Hon. T. Lake: The public consultation…. In this case the proponent was the one who undertook the public consultation, but of course, B.C. Parks is following the consultation process very closely.

[1525]

I should start by saying that the plan for Stawamus Chief Park includes, as one of its highest values, recreational use. So that's sort of a base point: is this consistent with the park management plan? B.C. Parks would have been working with the proponent, and certainly, something that didn't fit into the plan would have been treated differently than something that does fit within the plan for the park.

The proponent held upwards of 80 public meetings with local governments, stakeholders, the general public and First Nations. We've been following that process very closely. B.C. Parks is obviously very interested and wants to ensure that the public has been consulted on any application for boundary amendment. In this case we commend the proponent for the extent and the quality of public consultation that was undertaken, as the member noted, including rezoning applications on areas outside of the park, which were well attended by the public and supported by local governments in both cases.

R. Fleming: A different question for the minister is around the consultation which was ongoing and took place with a number of groups. The number of meetings he's quoted would probably include private meetings that the proponent may well have had but also the public meetings, although the public meetings were continuing in the Squamish region, to my knowledge, after the bill was introduced in this House, which proposed to make into law the very thing that the proponent was being required to go and consult the public about.

So I would ask the minister whether he thinks this is an ordinary and usual situation for government to already introduce the legal mechanisms to make the park removal, when the consultation by the proponent with all of the public stakeholder groups has not been completed. It may lead to some cynicism upon those groups who were being consulted that the thing was rather a done deal, because it had sat on the order paper of government.

Hon. T. Lake: My response to the member is: that's why we have three stages of a bill before it is passed.

We've been monitoring the public consultation on this proposal, and had we found that there was overwhelming opposition to this proposal, we certainly had the opportunity to delete this at third reading stage.

It's certainly not a conclusion that we have come to by including this as part of our bill. We have always had the option of amending the bill to delete this portion if we found it necessary, based on the public consultation that has been held to date.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

M. Sather: Section 8 is on the Dzawadi–Upper Klinaklini River Conservancy, which we have a great deal of concerns about. I'll start off by asking the minister: what is now the Upper Klinaklini–Dzawadi Conservancy was within a protected area temporarily designated in 2002 under the Environment and Land Use Act. How long did this temporary designation last?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm advised by my very knowledgable counsel that the protected area was created under the land resource management plan and handled not by this ministry but by the ministry responsible for lands. Today that would be Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. At that time it could have been Agriculture and Lands. I'm not sure what the ministry was. But those were held in protected areas from 2002 till about 2006, when discussions on establishing conservancies began.

[1530]

M. Sather: I'm wondering, then, why…. The Environment and Land Use Act prohibits commercial hydroelectric development. So why was Kleana Power allowed to submit an application to the environmental assessment office in 2005, when the area was already under protection that forbade the development of commercial hydroelectric projects?

Hon. T. Lake: I beg the member's…. Well, I could say to the member that we are not the ministry responsible for what was the land put under…. I misspoke, calling them protected areas. They were put under protection orders by the ILMB of the day. So it was not our ministry that was involved.
[ Page 12685 ]

I'm sorry to tell the member that I don't know what limits were placed on uses — whether or not they had the right to apply to the environmental assessment office under that order of protection. It's a mechanism that we no longer use in the areas that we're discussing.

M. Sather: Well, my reading of the court case that ensued after 2010…. Under the ILMB, the same prohibition against commercial hydroelectric projects was in place, so I'm curious that they were permitted to put forward their involvement with the environmental assessment office at that time.

What's the purpose of the protected area now — that is, the small piece along the river that is now removed from the conservancy? What is the purpose of that protected area that remains along the river?

Hon. T. Lake: In this case there are, I believe, 62 hectares that are being taken out of the conservancy and held in a protected area. That allows the proponent in this case to conduct works that are necessary for application to the environmental assessment office.

That work could not be done in a conservancy. It can be done in a protected area. But otherwise, the area in question will be managed the same way as it would be if it were a conservancy.

M. Sather: In the court decision, Madam Justice said:

"In October 2007 what became known in these proceedings as the Kissinger proposal was formulated by the ministry staff assisting the petitioners. The plan was (a) a smaller area, to be identified on a map prepared by the ministry, was to provide Kleana with the working area that it provided; and (b) this area would be removed from the Upper Klinaklini conservancy when the conservancy was created by legislation and designated as a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act so that other projects could not intervene."

Can the minister explain what the phrase "so that other projects could not intervene" means?

[1535]

Hon. T. Lake: I believe the member is referring to an earlier judgment on the former proposal, which would have seen upwards of a thousand hectares removed from the conservancy. The latest court decision that we are reacting to in this case is that the order of the Minister of Environment of the day to not recommend an amendment to the boundary of the conservancy was overturned.

Today we are here, after consultation which was ordered by the court, with a much-reduced area to be considered for boundary modification, in this case going from 1,000 hectares down to 62 hectares.

M. Sather: The same passage in the court document in regard to the plan says: "If the project did not satisfy environmental assessment and permitting requirements or did not proceed to construction, all of the land area would return to the Upper Klinaklini Conservancy, and the boundary would be restored to its original…configuration."

Is there any time frame or limit on how long the project has to satisfy "environmental…permitting requirements under the EAO process"? Or does this project just keep hanging over our heads indefinitely?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, it can take, in some cases, considerable time to go through the environmental assessment process. The member is correct, in that this area is being removed from a conservancy and held in a protected area. If the proponent does not go through with an environmental assessment application or if that application were to be unsuccessful, then the land would return to the conservancy.

In terms of how long that could take, we've seen other projects take a considerable amount of time. It's unknown to me how long this would take. We do have timelines on our environmental assessment process, but the clock on that only starts ticking once the application has been deemed complete.

To the member: I can't tell you how long it would be held in this state, but certainly, there is a considerable amount of work that needs to be done in order to inform the environmental assessment process in a fulfilled and comprehensive manner.

M. Sather: Again, according to the court documents…. Then–Energy Minister Richard Neufeld wrote in May of 2008 that "Bill 38" — that's the one where the government said they weren't going to move the boundaries of the conservancy — "fulfils the government's commitment to implement the coastal land use decision and reflects the outcome of the central and north coast planning processes and subsequent government-to-government land use negotiations."

Is the government still committed to maintaining all the good work that was done during the LRMP process and the 2006 land use planning agreement-in-principle?

Hon. T. Lake: Absolutely. We are here today because of a court decision that said we had a duty to consult. We have consulted and come back with this very much reduced removal of land to allow consideration through a very comprehensive environmental assessment process. But we remain committed to all of the principles of the agreements that were made at that time.

M. Sather: Court documents state that "no one from the ministry, including the minister, had ever expressed any concerns about potential adverse environmental impacts." Does the minister sitting in this House today have concerns about the environmental effects of this project?

Hon. T. Lake: As the statutory decision–maker on any environmental assessment, I don't have an opinion as to
[ Page 12686 ]
whether there would be adverse environmental impacts. That's why we do an environmental assessment. It would be irresponsible for me to form an opinion before that process is complete.

[1540]

M. Sather: It's sad that we don't have time to discuss in any great depth this important consideration, so I want to move on to the end part of the court documents.

Madam Justice said that the First Nations "seek an order quashing the minister's decision of April 27, 2010" — that was to not change the boundaries — "and declaratory relief directing the minister to recommend to cabinet that the boundaries of the Upper Klinaklini conservancy would be amended. Alternatively, they seek an order directing the minister to consult in government-to-government relations."

So the First Nation asked for the 2010 order that Barry Penner made to be quashed. They got that. They asked for the minister to be directed to recommend to cabinet that the boundaries of the conservancy be changed. They did not get that. They asked that, alternatively, they seek an order directing the minister to consult in the government-to-government process, and they got that.

Yet Bill 49 changes the boundaries of the conservancy, something the court didn't grant. Why is the government abandoning its previous attempt to protect the Klinaklini River and going beyond what the judge ordered?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, the court ordered that the Minister of Environment has a legal duty to consult with the First Nation, a proponent in this case, about their request for an amendment — and this is the important part — with a view to considering a reasonable accommodation.

If the member is suggesting that we would have a preconceived idea about what the consultation and accommodation would be, then I would say that that would not be consulting in good faith. This is what the court ordered, and we are here today as a result of that consultation and reasonable accommodation.

M. Sather: Well, the minister, I submit, is wrong. Madam Justice was quite clear. She said: "It is rare, however, for the court to become involved in directing a particular form of accommodation…. The consequence of the minister's breach of duty to consult is that no accommodation to the First Nation interests was considered."

But she goes on to say: "I do not consider this an appropriate case to direct the minister to make the recommendation sought." The recommendation sought was to direct the minister to recommend to cabinet that the boundaries be amended.

So she's very clear. She says: "I do not consider this appropriate." She goes on to say — and this is what the minister is talking about…. What she did order was to quash the minister's decision of April 27, 2010, and a declaration that the minister has a legal duty to consult. But there's no declaration removed by this minister or this court decision to change these boundaries.

I challenge the minister on that and ask: why is he going beyond what the court ordered, and why is he paving the way for Kleana Power to put through a project that never ever, ever should have been approved?

Hon. T. Lake: I do not believe the member opposite is a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. But we seek legal advice when we are handling situations like this.

The member has been quoting parts of Madam Justice Fisher's findings and her judgment. I will read into the record Madam Justice Fisher's statements, "Consultation that excludes the possibility of any form of accommodation is meaningless" — paragraph 188.

Finally, the justice added that the consultation requires "an opportunity for some dialogue on a government-to-government basis, with a view to considering a reasonable accommodation of the Da'naxda'xw's interests in allowing the project to be assessed in the environmental assessment process."

The Chair: Shall section 8 pass?

An Hon. Member: Division.

The Chair: By agreement, the division has been deferred.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

[1545]

Hon. T. Lake: We have a deferred division, so I report progress on the bill.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:46 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Mr. Speaker, I call committee stage of Bill 38, intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 38 — PENSION BENEFITS
STANDARDS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 38; L. Reid in the chair.
[ Page 12687 ]

The committee met at 3:48 p.m.

On section 1.

D. Donaldson: I have a number of questions, and we have very limited time, so I'll try to be very quick. I wanted to ask one question on section 1, which is definitions and interpretations of the act.

In a preamble to that, though, I would say that I'm very pleased regarding the amendment to section 58 that the government is bringing in. I want to confirm they'll be bringing that in on this bill. They followed the lead set by the official opposition on this, so I'm very happy for the changes that will be made to section 58 that will provide some more certainty to employee pension funds in the instances that are outlined, such as in the Catalyst instance.

The question I have on section 1 regards an omission that is in the original bill that didn't show up in the new bill, Bill 38, Pension Benefits Standards Act. The omission was that in the original act there was a definition of an advisory council, meaning the pension benefits standards advisory council. This is no longer in the definitions and no longer in the new act, so could the minister advise why the advisory council has been dropped?

[1550]

Hon. S. Bond: While it may not be a statutory requirement, certainly the intent is to move forward with an ad hoc advisory council. In fact, this was prepared with the assistance of just such a group.

D. Donaldson: Well, in the consultations we've had over this bill, the inclusion of a pension benefits standards advisory council seemed to be looked upon as beneficial, especially by people within the ministry who would then quickly be able to consult with other experts outside of the ministry. I understand that an ad hoc basis is not as strong as in legislation.

I'll just leave that section at that and be willing to move, in our very limited time, to other sections of the act. In fact, if it so pleases the Chair, we can go right up to section 35.

Sections 1 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

D. Donaldson: This section deals with the administration of pension plans. Section 35 deals with the responsibilities of the administrator of these pension plans. I understand that in drafting this new bill, the government considered submissions made to a joint B.C.-Alberta panel on pension reform. Many submissions were made. One of the submissions that pertains to this section was regarding the types of responsibilities that an administrator would have regarding investments.

In other jurisdictions — in Manitoba, for instance, in their act — there are stipulations where the administrator can consider environmental, social and governance issues in guiding his or her investment decisions. This is on a discretionary basis in other legislation. It's not prescriptive, but it does relieve the administrator of the fiduciary duty of only making investment decisions based on the fiduciary duty and enabling an administrator to make decisions based on a broader spectrum of criteria — environmental, social and governance issues.

We know from the performance of investments made on those kinds of decisions that in fact, those kinds of funds have outperformed the standard funds when considering environmental, social and governance decisions.

In fact, the B.C. Investment Management Corporation — which manages an $86.9 billion investment portfolio, including the public sector pension funds and government operating funds, amongst other things — has a principle of responsible investment in their mandate, in their protocols, under "Environmental and Social Responsibility."

The question on this section is: if the government received these kinds of submissions — and I believe they did — on allowing the administrator to make investment decisions on environmental, social and governance decisions and considered them, why were they rejected and not included in this section?

Hon. S. Bond: There were a number of submissions that were received. Certainly, they were not rejected out of hand. In fact, the plan administrator's responsibility is to act in the best interests of the members of the plan.

[1555]

In no way does this preclude the consideration of those kinds of things that the member mentioned. In fact, he is correct in noting that in many cases some of those factors and that approach have outperformed others — so not rejected at all. It does not preclude the plan administrator from considering those things.

D. Donaldson: If the administrator does make decisions under this section based on environmental, social and governance criteria considerations, is he or she not in breach of this section if he or she does not place fiduciary duty above everything else?

Hon. S. Bond: The primary concern and consideration needs to be, for the plan administrator, that they're taking care of plan members. So there would not be a breach if those criteria were considered, as long as ultimately the work is done from the perspective of what's in the best interest of the plan members.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer.

Then would other jurisdictions that I mentioned —
[ Page 12688 ]
Manitoba is an example — include specific language that was explicit around the administrator being able to consider these other factors and perhaps make a decision based on those factors mentioned — environmental, social and governance issues? If the minister maintains that the minister is still able to make that kind of decision under section 35 as it stands now, why would they not include the more explicit language in there?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, those types of things can be considered. But the rationale for not including them as explicitly as other jurisdictions was that there was not a desire to water down the primary responsibility of the plan administrator.

That is to make sure that the health of the plan comes first and the consideration of the plan members…. They can still consider it, but the view was that that would dilute the absolute principle, which is that they need to take care of the health of the plan and the plan members first and foremost.

D. Donaldson: I understand I received a two-minute warning. It might have been 30 seconds ago, so I've got about a minute and a half. It just points out that this is a very important bill. Pensions are very important, considering the demographics we're facing in this province. I feel it's somewhat unfortunate that we're faced with such a strict time limitation on a bill that's extremely important.

I'll finish off with the final question, then. Just to confirm with the minister that the amendment on section 58, if I can jump ahead to there with the permission of the Chair, will be included…. I just want a verification that it will be included in the act, as we move forward — the suggestions that we put forward in order to have adequate protection for situations where there's receivership or liquidation; that pensions are secured, Catalyst being an example.

Sections 35 to 57 inclusive approved.

On section 58.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the amendment to section 58, which is standing on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 58, by adding the following subsection:

(4) If there is, in respect of a participating employer, a proceeding

(a) under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada),

(b) under the Winding-up and Restructuring Act (Canada) or similar provincial legislation,

(c) in relation to liquidation, receivership or secured creditor enforcement, or

(d) in relation to insolvency other than under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada),

    an amount equal to the amounts deemed to be held in trust under subsection (1) is deemed to be separate and apart from, and to form no part of, the estate of the participating employer, whether or not that amount has in fact been kept separate and apart from the participating employer's own assets or from the assets of the estate.]

Amendment approved.

[1600]

Section 58 as amended approved.

Sections 59 to 78 inclusive approved.

On section 79.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the amendment to section 79, which is standing on the orders of the day:

[SECTION 79, by deleting proposed section 79 (1) (a) (i) and substituting the following:

(i) subject to subsection (3), the pension to which the member was entitled must be provided to the surviving spouse

(A) as a pension, or

(B) by way of a transfer of the commuted value of the pension under Division 7, and the surviving spouse has, in relation to that transfer, the same rights and obligations, if any, that would have applied to the member had the member survived;]

Amendment approved.

Section 79 as amended approved.

Sections 80 to 177 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:01 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 38 — PENSION BENEFITS
STANDARDS ACT

Bill 38, Pension Benefits Standards Act, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be reported as read, Attorney General?

Hon. S. Bond: Pursuant to the time allocation motion, now, Mr. Speaker.
[ Page 12689 ]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — PENSION BENEFITS
STANDARDS ACT

Bill 38, Pension Benefits Standards Act, 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, was granted leave to sit again.

[1605]

Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage on Bill 56.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 56 — NEW HOUSING TRANSITION
TAX AND REBATE ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 56; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 4:06 p.m.

The Chair: Pursuant to time allocations, shall sections 1 through 94 pass?

Sections 1 through 94 inclusive approved.

Title approved on division.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:06 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 56 — NEW HOUSING TRANSITION
TAX AND REBATE ACT

Bill 56, New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee on Bill 49, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 49 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 49; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 4:08 p.m.

The Chair: Hon. Members, we are on section 8. This is Bill 49, and by agreement, there is a standing division called for section 8.

[1610]

Section 8 approved on the following division:

Title approved.

[1615]

[ Page 12690 ]
Hon. T. Lake: I rise to report the bill complete without amendment.

Interjections.

The Chair: The minister is correct.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:16 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 49 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Bill 49, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 51, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012.

Committee of the Whole House

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

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 51; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 4:18 p.m.

The Chair: Deferred division, by agreement, on section 6.

[1620]

Section 6 approved on the following division:

Title approved.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:21 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

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

Bill 51, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Third Reading of Bills

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

Bill 51, South Coast British Columbia Transportation Au-
[ Page 12691 ]
thority Amendment Act, 2012, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, I call Bill 52, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012, for third reading.

BILL 52 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 2012

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, by agreement, a division was called on Bill 52, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012.

Bill 52, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012, read a third time and passed on the following division:

Hon. R. Coleman: I call committee stage of Bill 54, intituled the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 54 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 54; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 4:25 p.m.

Sections 194 to 255 inclusive approved on division.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 54 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ACT

Bill 54, Provincial Sales Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call for reports on Committee of Supply.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. K. Falcon: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on March 5, 7, 13, 14, 26, 28 and April 16, 19, 24, 26 and May 2, 7, 9, 16, 28, 30 and 31 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $35,225,725,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2012, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

Motion approved.
[ Page 12692 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: I also move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $800,771,000. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 2 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 2012, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the capital loans, investments and other financing requirements of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

[1630]

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 55 — SUPPLY ACT, 2012-2013

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2012-2013.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is introduced to authorize funding for the operation of government programs for the 2012-2013 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by the Committee of Supply after consideration of the main estimates. The House has already received, taken as read and agreed to the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply and, in addition, has resolved that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the necessary funds towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.

It is the intention of the government to proceed with all stages of the supply bill this day.

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

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

Bill 55, Supply Act, 2012-2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 55 — SUPPLY ACT, 2012-2013

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

Motion approved.

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

[1635]

Bill 55, Supply Act, 2012-2013, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 55 — SUPPLY ACT, 2012-2013

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 55; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 4:36 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:36 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 55 — SUPPLY ACT, 2012-2013

Bill 55, Supply Act, 2012-2013, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we're just waiting for the arrival of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, so we will take a short ten-minute recess.

The House recessed from 4:37 p.m. to 5:09 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the LG is in the precinct. Members, please take your seats.

[1710]
[ Page 12693 ]

Hon. Members, the member for Nechako Lakes wants to make a quick introduction.

Introductions by Members

J. Rustad: It is a bit of an honour here today to have another class of students visiting the Legislature, down from Houston. They've got to witness something that most classes don't get a chance to see in terms of the process.

This is a class of grade 12 students from the Houston Christian School. They have come down with their teacher. There are ten students plus three accompanying adults. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

[1715]

Royal Assent to Bills

Deputy Clerk:

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2011

Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Pharmaceutical Services Act

School Amendment Act, 2012

Pension Benefits Standards Act

Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012

FNCIDA Implementation Act

Civil Resolution Tribunal Act

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2012

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2012

Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2012

Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2012

Athletic Commissioner Act

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2012

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2012

Family Day Act

Provincial Sales Tax Act

New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act

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

Supply Act, 2012-2013

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

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Before you depart, Your Honour, I would like to advise the House that next week is the official celebration of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Part of our contribution to recognizing this royal milestone has been to construct our own Black Rod, which is being used here today. We are grateful that you helped us with its design.

On behalf of all the Members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, I have the distinct pleasure of presenting you with the official Queen's Diamond Jubilee flag, which has been flying in front of the Parliament Buildings. [Applause.]

[1720]

Hon. Members, this being the final day of the spring session, I first want to thank the members for their cooperation in the time that we have spent since February. I know that I want to thank, particularly, the Clerks — particularly in the last few days, with the amount of manoeuvring that we've had to do to get through this last little bit — and the staff, the Sergeant-at-Arms staff, the staff in the building and the staff in the cafeteria for looking after us for the night sittings.

I know that members will be going back to their constituencies. I know that a lot of members are on many committees. What seemed like a lot of work here…. They'll be travelling throughout the province, which will entail a lot more work. But I know that constituency work is extremely important — to spend lots of time in your constituency.

I hope that members will spend time with their families, their children. And in a lot of our cases, even the newest of all us grandparents will spend time with their grandkids. I know I'll be doing that.

Again, I hope that everybody has safe travels. I know that a lot of the work in your constituencies has been left for these last four months, five months, and it's a lot of catching up to do. But like I said, I know that a number of the committees that people thought they were getting a little bit of a break from are going to be on the road for some time.

With that, again I want to thank the members for their cooperation for the last five months.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I would remind members, because I have to do it every time, to empty your desks so that we don't have work left for the people that actually serve us every day in this House.

I want to thank the members for their cooperation during this session. I think that although it was the first time we tried it, three Houses will change how we do business for generations to come.

At the same time I also would like to thank, in addition to the members, particularly the Opposition House Leader, who has managed to adapt to my personality and I to his. [Applause.]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No, Member, you can't rise on a point of
[ Page 12694 ]
order. [Laughter.]

Hon. P. Bell: A point of privilege, perhaps.

Hon. R. Coleman: The only common phrase we had between us…. We had a number of common phrases, but the most basic one would be that we do know we both herd cats. So it has been a pleasure working with him. I want to thank him for his cooperation because, otherwise…. If the two House Leaders don't cooperate, this place doesn't work, I don't think.

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

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 54 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 54; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

Sections 166 and 167 approved.

On section 168.

B. Ralston: This initiates a new part, "Registration and Tax Collection." This is division 1, "Registration." "Registrant" is a defined person in the definitions section. I think it is fairly straightforward.

In subsection (4) there's the issue where: "If the director issues more than one registration number to an applicant…." I think typically the procedure is that an applicant has a single registration number. Can the minister advise under what circumstances that would arise and what typical conditions the director may impose using the authority of this subsection?

Hon. K. Falcon: Many times a business will have multiple locations, so they'll require a number for each of those locations. The conditions are generally that the number will be used for the purposes of the business activity that they describe being carried on at those locations.

B. Ralston: Is there any particular reason why each location would have a different registration number rather than a single one with perhaps a sub number, just for simplicity in terms of filing and tracking? If you have a multiplicity of numbers, obviously that may complicate things.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that this is sort of a similar provision that we had in the past. In most cases it is the exception to have different numbers. In many cases they have the same number over multiple locations.

[1450]

There may be cases where having different numbers might benefit the business in some way. They may operate a retail store, for example, but also a warehouse facility. For reasons that are of convenience to the business, they may want to have two different numbers for the two different types of operations. It is the exception more than the norm, but we've retained that ability that was there under the old PST.

B. Ralston: In subsection (7) the director is given authority to refuse the application to register an applicant. Given that a registrant is essentially, in legal terms, an agent of the government for the purpose of collecting the tax, there are some provisions here that authorize the director to make a decision based on certain aspects of non-compliance or personal history with the act.

Is it the policy, in addition, or is it contained in regulation accompanying this, in the past and prospectively to engage in a credit check or other background checks before accepting an application? Or is it a less exhaustive investigation when a person presents themselves or their business to register?

Hon. K. Falcon: There's generally a requirement for some basic information from businesses. That may vary a little bit. I'm advised that if you're opening a liquor outlet, for example, the requirements for information would be more than in other cases, or if it is a sector that has lots of issues with non-compliance, evidently they may
[ Page 12695 ]
require a little bit more.

The general principle they operate on, as I understand from the advice I've been given, is that the view of government is the more businesses that are registered, the more that are on our radar, the better it is. So we generally don't try to create too many barriers at the front end for people that are wishing to voluntarily comply to be a collector for the PST.

B. Ralston: I take it from what the minister is saying that the use of these provisions to refuse an applicant is then relatively rare. Is there any public record of applicants who are declined, or is that confidential to the ministry? Is there an appeal mechanism? It's not referred to here. It may be under the general appeal mechanism later in the statute, under section 211, but perhaps I could be referred to it. It looks like it may be.

Perhaps the minister could just add those additional elements to the understanding of the statute.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that we wouldn't release the names of people that are not accepted, but it's apparently very rare. There is an appeal mechanism where if for whatever reason the director or government in their capacity decide to reject an applicant, they do have an ability to appeal. But I understand this is very rarely invoked.

[1455]

B. Ralston: In subsection (8) there's a specific provision concerning motor dealers. There is, as the minister will be aware — I think it's under Financial Institutions Commission — the motor dealer authority, which is set up in the same manner as the Consumer Protection Authority. What's the overlap or intersection between the motor dealer authority? In my personal experience in dealing with them on behalf of a constituent on one occasion, they have quite sweeping power in terms of licensing or not and the ability to shut down businesses. So is this simply incidental to the broader power of the motor dealer authority, or is there some other relationship?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that this is simply the requirement that has to be in place before they can access and get a PST number. If someone is proposing that they wish to be a motor dealer, then the requirement is that they need to be registered under that act or they will not be able to apply for a PST number.

Sections 168 to 171 inclusive approved.

On section 172.

B. Ralston: This section refers to "Person located in Canada but outside British Columbia must be registered." Actually, this was something that was referred to in question period, where persons located in Alberta were bringing tangible personal property in the form of equipment into British Columbia from Alberta. This describes the activities that would be caught by this. Once again, is this a self-declaration? And if the minister could give any examples of enforcement activity based on this section.

[1500]

Hon. K. Falcon: Generally, we require people to register. The approach we've taken in the past is that apparently we share information with business and industrial associations across the country to make sure they're aware of what their obligations are here so that they have the ability to share that information with their members. We even will contact individual businesses, if we feel that that is necessary, to ensure that they're familiar with the circumstances. So that's part 1.

Part 2 is…. This wouldn't really cover the example that the member is talking about, though that does come later. This is really covering off people who are selling products in B.C. So they're not just sort of bringing equipment across the border to use here for a while and then going back. This is people who are selling products in B.C.

A good example was given to me by staff where under the old PST there was a music store in Alberta that was delivering flyers in B.C., saying: "Buy our products. We'll ship them to you, and it will be cheaper than if you buy it in British Columbia."

The staff became aware of that and contacted the store owner to make sure the store owner understood that he or she would be responsible for being a collector and collecting and remitting the provincial sales tax in the event that they continued to do that.

So it's sort of a combination of events that take place — either discovering it, being proactive, encouraging people to register, sometimes contacting directly, etc.

B. Ralston: I'm just looking at the statute again more closely, perhaps. I don't see why it wouldn't apply in the case of the example I gave. The person causes tangible personal property to be delivered into British Columbia if the person is located in Canada but outside British Columbia and, in the ordinary course of business, does all of the following: solicits persons in British Columbia — so you can be in Alberta and solicit persons in British Columbia; accepts orders if the orders to purchase originate from locations in British Columbia; and sells to a person in British Columbia.

It doesn't specify that the transaction has to take place outside the jurisdiction. It's the mechanism by which the sales are solicited and accepted. So it would seem, particularly in border areas….

I mean, obviously, this may not be politically popular, but surely it's an issue that has come to the attention of those who are charged with the duty of enforcing the sales tax — that the differential, the fact that Alberta has no sales tax and British Columbia does, would obviously
[ Page 12696 ]
create some incentives to engage in this.

It would seem to me, first, that this does apply, and secondly, I'd be interested in what…. One example has been given. What's the instance of enforcement action or an effort to enforce it? Or has it been tried and found to be difficult or futile? Or is it simply not engaged in?

[1505]

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a requirement to ensure that persons living outside of British Columbia but delivering goods in British Columbia are registered. They must be sending product into B.C. It wouldn't even necessarily be from just a border community, but anywhere outside of British Columbia.

I'm advised that for the most part companies are pretty good at complying. They generally do comply, or if it's brought to their attention, they begin complying.

Quite separate from this requirement to ensure that they register, there still remains an obligation on every purchaser that if they are bringing in goods from out of the province — if they're driving out of the province, buying goods and bringing them back — they still have their obligation to declare and remit the appropriate PST tax on those goods. I certainly acknowledge that many don't, particularly in border communities, so enforcement does become a very, very important element. Certainly, that is something that has been the challenge in the past and no doubt will be as we go forward.

B. Ralston: Just to get a better sense of the issue. Can the minister give, just based on advice from the staff there, what percentage of the registrants — those who register according to section 168 and the subsequent sections —are located in British Columbia and what percentage are located outside of British Columbia but in Canada?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that we don't track that information on that basis. You could have a situation where a company's head office may be located outside of British Columbia but their offices are in British Columbia, or they have offices within British Columbia. We suspect it's a small percentage. The vast majority would be in British Columbia. There are some 100,000-plus businesses that we will be required to register and have in place by April 1, 2013. But we're not able, I'm advised, to give any kind of accurate percentage breakdown.

B. Ralston: Given the ability to exchange data between governments, what is the exchange of information about those that are registered for PST and those that are registered for HST both in British Columbia and in other provinces?

[1510]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that we are coordinating efforts with the CRA as we begin the process of registering the 100,000-plus businesses for the PST. At the same time, we're currently in the process, as I've mentioned previously, of updating our information-sharing agreements to bring them up to date from what they were prior to the HST.

B. Ralston: Since the minister has raised it — and following on that question, then — given that there is a database of those who've registered for the HST and are resident in British Columbia, I take it that data is being shared, and that's the basis on which people would be advised that they should apply under the new act or apply in anticipation of the new act. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that at least the staff here aren't entirely, 100 percent certain about whether it's just a database that is being coordinated. So I would have to, in an effort to be cautious, not commit to that right away. What I can say is that there is certainly going to be coordination between the CRA and the province to ensure that we appropriately register businesses in British Columbia.

B. Ralston: I had understood the minister to say, and this may be related to this, that the HST registration number would follow the person when they were asked to register under the new PST. So it would seem, based on that statement, that the department would have some kind of access to that data, and in order to encourage a smooth transition, that would be, certainly, one aspect. I believe that's how the minister spoke of it. So perhaps I could just confirm that.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've indicated before, what we…. The member is partially right there. What we've said is that we will be allowing the business community to use their federal business number when registering and enrolling, which will make the registration process a lot easier and be helpful for us too in terms of making sure that we hopefully attract all the participating businesses in the province.

B. Ralston: So can the minister confirm whether or not that will be an ongoing policy in the sense that…? Obviously, that will make the transition easier. But in the future if you get a GST number first, or you come into the province with a GST number, would that be used as the basis for assigning you a provincial PST number for the same reasons of simplicity and ease of transfer?

Hon. K. Falcon: Staff have advised that the federal business number is not their GST number. A federal business number is a little bit different. Kind of like a commercial version of the social insurance number, it's the identifier for that particular business. So the advantage of allowing businesses to use that number to regis-
[ Page 12697 ]
ter….

[1515]

They will always be able to use that number to contact us so that we know…. We're able to identify immediately who that business is by the use of the business number. So when they contact us — they can continue to contact us, whether by e-mail or otherwise — and they make reference to their federal business number, that will be adequate for us knowing exactly which business we're dealing with.

Section 172 approved.

On section 173.

B. Ralston: This deals with the issue of suspension or cancellation of registration. Obviously, there are times or occasions when a business may get into financial difficulty, given that the money collected for PST is, strictly speaking, a trust fund and should not be intermingled with the other funds of the company. But that does happen in, I suppose, financial extremity sometimes.

What are the criteria in which the director would take the step in subsection 173(1) — without advance notice suspend a person's registration? What are the consequences if the person continues to collect the tax during the period of the suspension?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is generally consistent with what existed under the old PST act. The staff advised me they can't think of a time when we've used it. That tells me it is rarely, if ever, used, but it is an important power to have. In other tax acts we have used it to deal with cases of egregious behaviour of some sort by tax collectors or registrants.

It is an important measure to have. Generally, the policy of the ministry is that we would rather work with people and try and resolve these kinds of issues without having to resort to this. It's sort of like you want to have that power to deal with it, if you ever have to, but they couldn't actually think of a situation where it's been used.

Section 173 approved.

On section 174.

B. Ralston: These appear to be provisions that require a registrant to notify the director when changing their address or going out of business. Is there anything more complicated in this section than that?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, there isn't.

Sections 174 to 176 inclusive approved.

On section 177.

B. Ralston: These are prohibitions relating to the use of the registration number. Can the minister briefly explain the purpose for prohibiting the uses in the enumerated way?

[1520]

Hon. K. Falcon: This is covering off situations where you have your registration number. This is proof, of course, when you go to get the PST exemption that you are buying these goods for the purposes of resale. In the event that an individual has a suspension or cancellation, we want to make sure they're not continuing to use it when they haven't got the right to.

It also has a provision to make sure that they're not using that registration number for the purpose of purchases that they are not authorized to do it for. In other words, you're a business, but you're using it to buy items for personal use while using the registration number.

Section 177 approved.

On section 178.

B. Ralston: This section initiates a new division on the collection and remittance of tax. There are a number of sections here. I wanted to give the minister an opportunity just to talk a little bit further about the innovation of the change in the ability of registrants and collectors to file electronically.

I know he has mentioned this publicly, but given that this is the section that deals with the remittance of tax, perhaps he can briefly explain what the administrative plan is under these sections to remit tax electronically.

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for the question. This is probably the most dramatic area of difference for the business community, for those that are having to utilize the PST. We've made a substantial investment in upgrading software: a $16 million investment to allow the business community to now have the ability to electronically register —on-line registration, filing and remittance of their obligations to the province.

It's much more simplified and easy to use now. In many ways, for the benefit of those that are listening today, it's not unlike when you go to your on-line banking. You have the ability to sort of look at your accounts, see where you are with your account and be able to track your balance, your payments, your remittances, etc., plus communicate directly with the ministry via the software.

[1525]

We think this is certainly something that has been really well received by the business community. It moves away from a much more paper-driven approach to really bringing it into the 21st century. We're hoping that this will ease some of the discomfort that a lot of businesses have about having to go back.
[ Page 12698 ]

B. Ralston: I can remember running my law firm, filling out the form and sending it in by mail. Will the mail remittances be an alternative? Is it optional, or is it hoped to wean people from the mail and onto the other? I know, for example, Canada Post has a determined campaign and many businesses have a determined campaign to switch people over to electronic payments, which are obviously more convenient from the point of view of the people collecting the money. So what's the plan to set that in motion over the next year or two?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mail will certainly still remain an option for those that wish to elect to use that option, but we will certainly be encouraging persons to consider registering on line. It'll make, certainly, their lives a lot easier. It'll be easier for government and, hopefully, easier for all. We are going to continue and I will continue to meet with the business community representatives, too, to see if they've got some ideas on how we might encourage that uptake, because I think it would be of benefit to all.

B. Ralston: One of the aspects of the PST remittance system was the payment of what was called commissions. In other words, the collector was given some credit monthly for the job of collecting the tax. Is there any thought to structure those or incent those to incent a conversion to the electronic form, or is that something that hasn't been considered yet or won't be considered?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct that there were commissions that were payable up to $198 per reporting period, typically monthly, that were paid to collectors. We've committed to bring back the payment of commissions. I haven't, to be honest, given it thought, although I think that's an interesting idea, whether that's something that would incent or not.

One of the things I wanted to do was to make sure we had a chance to talk to the business community to see what ideas they had to try and really encourage people to register on line. In fact, I think it's going to be the highly, highly preferred option for the vast majority of businesses.

B. Ralston: Just on the same topic, in terms of the mechanics of it, the mechanism will be the completion of an electronic form and then the transfer from the company bank account to go with the form. So both parts of it will be electronic. It won't be a necessity to file any further paper form or anything like that. Is that what I understand?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. It will be a full suite of electronic filing capability.

Sections 178 to 190 inclusive approved.

On section 191.

[1530]

B. Ralston: Can the minister…? This gives the power to make agreements with the federal government in relation to collection. Obviously, the option, which I think was suggested by some — and the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, I believe, had suggested — is that the CRA continue as the collection agent, with the agreement of the province. Obviously, the federal government has decided that they're not willing to do that. What other agreements will need to come into existence to make the transition back to the PST?

Hon. K. Falcon: Section 191 is referring to the agreements with the Canada Border Services Agency and Canada Post. The other main agreement really is the one that we would enter into with ICBC.

Sections 191 to 193 inclusive approved.

On section 194.

B. Ralston: This initiates the next part, which is "Administration and Enforcement." We have discussed that somewhat. This part involves authorization to inspect, to assess, to seek warrants to search and other aspects of enforcing the act. I've discussed some of this.

Also in this section there is the audit power. I did have some comments just to make about the audit power. I know we're going to run out of time fairly shortly. But I would invite the minister's comment broadly in this part. I'm hoping for a little latitude from the Chair because it doesn't strictly arise under this section, but it arises under this part.

The B.C. Business Council, in the same submission I spoke of earlier to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services in the fall, had recommended what they described as "adopt risk-based approaches to audits, using sampling techniques, in order to in improve returns on investment in terms of incremental revenue potential versus costs." I think the suggestion is using statistical sampling techniques. Rather than audit a place from stem to stern, select based on risk-based approaches.

I think the minister referred to…. The ministry does know that some types of businesses are more prone to not following the rules strictly than others. This would increase returns and reduce costs. Is there any consideration in the administration and enforcement in this part of adopting that approach in the future?

[1535]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that the Ministry of Finance audit division does already take a risk-based approach, which is already in place in terms of both who we
[ Page 12699 ]
audit and when we audit. The decision of when to audit is done using statistical sampling.

Having said all that, I think that regardless, when you then become the victim or the participant in an audit, it's never a fun thing. I'm pretty sure about that.

We have also, as part of our commitment, updated the taxpayer fairness code. It was a code that was put together under the leadership of Rick Thorpe, who did an exceptional job working with the small business community in particular, travelling across the province to put into place certain principles that would guide and underpin the approach in auditing, really emphasizing the importance of fair dealings and being respectful and courteous as we work with members of the business community through the audit process.

We are hopeful that the use of the risk-based approach, the statistical sampling and the taxpayer fairness code will improve the experience for British Columbians.

B. Ralston: Continuing, then, on the topic of audits, again quoting from the same document, and this is the Business Council. I appreciate what the minister has said, and I'm certainly aware of some of the statements of Mr. Thorpe in the past. "The B.C. government's traditional approach to PST assessments and audits created needless headaches and raised costs for local businesses through…" and they have a number of examples. One was: "Approaches to audits that fail to consider overall return on investment."

Rightly or wrongly, that seems to be their view. The assurance that I'm getting from the minister is that that position is not consistent with current practice and prospective practice in terms of the audit process.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that the business community is pointing out a reality for many of their members. I don't want to pretend that going through an audit experience is joyful for anybody.

I think a large part of that frustration was probably also driven by, under the old PST, the lack of clarity between the different statutes, the regulations, the interpretive bulletins, the administrative practice, etc., that probably did create a lot of fighting and arguing over issues of clarity and administrative practice over what's actually written in the statute or the regulations or what have you. I don't think we should underestimate just how much of the frustration may have also been driven by that.

Having the act that we're going through now — much more clearly written, simplified language, following up with regulations that will be informed by the experiences with the business community in the past — I think will create a better climate.

I think it's also fair to point out that audits also serve an important part of the compliance and even educational part of our tax system. As frustrating as they are, especially when someone comes in and they don't find what seems like very much money, then you say: "Well, what is the point of all that?" There is a value, in a voluntary tax compliance world, to ensuring that people understand that occasionally government will be checking to ensure that people are complying with their obligations.

One of the risks, as I understand it, is that if you leave a sector for too long, even if they have been complying well and you leave them for many, many years, then some bad habits can start to creep in. The next thing you know, you do have some major compliance challenges because they feel that there is no adequate oversight.

[1540]

So striking that balance is important, and we certainly, under the taxpayer fairness code, are going to try very, very hard to treat our registrants very fairly.

B. Ralston: Part of my experience in the Public Accounts Committee has convinced me that the audit indeed, as the minister says, does produce results and a sense of greater understanding. Typically, whether sincere or not, departments or programs that are audited usually thank the Auditor General. In some ways, it assists in resolving what may have been internal disputes about interpretation.

Once again, I want to just go back and quote the B.C. Business Council on what they regard as "the B.C. government's traditional approach to PST assessments and audits." They mentioned a couple of other concerns: one, "a rigid practice that encourages litigation, not negotiation," and "practices that discourage open discussion with senior officials."

What they recommend in the subsequent section related to these concerns is to "encourage negotiation in audits as is done federally and in other provinces to lessen the need for litigation."

The assumption may be…. I'm not sure. I'm only relying on this. The assumption seems to be that there is a prohibition or inhibition against discussion and negotiation. Typically, in any litigation process that's usually the best way to resolve things rather than the ultimate process of either going to trial or going to a full audit.

So firstly, is that an accurate description of the practice that takes place now? Secondly, if it isn't, what is the ambit for negotiations when a firm is confronted by an audit?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that under the old act there was a lot of that. There was a lot of legitimate criticism. I don't think there's any question.

Lots of that frustration, I think, as I said before, really had to do with the enormous amount of confusion between people trying to understand what applied and what didn't apply. They may think they have found something in the statute or maybe the regulations or an interpreted bulletin or what they heard from prior administrative practice and then find out that they're not being treated
[ Page 12700 ]
the same way, so that will be frustrating.

There are times when there is no flexibility because the law is the law, and it doesn't allow flexibility. That created a lot of frustration too. Sometimes lawsuits arose out of that kind of situation. I think that what we are doing here today is bringing forth something that will eliminate a lot of that lack of clarity and confusion. That in itself, I think, will be a real breath of fresh air in this whole process.

The final thing I'll say is that the taxpayer fairness code also provides a dispute mechanism to ensure, first of all, and encourage the discussions that the member talks about to take place between auditors and the business community and that there is, as I say, a mechanism to deal with disputes that may arise.

[1545]

So I think there are continued efforts, and we can always do better. I think that as we go back to the new and improved PST, we will be able to do better because of the clarity.

B. Ralston: Continuing on the issue of audit, then. My sense would be that the individual auditors who, say, visit a firm and examine the books wouldn't be the person with whom the negotiation would be conducted. But the results of the audit would be taken, and then there might be negotiation at another level. Is that the typical administrative practice, rather than exposing those people who are conducting the work on the site to the entreaties of those who wish to cut a deal, so to speak?

Hon. K. Falcon: Their first point of contact, obviously, is going to be the audit folks that come and visit their business and begin the audit process. In the event of a disagreement, misunderstanding or what have you, they have the ability to contact the audit manager and start to move up the chain of command.

But certainly, any company can also come to a separate branch of the Ministry of Finance and receive a written tax ruling over the issue in dispute, if they wish. There are a number of avenues available.

I think the key thing that the taxpayer fairness code really tries to point out is the importance of that courtesy, respectfulness and ability for dispute mechanisms to ensure that we try to get away from the confrontational feel that these things often have.

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned rulings. One of the final comments in this list that the B.C. Business Council has provided was what they describe as a "lack of timeliness on rulings and assessment files."

Now, I appreciate that that is also a resourcing issue, and I appreciate the minister's commitment, but does the minister view that as having been a problem in the past? If so, what steps are going to be taken to remedy that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes, because there really was a lack of clarity. That made it difficult to provide rulings, for example. Remember, it was complex not just for the business community but even for government to try and wade through the mess of different statutes, interpretive bulletins, regulations. Again, many of them dated back to a time before we sent men to the moon. There's no question. It was difficult and frustrating for everyone involved. This will improve it, I believe, very dramatically.

B. Ralston: In subsection (2) of section 194, the director is given the power to enter and to inspect. That is subject to the requirement to obtain a warrant in the event that it is a personal dwelling — I believe it's described as a "dwelling occupied as a residence" — unless consent is given.

As a practical matter, can the minister give the numbers in terms of an annual number of inspections in which premises are entered — as the broad category? Then the subcategory would be inspections where a warrant is sought and obtained to conduct an inspection.

[1550]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that this is one of those areas where maybe a handful of times a search warrant has been utilized under this act. Apparently, it is much more common under the Criminal Code, where there is evidence of something much larger taking place there. Avoidance of PST is just the bottom of the heap in terms of the trouble those people are involved in. So it's very rare.

B. Ralston: Then continuing on. Is the general power, then, to inspect and audit and enter onto premises to do that? How frequently is that exercised on an annual basis, just to get a sense of the scope of the operation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, they're always at the businesses — right? They're always entering the premises as part of audits and visiting these premises. That happens more times than I…. I just can't even imagine the numbers, but it would be a lot.

B. Ralston: The minister mentioned there are about 100,000 registrants. As a percentage of the number of registrants, how frequently would there be an on-site inspection by someone pursuing concerns under this act?

Hon. K. Falcon: We can get the member how many audits we do annually and share that. We don't have it with us now, but we could certainly get that for the member. That would give some indication in those audits of the number of frequency of visits.

B. Ralston: Given that the minister mentioned earlier the risk-based generation of audit choices, is there also a random element to the selection of audit targets — just to
[ Page 12701 ]
include the element of surprise, I suppose, or given that one would not want to be too predictable in order to have the required deterrent effect? If people didn't think you were coming, they might not act accordingly.

Hon. K. Falcon: If you visit my office, there's — if you've ever seen Wheel of Fortune — a big round thing. You come in, spin it, and wherever it stops, that's where we go next in terms of determining.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yeah, I know. It's very effective, actually.

Just kidding, folks. Just kidding.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Let the record show that the minister was kidding on that part.

There is random sampling that takes place with respect to audits. There's a whole group that sort of plans the whole audit approach, I'm advised, in the ministry so that the audit teams will know roughly where they're going to be spending their time and be able to plan appropriately.

There are no surprise audits, I'm told. They don't just show up on your doorstep one day. You're always contacted. They schedule the visits and then come and perform the audits.

B. Ralston: Given the power to exchange data with other levels of government, is there any exchange of information between those who audit and inspect GST filings and alleged violations that would be used as the basis for this kind of an audit?

[1555]

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that staff is not aware of any formal mechanism between the CRA and ourselves. If we contact someone for an audit and they say that they're already in the midst of an audit by the federal government, then we won't weigh in and come in and audit them at the same time. That would be a punishment unfair to almost anybody.

The Chair: Members will know that a time allocation bill was passed on Wednesday, May 30.

So I ask the committee: shall sections 194 to 255 pass? Division is called.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment subject to a deferred division on sections 194 to 255.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); P. Pimm in the chair.

The committee met at 2:47 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,008,000 (continued).

A. Dix: We have a new Chair, and we've got a short period of time this afternoon. I understand we have till 3:30. Then the estimates of the statutory officers and the estimates of the minister of community services will end things here in the Birch Room — the attic, as we call it.

Just a short question to the Premier, first of all. As we near next May's election, can the Premier commit, as her predecessor did in advance of the 2009 election, to end government information advertising four months ahead of the fixed election date?

[1450]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as the member knows, there have been some changes to the Elections Act recently that govern spending and third-party spending. We will certainly be living with government policy on this, living within the law on it.

We had a chance to briefly explore the member's view on government advertising before, and I'm still hoping that he'll be able to give us an answer about whether or not he supports government doing advertising in general and how the current government spending sits with the spending that he was a part of in the 1990s.

A. Dix: So will the Premier be doing what her predecessor did prior to the 2009 election?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, perhaps. We're going to look at the legislation as it…. We're going to look at the changed landscape as a result of the legislation.

But again, I'm curious to know the member's view on this — he's had lunch to think about it — and whether or not he supports the government doing advertising.

A. Dix: Okay. We'll ask the Premier, since I think the
[ Page 12702 ]
answer to that was "perhaps." That's a long time to wait for that answer, but that's okay.

I just had some questions about the Premier's evolving position on the Senate. The Premier in the last year has advanced the following positions: abolishment, increasing B.C.'s seat complement, leaving vacancies in Ontario and Quebec unfilled in order to increase B.C.'s share of existing seats, passing legislation to allow for Senate elections in B.C. and just holding an election without legislation.

I guess the question I had for the Premier was: why would it make sense for British Columbia — and this is her most recent position on the Senate — to give more authority to a body where we have one senator for every 700,000 people when other provinces have one senator for every 30,000 people? Why would that make sense at this time, and why would it make sense to expend public money on it when, for example, there have been four Senate elections in Alberta and only two of the actual senators have been put in place and Alberta still is left, as we are, with only six senators?

[1455]

Hon. C. Clark: There are many ideas about how we could reform the Senate, though the one that we are going to be moving on is essentially, although not completely, expressed in the private member's bill that was presented to our Legislature by the member for Chilliwack.

In that private member's bill, he contemplates a sunset clause in the legislation. That he put there because the Senate is far from perfect. It needs to be reformed if it's going to work. The Prime Minister has expressed a very strong view that he intends to reform the Senate.

In the member's bill that was put forward, there is a sunset clause because we want to make sure that we are trying to be a constructive part of reform of an institution that is unlikely to go away in the short term but to make it known quite clearly that we expect to see that reform, or our legislation will expire. That's why the sunset clause is in the private member's bill.

A. Dix: The Premier has said on national radio that she was going to conduct an election in the wake of the mandatory retirement of Senator St. Germain. I guess the question is: will such an election take place?

Hon. C. Clark: We will bring forward some legislation on the Senate election. As I said when I became Premier, we want to encourage private members to be able to…. We want to make sure that private members know that if they introduce a bill, it has some chance, some good chance, of actually becoming the will of the government.

This is a private member's bill that was brought forward by the member for Chilliwack. He put a lot of work into it, a lot of thought, for some of the reasons that I enumerated just a moment ago. We intend to make sure that that comes forward as legislation.

It is funny to hear the member talking about how the Senate isn't fair when his own party is clearly on the side of protecting 25 percent of the seats for Quebec at the expense of British Columbia and Alberta. His own leader came out and said that. He refused to call him out on it. That is wrong.

On the one hand, he stands here in this chamber and says he thinks the Senate is unbalanced, that it doesn't represent B.C.'s interests. On the other hand, his own party wants to make sure that they are protecting, guaranteeing, a minimum 25 percent of the seats for one province in central Canada.

A. Dix: I'm surprised to hear the Premier — because this was the most recent of five different positions that she has put forward on the Senate in the last year — expressing this. My position actually is in favour of abolition of the Senate. It's exactly the same as the position she put forward last year, actually.

I'm going to quote her exactly. I like to quote her exactly here. She says:

"The number of seats in the House of Commons changes to accommodate that" — the population growing — "so our voice, proportionately, in the House of Commons is growing all the time. In the Senate it's fixed. And we start electing the Senate, we give them legitimacy, and then we're stuck with one out of ten votes? Forget it. I don't want to disadvantage British Columbia like that. I think that people who support an elected Senate in British Columbia had better give their heads a shake, because it's not good for British Columbia. The best thing for British Columbia would be to abolish the thing."

Well, that's very reasonable. I had that position last year too. I still have that position today.

I want to ask the Premier if they've costed out the cost of a Senate election and why she clearly changed her mind 100 percent on this issue.

Hon. C. Clark: I haven't changed my mind on abolishing the Senate, but I do think we have to live in the realm of reality, and we have to make the best of a bad situation. That means that when the Prime Minister says he wants to reform the Senate, there is almost zero chance of getting rid of the Senate — particularly when this member's federal leader intends to stand firmly, foursquare in the way of that happening, when his leader stands up and says he wants to make sure that Quebec maintains 25 percent of the seats.

[1500]

If the federal Leader of the Opposition says that he won't reform the Senate and the Prime Minister says he prefers to reform it, what we need to do, I think, is to try and make sure that we are part of making sure that reform works in a way for British Columbia. I think we should be living in the realm of reality on this, trying to make the best of what's an absolutely imperfect situation and see if we can be a constructive part of reforming the
[ Page 12703 ]
Senate. That's what we're attempting to do.

A. Dix: Last year the Premier said that people who think you should elect the Senate should "give their heads a shake," and this year she's proposing legislation to say that we should elect Senators. That's a change in position.

Fair enough. The Premier is allowed to change the position that she has in January 2011, then on June 3, then on June 23, then again on June 24 — and now again. She's allowed to change her position. She is representing British Columbia, though.

The fact of the matter is that Senate reform is very difficult because the provinces…. It has nothing to do with federal politicians. The provinces are unlikely, particularly in Atlantic Canada, to give up the level of representation they have now. Everybody knows this. This is a straightforward matter.

The question for British Columbia is: should we be enhancing the legitimacy of an elected House of Commons where British Columbia is getting a little less than its share of representation but still a share of representation, or should we be giving legitimacy to a Senate by elections? I think that that's not the right idea. I'm in favour of abolishing the Senate. I have been, and I'm curious to know why the Premier, on this specific point, has changed her position. That's all.

Hon. C. Clark: We are trying to be a constructive part of reforming the Senate. The member clearly is doubtful about the Prime Minister's ability to be able to try and bring some reform to the Senate. I'm not quite so pessimistic. I think that this is something that could indeed be possible.

But it may not be, and that's why the sunset clause is in the private member's bill. We want to make sure that British Columbia is a constructive part of this decision, a constructive part of this change, should it happen. I'm more confident, clearly, about the likelihood that this could happen than the member is. I know the member's position is: "Well, it's never going to work, so let's just sit on our hands and do nothing about it."

Well, I think we should try and be a constructive part of this change. That's what we're attempting to do in being a part of reforming the Senate. That, I think, is what the member for Chilliwack should be applauded for trying to do. I think that's part of trying to make sure we are responding to the changing circumstances in our country.

I'm quite hopeful that the Prime Minister can make good on his commitment to reform the Senate, and I think that British Columbia will do better and British Columbians' interests will be better represented if we make sure that we're a constructive part of that change, instead of saying, "Oh, it's all impossible," and just deciding to sit on our hands, as the Leader of the Opposition appears to be choosing to do.

A. Dix: That's all very interesting.

Just a small informational question: has the Deputy Minister to the Premier been involved in meetings around the Port Mann bridge to ensure that the bridge comes in on time and before the election? Is he involved in those meetings? Have there been those kinds of discussions with the contractor involved with the Port Mann bridge?

Hon. C. Clark: I do just want to go back for a second. The member said he always likes to quote me exactly, and I just don't want to let that stand on the record as accurate, because in my experience, it's not.

With respect to the member's question, I'm advised that my deputy has had no meetings with the contractor.

A. Dix: Just a question with respect to the proposed toll on the Port Mann bridge. Someone earning $44,000 each year pays about $1,700 in provincial income tax. The Premier will know that someone taking the Port Mann bridge after the toll comes in will pay about $1,500 a year if they use it five days a week, 50 weeks a year.

I'm wondering if the Premier thinks that's going to be sustainable for a person living south of the Fraser.

[1505]

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member knows that the government's tolling policy is that there is a free alternative, first of all, but second, one of the things that we know from this discussion the last time the government had it is that people in the Fraser Valley are very interested in the time saving. People will save an hour a day on that crossing, which is very significant.

You think of that extra hour a day at your job, earning money, or that extra hour a day, spending it with your family. We all, or at least I certainly know what it's like to be a commuter in the suburbs and how difficult it is to make sure that you have time for your family when you're back and forth all the time. So that hour time saving will be significant, I think, in terms of quality of life for a lot of people.

Second, people will save about $1.50 a day in gas, because they'll be moving across more quickly. I think that's also significant.

Third, though, if people are using a litre less gas a day, that's also going to have a very real impact on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. I know that that is not something that the NDP have taken a great deal of interest in, in the past, in opposing almost every major environmental initiative that has made British Columbia a leader on climate change. However, it is important to our government, and I know that it is important to people in the Fraser Valley as well.

So on all three of those points, I think people will see significant improvements.
[ Page 12704 ]

A. Dix: That may be, but really the question is…. The one-income family of four pays $1,288 in provincial income tax. We'll see that more than double. They'll pay more for the bridge than they pay in provincial income tax. That's a fairly troubling increase for them.

We're reaching the end of the estimates, so we're going to do a few short questions for the Premier.

Last year during the estimates, the Premier offered to hold consultations on the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union, CETA. None occurred prior to the July round of negotiations or the talks that took place in October. An FOI we did revealed that there were no plans in the works for a genuine consultation on what would be a significant undertaking that has significant impact on provincial jurisdiction.

I just wanted to ask the Premier whether she plans to follow up on her offer to hold a public consultation with respect to this agreement in advance of its approval.

[1510]

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised the ministry has been consulting with municipalities, I think extensively, regarding their concerns and issues with it.

I would just add to the member's last comment, because he raises personal income tax, which I'm really glad we can have a chance to talk about here. That family of four that he's talking about is paying 40 percent less personal income taxes than they did in 2001 — 40 percent less. I think that that's something we should celebrate. I'm glad the member gave me a chance to get up and talk about that.

That's for a family of four with a total income of $30,000. For a single individual earning $25,000 — and I think for a single individual living in Surrey, perhaps, and going across the Port Mann Bridge — it's a 50 percent decrease in personal income taxes since 2001.

That's really good news for British Columbians. I just wanted to take a moment, because the member raised it, to talk about where we're at with personal income tax and lowering the cost burden that government puts on individuals each and every day. It's an issue of central importance to me and my government. We've been working on trying to make life a little bit more affordable in very, very tough economic times. All those tax decreases that have happened over the last ten years have been a major part of that.

A. Dix: Oh, one hesitates to be distracted by such comments when MSP premiums have gone up as they have. For people earning $44,000 a year, for example — gone up 50 percent in '02 and then 18 percent over the last three years. Then more in the coming years. I guess that's families first.

But one doesn't want to be distracted, because we have such important questions on trade to bring forward. The Premier talked about discussions with municipalities. Will there be public consultations on the CETA agreement?

[1515]

Hon. C. Clark: No, we don't intend to do that. The discussions are, I'm advised, getting closer to the end. We don't intend to do any further consultation on it.

But I should say that when I was talking about the overall tax burden, I wasn't perfectly clear. The overall tax burden that I was talking about and the overall reductions that I was talking about — a 50 percent reduction for a single individual — include MSP and the changes in MSP. And the 40 percent reduction that I talked about for a family of four includes the costs of MSP.

British Columbians are way farther ahead on those counts than they were in 2001. One of the reasons for that is that in 2001 someone who was earning $20,000 would have paid $864 a year in MSP payments. Now they pay nothing in MSP payments. That's part of the reason that this dramatic reduction in the total cost of taxes and MSP for British Columbians…. That's why it's been such a dramatic change over these years. It's a change that we're very proud of, because I think it makes a real difference in affordability for British Columbians.

A. Dix: The Premier is apparently unaware that there is always premium assistance. The Premier is apparently unaware of the impact of MSP increases on people earning, especially, between $30,000 and $60,000. I mean, that's all right.

I guess I had a further question I wanted to ask, since there'll be no public consultation. So we've gone from public consultations last year to none. Was the particular issue of CETA's impact on health care discussed at the Council of the Federation meeting in January?

Hon. C. Clark: Just so the member is clear…. I mean, I don't like to leave these misrepresentations on the table, so I always want to make sure I correct them.

For a family of four earning $60,000 or a family of four at $90,000, you are still ahead. You're still seeing your total tax burden and your total MSP burden combined go down since 2001. That's pretty good. That's pretty good news for British Columbians.

Absolutely we care about those affordability issues. Apparently, we care a lot more than the government did in the 1990s, because we have continued to lower those burdens on British Columbians over this last decade. We are going to continue to be focused on that.

When I talk about families and about trying to make sure we're looking after families, part of it is making sure that people have jobs to go to. That's related to investment and a triple-A credit rating and all those things that I talked to the member about a little bit earlier.

But it's also, though, important that government make sure that we reduce the amount of burden that we put on
[ Page 12705 ]
British Columbians. We have made a lot of progress since the 1990s on that in all income brackets, and we want to continue making that progress over the coming year because affordability is a major issue for British Columbians.

Now, affordability is an even bigger issue for British Columbians when you're out of work, as so many were in the 1990s. But now with one of the lowest unemployment rates in North America — just over 6 percent, with almost 60,000 net new jobs created in the last year — there are a lot more British Columbians going to work.

[1520]

If you want to talk about affordability, the fact that you have a job that you can depend on, that gives you a decent wage to be able to take home a paycheque every couple of weeks, is probably the number one concern for people.

On that, I would say, just on the member's question: yes, it did come up. The Premiers talked about it. The Premiers are all concerned about the impact that it could have on pharmaceutical drugs and the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, the impact that negotiations could have on that. All Premiers, all governments, have sent a letter to Canada expressing our concerns about that.

A. Dix: One of the key questions involved in the CETA agreement and a key problem in provincial jurisdiction relates to EU demands to extend brand-name patents for prescription drugs in Canada.

The pressure from other provinces that have taken clear positions on this issue has had some impact. As the Premier will know, a recent House of Commons trade committee report stated that at least in March the federal government had not yet made concessions on these questions.

However, we're entering into a further phase in the negotiations, and there are signals that that may change, that Ottawa may agree to some measures that would lengthen the life of drug patents, measures that would clearly negate recent savings — for example, savings that have been proposed and pursued under revised generic drug deals.

B.C. is a strong supporter of the agreement, but I want to ask the Premier specifically, because the EU has asked Canada to accept patent term restoration, which is also known as a supplementary protection certificate, which would extend patent terms by up to 5½ years. I'm wondering if B.C. will oppose that and would see that as a deal-breaker in terms of supporting the overall agreement with the European Union.

Hon. C. Clark: This is an area of federal jurisdiction. I should actually say, too, that provinces have not until now had even the role that we have at the table in any free trade negotiation, and I know that when I speak to my fellow Premiers across the country, we all consider this to be a very positive development. Particularly as we look forward to the agreements that I certainly consider to be more crucial to B.C.'s interests — free trade agreements with our Asian neighbours — this is a good development, because we do want to be at the table, although we are not negotiating the agreement ourselves.

The federal government has come some way in making sure that we have a chance to work closely on this, although we aren't — as the member, I think, knows quite well — actually at the table. We aren't actually the negotiators of the agreement. It is an area of federal jurisdiction, and as I said, we're paying close attention to where we're at in the negotiations about intellectual property.

We are concerned about how or whether that will impact on provincial drug health care costs. That discussion on patents is still ongoing. No decisions, I'm informed, have been made yet on that, but as I said, we want to make sure that we are protecting our budget, that we are protecting innovative industries.

We want to make sure that we're getting the best deal for British Columbia. We have sent a letter. All Premiers have sent letters, I'm told, to the federal government, expressing our concern about this specific issue, because we want to make sure, as I said, that British Columbia's interests are represented.

Now, let me just close on this, though. I think we've discovered another area of profound disagreement between the opposition and the government. That is on the issue of free trade. We believe in freer trade, and that is clearly the position of my party. I think it's a position that British Columbians would overwhelmingly support.

We believe in free trade because, as a small, open, trading economy, we depend on trade in order to make sure that British Columbians can go to work every day. That is what has built British Columbia, so we want to make sure we get the best possible trade deals that we can and look at every individual deal differently.

[1525]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Having said that, as a matter of principle I know the Leader of the Opposition and I disagree on that, just like we may disagree on the question of resource development, just like we may disagree on the question of trying to make sure that we're exporting more of our commodities — just like we may disagree on all of those questions.

I think we also disagree on whether or not free trade is a good thing to pursue. On my side, in my government, we believe in free trade. We think it's good for British Columbia, and we're going to continue with that position in this agreement and in future agreements that I'm sure the federal government will be negotiating on behalf of Canada. We want to see more free trade agreements concluded, because we believe that freer trade is good for British Columbia workers and good for British Columbia families.
[ Page 12706 ]

A. Dix: The question, I guess, the specific question…. This really has nothing to do with free trade — the extension of patent protections beyond which had been already provided and extended over the years by the federal government that have cost provincial jurisdiction significantly. In this case, what's at risk is hundreds of millions in additional costs and the sustainability of the PharmaCare system.

So if it's disagreeing with the Premier that selling out the public health care system for a deal with the European Union on drug patents…. There's a disagreement, because I would rather spend public health care dollars in British Columbia on British Columbians. If the Premier wants to send that money to European drug companies, well, there you go, hon. Chair. I hope that's not the case, though. The Premier has indicated that it might not be the case.

I don't know whether the federal government, under the agreement — because the reason the provinces are more involved is partly at the request of the European Union itself, because provincial jurisdiction is so significantly involved in these matters — has made any offer to compensate British Columbia for such costs under the agreement.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is quite right about how the provinces came to be involved in this. Nonetheless, I think it's important to note that it is a very, very good precedent for British Columbia. As one of the most trade-dependent provinces in Canada, as a province that has traditionally relied on free trade and open markets overseas, as a province that is increasingly looking to those emerging markets in Asia, free trade really matters for the future of our province.

I raise that because the member is speaking about some specifics of this agreement, but as far as I understand it he isn't in favour of free trade agreements, for the most part. I think he's opposed almost every free trade agreement that this country has entered into, and I think he's done it publicly. He can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know if he supports even being part of a CETA negotiation as a matter of principle. He hasn't said that.

But I believe, and we all do, in freer trade around the world, and we want to get the best deals. The details of the deals definitely matter. But as a principle, we are certainly not opposed to pursuing these kinds of negotiations.

The other thing that the member said was that I said that it "might not be the case" that we're concerned about the impact on drug costs. I want to be clear about that. It is not the case that we want this to have an impact on increasing our drug costs. That is why, as I've said a couple of times, we wrote the letter expressing our concern about this to the federal government. We wrote that letter because we are concerned about the impact that this agreement could have on drug costs in British Columbia.

We wrote that letter. As I understand it, every other Premier across the country wrote a similar letter. This is something that we've brought to the federal government's attention, and in that letter we told the federal government that we thought one of the…. If this agreement is not concluded in a way that meets British Columbia's concerns, we would like them to reimburse us for those added costs. Of course, just as he said. That's one of the things that we've suggested to the federal government.

Now, I hope that the agreement will be concluded in a way that doesn't impact our drug costs. We haven't yet received an answer from the federal government about that, but we've expressed it very, very clearly, and we're monitoring these negotiations very closely. It's one of our primary areas of concern with respect to this particular free trade agreement.

A. Dix: What was the date on the letter, and will the Premier share it with the opposition?

[1530]

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have the letter here, so I can't confirm the date for the member. I am advised, though, that we will likely be able to share it with the opposition, subject to concerns about confidentiality. But my understanding is that we'll likely be able to share that. If we're able to, I'll make sure we do.

A. Dix: The Premier will be interested to know that we were just looking at pictures of the Premier at an anti–free trade rally in 1988. This just shows how our positions evolve sometimes.

I want to thank the Premier for her participation in the estimates, if they end at 3:30.

I want to thank Mr. Dyble and Mr. Sweeney, as always, for the hard work that they do — and, I think, their commanding poker face, which is impressive — and Ms. Leamy and Ms. Moran and the whole team — my appreciation to all of them. I know how hard it is as public servants and how hard people work, as well — how hard it is sometimes, when we're discussing things about which they know a great deal, to stay silent and listen to us.

So I appreciate that. Thanks to the Premier, and I'll let the Premier move the appropriate motion.

Hon. C. Clark: While I’m on my feet, thank you to the opposition. Thank you very much to our clerks and our staff here. Thank you to my staff as well, and all the members of the Legislature who have been kind enough to join us for this.

I do enjoy estimates. It's one of my favourite parts of the legislative process. So I'm sorry we had to end as quickly as we did. But I do want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for the time, at least, that we've had together, and on this last day of session, wish everybody safe travels as we all go back to work in our constituencies.
[ Page 12707 ]

Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,008,000 — approved.

The Chair: This committee will take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 3:33 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

On Vote 50: Auditor General for Local Government, $2,600,000.

H. Lali: Things move quickly around here. That's about the only time we get exercise, when we run from one end of the Legislature to the other to catch up to this. In any case, I get a few minutes and I'm going to ask a couple of questions to the minister on the LGAG, the local government auditor general, for those folks that might be, by odd chance, watching the proceedings taking place here.

Interjection.

H. Lali: I hear my good friend across the way saying: "Very odd chance."

I was wondering, in terms of the auditor general for local government, if the minister can give an update as to what is happening in terms of two questions. One is the actual physical location where the LGAG office is going to be located, and how that's coming along in terms of any rental space and when it's going to be up and running. Secondly, the process actually for finding the LGAG before that person is hired.

Hon. I. Chong: Just quickly, I have staff with me: Heather Brazier, Nicola Marotz and Robert Easton.

With respect to the physical location, I understand that a potential location in Surrey has been found. Negotiations are underway, so until that is successful it would be premature to say where that specifically will be.

[1540]

With regard to finding the auditor general, as the member will know, we have just, less than about a month ago, appointed audit council members. They are meeting regularly to ensure that they are prepared to, and when presented with the candidates to interview, have the ability to take a look at this very specialized position requiring someone with a professional accounting designation, someone who is certified by the Auditor Certification Board, who has experience in performance auditing. So the audit council is very much aware of their obligations to consider these qualifications prior to interviewing a candidate.

H. Lali: My second question to the minister. I was wondering if the minister could sort of give a bit of a…. I know the costs, obviously, have not been incurred yet because the office is just going to be set up and up and running, but I believe there's $2.6 million allotted to that. So I was wondering if the minister could give a bit of a breakdown as to where the expected costs are going to go or what the allocation might be. How much for the actual physical building? How much for salaries and benefits? How much for travel? I mean those kinds of major items.

How much for the audit council itself? What kind of sums out of that $2.6 million are going to be allotted towards the business of the audit council? Also, I was wondering if the minister could explain to me: will the audit council also be meeting in the offices in Surrey, once they're set up? I imagine someone will be teleconferencing or video conferencing, etc. But how many times will they be meeting, and what are the expected costs of the audit council itself?

Just to recap — a breakdown over some of the expected costs to be allocated towards a number of the categories that I mentioned and any other categories that the minister might think of.

Hon. I. Chong: Just to be clear, the audit council costs, which are in the $2.6 million appropriation…. What is permitted to be recovered are costs that only relate to travel and per diem. That has been established.

I think during our debates during the legislation we spoke about how the frequency of meeting would likely be something like three or four times a year. But in the first year it could be more, obviously, to do the hiring and also to go over the service plan and the expectations, and then just to get a handle on what is happening.

So the $2.6 million. We have determined that about $1.18 million would be required for salaries and benefits. For the travel costs, we anticipate about $120,000. There is a sum of $350,000 set aside for contracts in case they want to bring in expertise to help with performance audits. Even though you staff up, sometimes there will be people who have expertise in other areas that might require you to take a look at a project or a program or service that has specific engineering needs, for example, that the auditors themselves may not have had as much experience with. Some information operating systems, $225,000.

So $2.6 million has been summed up in this way, and almost half of that, as the member will see, is primarily the salaries and benefits.

H. Lali: I know I said two questions, but this is the final question, and then we can pass the estimates. The final question is to the minister: what are the rates for the per-diems for the folks that sit on the audit council, including the chair or vice-chair as well? Just to add to that: what is the expected range of pay for the auditor general him- or herself?
[ Page 12708 ]

Hon. I. Chong: As the member will know, the per diems generally follow Treasury Board directives as to what is set out. My understanding is that the per-meeting fee would be for the chair, $350; for the members, $250. So again, if they only met four times a year, a member would expect a remuneration of about $1,000.

With respect to the auditor general, his or her salary would be similar to that of a deputy minister's level. The member will know there are ranges, so again, that will be dependent upon, I believe, their expectations as well as their qualifications.

[1545]

Vote 50: Auditor General for Local Government, $2,600,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
LEGISLATION

Vote 1: legislation, $69,271,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 2: Auditor General, $15,752,000 — approved.

Vote 3: Conflict of Interest Commissioner, $480,000 — approved.

Vote 4: Elections B.C., $8,134,000 — approved.

Vote 5: Information and Privacy Commissioner, $5,396,000 — approved.

Vote 6: Merit Commissioner, $1,024,000 — approved.

Vote 7: Ombudsperson, $5,372,000 — approved.

Vote 8: Police Complaint Commissioner, $2,996,000 — approved.

Vote 9: Representative for Children and Youth, $7,317,000 — approved.

Hon. I. Chong: Before I move the final motion, I just want to thank all members of the opposition who have participated in a number of debates, not the least of which I've had in my estimates debates as well. I think it's been a very productive time.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report resolutions and completion of the Office of the Premier; auditor general for local government, through the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development; legislation; Auditor General; Conflict of Interest Commissioner; Elections B.C.; Information and Privacy Commissioner; Merit Commissioner; Ombudsperson; Police Complaint Commissioner; and Representative for Children and Youth.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:48 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