2013 Legislative Session: Fifth 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, March 7, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 43, Number 9

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2013

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Horne: Joining us in the member gallery this afternoon is Mr. Ilias Kremmydas, the consul general of Greece in Vancouver. The consul general is here on the first official visit. He actually arrived here in Canada about three months ago, and it was a pleasure to have lunch with him today and speak about Greece and the opportunities between British Columbia and Greece. I'd like the members of the House to make him feel welcome.

[1335]

C. James: I have two guests who are here in the gallery. They live and are very active in the Premier's constituency of Point Grey. It's their first time visiting the Legislature.

First is John Yano. John is an environmental and social justice activist with a particular interest in affordable housing and ethnic minority and immigrant rights. The second guest is a member of my extended family, an amazing activist in her own right, a volunteer extraordinaire and a wonderful grandmother and great-grandmother to my children and my grandchildren. So would the House please welcome Mary Tenny and John Yano to the gallery.

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure many members of the House are aware that our colleague the MLA for Chilliwack rises and talks about grandchildren many times in the House — I think 17 times. Well, I'm going to say that today I'm talking about grandchildren — not my grandchildren but one of my staff member's.

On a happy note, many members of the chamber will know former press gallery president and Canadian Press correspondent Scott Sutherland, who several years ago made the sensible move to a communications post in the Ministry of Education. Scott and his wife, Marcia, became grandparents for the third time last Friday, when their son Bart and their daughter-in-law Ciara celebrated the birth of their first child, an extremely healthy ten-pound baby boy, at Victoria General Hospital.

The child does not have a name yet. I am advocating and lobbying hard for a great name, perhaps like Don. However, would the House please join me in wishing this brand-new British Columbian all the best.

K. Conroy: I'd like to introduce two guests today in the gallery. Don Foder is a constituent from Castlegar who has been a long-time supporter of both my husband, Ed, and myself and sits on my constituency executive. Don is retired after 32 years from Teck, where he worked in transportation logistics and was a really active member of Local 9705 from the Steelworkers.

With Don is his niece Megan Foder, who has lived here in Victoria for six years, although she did come home in the summers to work in a place where I once worked, at the Celgar Pulp mill. Megan is doing her master's in dispute resolution at the University of Victoria, with a psychology undergraduate degree. I think that some days in this House we could use someone with her skills. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

M. Mungall: I'd like to introduce the House to Brian Churchill. There he is. In his previous life in the Peace country he was a school trustee, a city councillor and a candidate for the B.C. NDP. But he has seen the light and made his way to the best riding in the province and now resides in Creston. He's active in many groups, including the rod-and-gun club and the Nelson-Creston NDP Constituency Association. Please make him welcome.

D. Routley: Usually in the House we rise and introduce constituents or people who have come to lobby us. It's a real pleasure to introduce two friends. We follow our noses to this place through life experience. It's my pleasure and my pride to stand here every day, but especially today as my two friends Ken Henn and Larry Hickman join us.

Larry Hickman was 40 years a teacher in the Cowichan Valley. He's from Chicago originally and came to Canada when he saw the light in 1969.

Ken Henn, my dear friend — we worked together in the schools as custodians. He moved to the Cowichan Valley when he was three years old. He was a forest industry heavy-duty mechanic and later worked in the school district. What unites us all with the students that we serve was the weekly floor hockey games that we still, once in a while, manage to attend.

Can the House please help me make welcome my two dear friends, Larry and Ken.

Tributes

STOMPIN' TOM CONNORS

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, members of the House can join me to sing along if they know it.

Tonight as I live in this crazy old world,

if only the truth could be known.

I dream of the days and the friendlier ways

of my British Columbian home.

I lived in a town by the railroad tracks,

where the trains all bid me to roam.

My love she cried when I said goodbye

to my British Columbian home.
[ Page 13392 ]

That would be Stompin' Tom Connors, hon. Speaker — Stompin' Tom, British Columbians, Canadians.

[1340]

We will miss your wit, your wisdom, your passion for Canada and for Canadian artists. May The Hockey Song play loud and long, and may you have a Sudbury Saturday Night. Rest in peace, Stompin' Tom Connors.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: A rather hard act to follow, so I will just make the following introduction. I want to offer a happy 80th birthday to my constituent Roberta Rockall, who is the mother of Barb Leyne, the mother-in-law of Les Leyne — yes, the very capable Les Leyne from the Times Colonist — grandmother of Mike and Andrew and great-grandmother of Olin Winter Leyne. Would the House please join me in welcoming a happy 80th birthday.

Hon. C. Clark: If we're done with introductions, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Ministerial Statements

BUSINESS PROPOSAL
FOR OIL REFINERY IN KITIMAT

Hon. C. Clark: If we want to strengthen health care and education and other vital public services in our province, we of course first must strengthen our economy. Yesterday the people of British Columbia were presented with a credible and a bold proposal to do just that.

B.C. businessman David Black made a major announcement with respect to his company Kitimat Clean and his proposal to build and operate a world-class petroleum refinery in Kitimat.

Now, Mr. Black needs little introduction. He's one of the most successful British Columbia entrepreneurs. He built a newspaper empire at a time when newspapers around the world were going under. Throughout his business life he has found success where others have found failure. He is not to be underestimated.

Yesterday Mr. Black announced that he had found investors willing to back his bid to invest $25 billion in his project. He proposes to build a $16 billion refinery, $8 billion in pipelines and a further $1 billion in new tankers to carry the refined petroleum products to customers in Asia.

This is a credible proposal from a credible B.C. businessman. Without question, this would be the largest single, private sector investment in the history of our great province. It would be potentially a tremendous game changer for our children and their children. Six thousand new jobs during construction; 3,000 full-time jobs created once the refinery is in operation. And importantly, Mr. Black's proposal would keep ownership of this project right here at home in British Columbia.

I have long said that British Columbians believe in the benefit of environmentally sound economic development and are fully supportive of getting higher value for B.C. and Canadian goods in markets outside of North America.

Last July our government stood up and put five conditions in place by which we would gauge support for any heavy-oil pipelines in British Columbia. Our five conditions are the way to ensure the highest standards for environmental protection and First Nation involvement possible should any heavy-oil pipeline go through British Columbia.

Mr. Black has proposed a new pipeline across northern B.C. I want to be clear that the five strict conditions that we have very clearly set out would apply to his proposal, as they would to any other. But the difference between the first pipeline proposal and Mr. Black's is that the refinery in Kitimat could form part of the economic benefits needed to satisfy our fifth condition, although I do need to be clear that although it could form a part of that, it will not go all the way.

Thousands of jobs could create a significant economic benefit that does not exist under any current proposal. As well, Mr. Black has said that he plans to use greenhouse gas–reducing technology that would cut GHG emissions from his refinery in half.

[1345]

Finally, Mr. Black's proposal radically reduces the environmental risks associated with the shipping of oil off our coast to Asia. Because refined products are transported in much smaller ships, refined products are much easier to remediate in case of an incident, and these products are already very regularly moving up and down B.C.'s coast.

I'd like to tell this House that our government has been working constructively with Mr. Black in his quest to identify a suitable location on which to build a potential refinery. Our government wants to use every tool at our disposal to move the proposal forward where it can be judged on its merits by a robust, rigorous and, most importantly, independent environmental process, free from political influence.

Like our potential with liquefied natural gas, these opportunities do not come around every day — opportunities that can strengthen our economy, sustain public health care and education and put thousands of British Columbians to work at high-paying, family-supporting, long-term jobs. Our government takes the view that we should work together to address legitimate environmental and safety concerns and find a way to get to yes on projects that will grow our economy.

This project and the LNG opportunity both require
[ Page 13393 ]
leadership, and this is where my government stands. We are British Columbians. We are Canadians. We can grow our economy. We can make environmentally responsible economic development happen if we put our minds to it. If we are clear, if we are consistent, if we are strong-minded, we can make economic development happen.

We have to take a stand. We have to make sure investors have certainty, clarity and a fair process. And we have to do that not just for this generation but for future generations.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M207 — COSMETIC USE OF
PESTICIDES CONTROL ACT, 2013

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Control Act, 2013.

R. Fleming: I move that the Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Control Act, 2013, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: I am pleased to present this bill today to better protect the health of British Columbians by regulating, restricting and prohibiting the sale and use of pesticides for residential and cosmetic uses that threaten our environment, waterways, children, pets and personal health.

Government knows, through years of Ministry of Environment consultations and by a special legislative committee last year, that British Columbians overwhelmingly support adoption of cosmetic pesticide legislation. However, this has not happened — yet. So for a fifth time, New Democrats today introduce legislation to ban the use of cosmetic pesticides.

This bill is consistent with what British Columbians want. It is consistent with legislation in six other provinces, representing nearly 20 million Canadians. And it is consistent with the advice to government from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Pediatric Society, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, the Lung Association, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the Parkinson Society and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Mr. Speaker, 39 local governments across B.C., governing 2.8 million citizens, have bylaws to ban the sale of cosmetic pesticides. However, these bylaws remain ineffective because the Community Charter act does not give communities the authority to ban the sale of pesticides. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has repeatedly asked for provincial leadership and a provincewide law. That call has not been heeded. But today this bill will address local governments' longstanding concern.

[1350]

In protecting young children, this legislation offers the promise, over time, of lowered costs of delivering health care services by reducing chronic disease. This legislation takes important steps to protect human health in our environment. The time for strong legislative action is now.

I ask that this bill be put on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M207, Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Control Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M208 — CARBON NEUTRAL
GOVERNMENT REPEAL ACT, 2013

B. Simpson presented a bill intituled Carbon Neutral Government Repeal Act, 2013.

B. Simpson: I move that this bill be introduced now and read for a first time.

Motion approved.

B. Simpson: The European police force has estimated that in some countries up to 90 percent of the carbon offset market is a result of fraudulent activities. A recent Australian report entitled Carbon Credit Fraud: The White Collar Crime of the Future warns Australian companies and regulators to prepare for potential misrepresentation and fraud risks as they establish their carbon offset scheme.

Plenty of evidence already exists to suggest that British Columbia's carbon-neutral government claim is completely unfounded, raising serious questions about the veracity of B.C.'s fledgling carbon offset scheme. Therefore, this bill repeals the legislation that forces public sector agencies to take money out their operating budgets to buy carbon offsets so that the government can declare itself carbon-neutral each year.

There are three main reasons this bill is needed. First, the government is not carbon-neutral and will not achieve true carbon neutrality anytime soon. In order to justify declaring itself carbon-neutral, the government exempted from its calculated emissions B.C. Ferries, school buses, P3s, B.C. Hydro's deforestation activities and emissions from not-for-profits and private companies that deliver government programs and services.

Second, the private sector offsets purchased by the Pacific Carbon Trust have not resulted in any incremental or additional reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over business as usual. The third-party validators of these projects are the same companies that said financial derivatives were legitimate too.
[ Page 13394 ]

Third, the annual carbon-neutral government declaration gives a dangerously false impression that B.C. as a whole is actually reducing its GHG emissions, when the government's industrial strategy will ensure that we will not meet the legal requirements for total GHG emission reductions by 2020.

Repealing the carbon-neutral legislation will not only protect the public sector operating budgets; it will also refocus the efforts of government on the 99 percent of B.C.'s emissions that, if not reduced, will prevent B.C. from achieving its legally mandated GHG reduction targets.

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

Bill M208, Carbon Neutral Government Repeal Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

M. Mungall: In 1898 B.C.'s MLAs first sat in this chamber. By 1915 — they did research in the library — none of these MLAs were women. We didn't have the right to vote. Under the law, we were not persons.

Things have clearly changed, and for the better. This is why March 8 is an important day of celebration each year. It is International Women's Day, a day when we mark how women have changed the world and how we will change the world.

In British Columbia some Caucasian women gained their right to vote in 1917. In 1918 they headed to the polls and elected the first woman to this House — Mary Ellen Smith — and 1939, '49, 1952, 1960 and '82 are all important dates that saw more women gain their right to vote. Race, ethnicity, ability and language proficiency are no longer reasons to deny a woman her franchise.

Along with the right to cast our ballots, many women have struggled over the centuries for things so basic today that we take them for granted — like wearing pants, to choose our spouse and get married or not, or to go to school — yet we have much to do. Violence against women persists. We still make less money than men. We still struggle with access to reproductive rights. We are still under-represented in governments and boardrooms. And we still do more dishes and change more diapers than men.

[1355]

It is on International Women's Day that we take note that women are changing the world every day.

D. Barnett: As my colleague across the floor just said, tomorrow we celebrate International Women's Day. On this day the citizens of the world will honour women's accomplishments and celebrate the great barriers women have overcome throughout the years.

Tomorrow we'll also take the time to acknowledge the challenges that many women continue to face in 2013. Although it is true that women have more opportunities now, especially in places like Canada, there are still many who suffer from gender abuse, work inequality and cultural marginalization. Women's challenges vary from country to country, but on International Women's Day we unite to express the urgent need to achieve gender equality as we move forward.

To celebrate International Women's Day, many communities around the world organize events. In Vancouver, Girls Rock Alliance shows girls how to boost their self-esteem by teaching them it play rock 'n' roll. In Kamloops women are encouraged to line up on the Overlander Bridge for the event Join Me on the Bridge, symbolizing the bridges of peace and hope for the future. In my constituency the Women's Contact Society will be holding a business fair, dinner and concert at Thompson Rivers University campus in Williams Lake.

These are just a few examples of how communities are honouring International Women's Day in their own way. Let's continue to celebrate women's strength and achievements with the hopes that the future will bring more equality to our world.

NAPOLEON GOMEZ AND
MINEWORKERS' RIGHTS IN MEXICO

K. Conroy: In 2008 I made a statement in this House about Napoleon Gomez, the president of the National Union of Mine and Metal Workers, or Los Mineros as it is known in Mexico. I spoke about the persecution of this man by the Mexican government, how every trumped-up charge against him had been dismissed and how after death threats he and his family had fled Mexico and were living in Vancouver with the support of the United Steelworkers.

What happened to Napoleon's fight happened seven years ago in February, when 65 miners were killed in Grupo Mexico's mine No. 8. In comparison, the world remembers the Chilean success in October 2010 when 33 miners were rescued alive after the collapse of their mine. They had been trapped 750 metres deep for 69 days.

In Mexico, though, the mine owners, Grupo Mexico, abandoned the 65 trapped workers at only 120 metres after only five days of a minimal rescue effort and sealed the mine without knowing if the men were dead or alive. The government was complicit in turning a blind eye to this action, as well as hiding the true cause of the tragedy.

This industrial homicide has still not been investigated, and none of the people responsible for it have ever been
[ Page 13395 ]
punished. But today Napoleon still fights for the rights of Mexican workers from his home in B.C. Because his activities threaten Mexico's export-driven, low-wage model, the Mexican government continues to target Napoleon and the union with a campaign of persecution, including criminal charges and imprisonment of union officers, declaring strikes illegal and repeated use of military and security forces to break strikes. Four union members have been murdered since 2006, with no investigations of the killings.

In 2011 Napoleon received Canadian permanent residency and yet still has been unable to leave the country, due to false allegations from the Mexican government. He has grandchildren he has never held, family he hasn't been able to see and a union he runs from another country.

In Chile the miners were rescued. In Mexico they were abandoned. This tragedy should never have happened or be repeated.

In Napoleon's words: "That is why we need justice — to provide an example of dignity and good faith for the generations of today and the future." Napoleon has also written a book about his journey, Collapse of Dignity. I hope you all take the opportunity to read about this incredible man's life and his commitment to the working people of Mexico.

VICTIMS' RIGHTS AND
CRIME PREVENTION INITIATIVES

D. Hayer: Every year I have pushed long and hard to establish that in our court system and in our laws the rights of victims must take precedence over the rights of criminals. This issue has always been first and foremost for me, and I have worked diligently on behalf of victims.

[1400]

All levels of government must always work hard to improve the rights of victims. Our government has passed much legislation recently, including amending the justice system and focusing on crime, as well as the introduction of other bills such as the Community Safety Act.

The important Criminal Asset Management Act provides authority to dispose of property forfeited as a result of criminal prosecution or seizure investigations. Civil forfeiture reduces the financial benefits of crime and deters criminals by removing profits from illegal activity. It provides disincentives for youth to join in gangs, because when they are caught, we will take away their fancy vehicles and other acquisitions gained illegally.

The Metal Dealers and Recyclers Act helps to deter metal thieves and enhances public safety by reducing theft of copper telephone wire that interrupts 911 emergency service for families. These thieves have been active in many cities, including Surrey, creating costs to our city and putting lives at risk. This act is valuable, too, to curtail that activity.

I want also want to comment on the Emergency Intervention Disclosure Act, which protects those who put their lives at risk to help us. Paramedics, firefighters, police, peace officers and all other first responders protect and support us in times of emergency and tragedy. We need to ensure they are protected from communicable diseases incurred in the line of duty. Please join me in thanking them for their dedication and service to our safety, our community, our province and our country.

DEATHS OF FARMWORKERS
IN VEHICLE ACCIDENT

R. Chouhan: Six years ago today a preventable roadside accident killed three women farmworkers — Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu, Sukhwinder Kaur Punia and Amarjit Kaur Bal — on their way to work. Several others were seriously injured. These workers were going to work in a van which was not equipped with proper seats and had no seatbelts.

It's needless to say how this tragedy has devastated the families of the workers. At the time of this accident, Sarabjit Sidhu's son, Sukhman, was just 15 months old. Her daughter Avnoor was three, and her other daughter, Avneet, was eight years old.

Police recommended 30 criminal charges against the owner of the vehicle. None were accepted. In a few months the harvesting season will be in full swing. Thousands of farmworkers will again be taken to the fields in the labour contractor vehicles.

In Abbotsford a memorial is being built to honour the three farmworkers. The families greatly appreciate the province's contribution to this memorial. Today, while we are remembering these and other farmworkers who were injured or killed in other tragic incidents, we hope that such a tragedy will never occur again.

SPEED SKATING

M. Dalton: Action packed, fast and nerve-racking describe one of winter's most exciting sports to watch or participate in — short-track speed skating. Canada has a great record in short-track at the Olympics, having won 25 medals, second only to South Korea.

Skaters like Marc Gagnon, the Hamelin brothers, Sylvie Daigle and Mission's own Eden Donatelli Green are part of the Sports Hall of Fame. Eden medalled in ten world championships and earned silver at the Calgary Olympics.

This past weekend I had the pleasure of joining her and many other short-trackers at the 2013 B.C. Short Track Speed Skating Championships held in Mission. The championships featured B.C.'s fastest skaters, who vied for personal and provincial records and early identification as potential Canada Games athletes, to be held in Prince George in 2015.

From Victoria to Vanderhoof there are 28 clubs across
[ Page 13396 ]
the province that form part of the B.C. Speed Skating Association. In my constituency we have two clubs: the Ridge Meadows Racers speed skating club and the Mission Racers Speed Skating Club, which has a 35-year history. The clubs offer everything from "Learn to Skate" to "High Performance" and have skaters from four years of age to over 50.

At the event I talked to coaches and skaters from all over the province, including Fort St. John, home of the world-champion skater Denny Morrison. Opened in 2009 in advance of the Vancouver Olympic Games, Fort St. John boasts one of North America's top four speed skating ovals and is used day and night.

[1405]

British Columbia has many rising stars in the world of speed skating — talented, passionate and committed to their sport. I look forward to seeing them compete next year in the 2014 B.C. Winter Games to be held in Mission.

J. McIntyre: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. McIntyre: I just hope the House will help me in saying bienvenue to a class from the beautiful school called Ecole les Aiglons — I hope I've pronounced it correctly — in the Garibaldi Highlands region of Squamish. They're here visiting. There are over 30 students from grade 5 visiting with their teacher and chaperones. The school started in 1996 with only 16 students and is now over 100 students.

I hope that you'll make them all feel welcome and that we'll behave very well in question period.

P. Pimm: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

P. Pimm: This gentleman was introduced earlier today, and although our politics are certainly not the same, I served for six years on council with Mr. Churchill in Fort St. John. I'd like the House to help me bring him a fine, warm welcome.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO PARTISAN
ACTIVITIES RELATING TO
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

C. James: It's now been eight days since the Liberal plan to use taxpayer resources for partisan political gain was revealed by the opposition. Eight days later, and there's little to give the public any confidence that they'll get answers.

The internal investigation appears to be all over the place. First, the Deputy Minister to the Premier is investigating his own boss and her office. Second, the Premier herself claims that she's checked with the Liberal Party and has been assured there's no problem. Third, the Liberal government caucus chair is also looking into things. It's not very comforting.

My question is to the Premier. Given the events of this past week and the seriousness of this scandal, surely the Premier sees that it's time for an independent investigation into this mess.

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said a number of times in the House this week, we intend to get to the bottom of this. We are getting there. I understand and I appreciate that the member would be happy to prejudge the outcome before we know all the facts. But I think it is important, in such a serious matter, to make sure that we have all the facts, and that is indeed what we are intending to do.

Deputy Minister John Dyble has 20 years' experience in the civil service. He's one of the most highly respected non-partisan civil servants you'll find anywhere in this country. I have absolute confidence in his ability to make sure that we understand exactly what happened.

I do want to assure this House, the people of British Columbia, that once we have his conclusions, we will act. Mistakes are made — some of them are serious — and when we see those mistakes, we have an obligation to confront them head-on and deal with them. That is exactly what we will do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I heard the Premier say that we shouldn't prejudge the outcome. Well, in fact, the Premier has already prejudged a great deal of the outcome.

"Who was involved?" we asked. The Premier says she knows that. She says: "Kim Haakstad was the senior person involved." We asked the question around: "Did the Liberal Party receive any names for their election database?" Again I quote from the Premier. She knows that too. "They have not," she says.

The Premier says all of this is going to be wrapped up soon. "Wrapped up next week," she said yesterday. So again I ask the Premier: will she commit today, so the public can have some faith in an independent investigation of this scandal?

Hon. C. Clark: This is a serious matter, and it really does behoove the opposition to ensure that they are offering real, true characterizations of what I have said in the past. That member has not done that.

[1410]

What I have said is that this review is underway. It will be done fairly, it will be done as expeditiously as possible,
[ Page 13397 ]
and it will be done independently. When the results of that report are known, we will all have the answers that we are seeking, and British Columbia will know that this government — my government — intends to act on those recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

C. James: It's not simply the opposition that has concerns around the lack of independence of this investigation. It's very clear that the government's own caucus chair has no confidence in this internal investigation. It seems that he recognizes that the Premier's deputy minister has no authority or ability to investigate this scandal properly, so he's looking into the scandal himself, along with two of his caucus colleagues.

Let's just review. After eight days we have the chair of the Liberal caucus investigating the Liberal caucus activities. We have the Premier apparently investigating the Liberal Party. We also have the Premier's deputy investigating his boss. Well, if this doesn't call for an independent investigation, I don't know what does.

There are more questions, there is more chaos, but most importantly, there are few answers for the public. So I ask once again: given the seriousness of this investigation, given the seriousness of the allegations and the concerns, will the Premier finally concede that her office investigating itself simply isn't independent and it's time for an independent investigation?

Hon. B. Bennett: The program that the member is referring to is called the multicultural grant program. It's a $750,000 grant program that's used by government to celebrate B.C.'s cultural diversity through two streams — cultural expression and capacity-building. Each of the grants is up to $5,000, and the gaming policy and enforcement branch administers that program, although staff in the gaming policy and enforcement branch work in the ministry that I'm responsible for. I've checked with them to determine how those grants were paid out. There have been 141 grants paid out.

The way it works is that the professional staff and the public service — and I'm assuming no one on the other side is questioning the integrity of any of those public sector staff — look at these applications. They adjudicate these applications, and they decide which of the applications will be recommended. They've recommended 141 of such applications.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, the members on the other side may think it's funny to reach out to the multicultural communities in this province. We don't think it's funny. We don't think there's anything funny about that on this side of the House. All of these grants, the 141 grants, were recommended by professional public service staff and were then approved by the deputy minister.

J. Horgan: Well, eight years of question periods from this side of the House, and for the first time ever I've seen a real left-field answer. We asked a direct question to the Premier of British Columbia, whose office is at the epicentre of a scandal that's rocking this government, and we get a response from the minister from the Kootenays about something completely unrelated to the question that was asked.

If ever I've seen a "quick, look over there," that is it. So my question….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: My question is to the Premier of British Columbia. She said today that she didn't want to prejudge the investigation.

[1415]

Can she confirm — yes or no — that in response to a question from this side of the House last week with respect to the Liberal Party, she stood up in this place and said, "I talked to the Liberal Party. There's nothing over there"? Yes or no?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm sorry that the fact that I come from the Kootenays offends the member from Vancouver Island. He has three members from the Kootenays in his own caucus. I'm not sure how they're going to feel about his slight. In any case, perhaps the member will think that this is more relevant.

Perhaps the member who asked the question could tell us exactly who Gabriel Yiu is. Gabriel Yiu has collected almost $375,000 of public money since 2007, and what did he do? What was Gabriel Yiu up to? Well, Gabriel Yiu, according to his own website, was an adviser to the B.C. NDP opposition. He facilitated "unprecedented communication outreach into the Asian immigrant community at large, as well as cultivating…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: But here's the thing. Both sides of the House know that it's important to reach out to multicultural communities. We all agree with that. Everybody agrees with that. But this gentleman, this Gabriel Yiu, while he was collecting $372,000 of public money, of tax-
[ Page 13398 ]
payer money, has run for the NDP party three times. So I wonder what the member would like to say to the House by way of explaining that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PREMIER'S OFFICE RECORDS AND
FREEDOM-OF-INFORMATION REQUESTS

D. Routley: Let's talk about a major commitment of this Premier upon taking office. It's about the commitment to open government. We're just talking here. You don't have to write anything down.

The Premier said: "Open government…."

Interjections.

D. Routley: It's a quote. It's a quote.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat, please.

Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Routley: The Premier said: "Open government is about giving people a sense of confidence that government is working for them, not just trying to do something to them." That's fine. It's a noble statement, to be sure.

But how is it that a recent review of the Premier's office by the independent information officer found a disturbing trend towards an oral culture of doing business? She uncovered an almost 50 percent increase in "no records" responses to FOI requests to the Premier's office.

No written records — how does that square with this Premier's words when it comes to open government?

Hon. B. Stewart: To the member opposite, I do want to thank him for the question, first of all, about the fact that this government, in its promise in July of 2011, promised to make certain that we were going to be the most open government. The fact is that we have been recognized across the country by Stanford for the actions that we've taken. We've published on line, as I mentioned previously, 3,105 data sets and over 30,000 downloads of information that government didn't previously provide.

[1420]

I think it's easy to be critical of the fact that in a discussion…. You know, somebody in a particular ministry that might have 57 drafts of a particular memo might want to discard those. The fact is that the final one becomes the government record, and that's exactly what we do. The IAO produces that information when requested by a request for freedom of information.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, this government made a lot of promises that went straight to the shredder. In fact, this government was rated as last place in the country by the journalists of this country when it comes to FOI performance — last place.

When the information officer interviewed the Premier's former deputy chief of staff, she was told: "The general practice of the Office of the Premier is to communicate verbally, in person." She was told: "Most e-mails are transitory in nature and are deleted."

How is it possible that the Premier, so committed to open government, could allow this oral culture to develop in her office? What else is she hiding? The Premier told the people of B.C. that she would "make sure that open government is a reality, not just something we talk about." Well, it appears that's all the Premier's office does. They talk. They don't write things down. Nothing goes down on paper — no records. "Don't write anything down." How does this square with the Premier's words when it comes to open government?

Hon. B. Stewart: Well, surely if he looked at the report, he would see that the commissioner looked at the Premier's office, as well as the IAO, and said: "I'm pleased that…." She finds that the duty of the government complying to assist applicants is something that we do in each and every case. She found no examples of any abuse or anything where information was being withheld.

I do want to point out on another matter…. The fact is that the request numbers have grown by 20 percent in just the last 12 months. And the reason for that, Member, is because we made open government a priority. We made it easy for you to select all the different ministries within government to be able to access where your request could go.

The Premier's office happens to be where a lot of people think that information is, and frankly, it may not be there. An example would be: what happens if it's something that's a Justice request about something that the Premier really had nothing to do, and you click on that? You get a "no records" response.

M. Karagianis: This is a Premier who said she wanted to be the most connected and accessible Premier in British Columbia history, but here's the reality. The opposition asked for briefing materials related to the Premier's promised citizen engagement challenge. No records found. We asked for records related to the federal shipbuilding contract. No records found. We asked for work-related documents produced by Jim Shepherd. No records found.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner was crystal-clear. She said: "The lack of documentation undermines the ability of citizens, journalists and the public to under-
[ Page 13399 ]
stand the basis for government's actions on any particular matter."

So will the Premier tell the House how operating without creating records squares with her declaration to be the most connected, accessible Premier in history?

Hon. B. Stewart: To the member opposite: you bring up a really good point about the government and the consultation. You bring up a couple of points about citizen engagement. Well, I want to direct you to govTogether, a website that's on the government website where you can go and see, currently, four different consultations: ThinkHealthBC, healthy families, the Columbia River treaty. The fact is that that's where the citizen engagement part of things is.

You mentioned shipbuilding. I think the Minister of Jobs and Tourism would be happy to answer the question, because that's most likely where that is. It's not in the Premier's office.

[1425]

Frankly, there are many, many requests that come to the Premier's office that have no business being requested there, because the Premier's office has a small staff. It is not a repository of all the government information. It's where decisions get made. The ministries are where the information is.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: You'd think when the Premier has claimed credit for shipbuilding where none actually occurred, at least there would've been some shred of paper somewhere in her office to document it. The reality is that since this Premier was sworn in, the increase in "no records" responses from her office has increased by 45 percent. The lack of records only serves to make British Columbians more suspicious about what their government is doing and why it is so secretive in hiding information through the back channels.

Now, how does the lack of recordkeeping and the increased number of private e-mails in her office stand with her long-stated claim to be open, accountable and accessible? How does it?

Hon. B. Stewart: I want to thank the member opposite, again, for another comment about something that's benefiting the constituents in Esquimalt: the shipbuilding contract which we successfully landed, an $8 billion contract.

I know that the Premier of British Columbia is one of the best salespeople out there, and she worked hard on that. But the bottom line is that the Minister of Jobs and Tourism made the pitch and made certain that we landed that contract.

More importantly, you talk about the…. You want to make certain that…. You know, when you talk about the increase in FOI requests and the "no records" response, that's across government. We've made it so it's possible that people who are looking for that information…. That probably explains why the number of requests has gone from 8,000 to over 10,000 in the last 12 months. That's because of requests that come in — multiple ministries. And the Premier's office is no different. As I mentioned, they're not the repository of information for every ministry in government.

PACIFIC CARBON TRUST OPERATIONS
AND PUBLIC RELATIONS CONTRACT

B. Simpson: Over $50 million has now been clawed back from public sector operating budgets and given to the Pacific Carbon Trust. The Pacific Carbon Trust then gives that money to the private sector in order for this government to declare itself carbon-neutral. Public scrutiny of the Pacific Carbon Trust private sector projects has revealed that there's been no incremental reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of carbon offsets.

I actually got some documentation from an FOI request. That documentation shows that the Pacific Carbon Trust has now started spending money on criticism offsets — over $100,000 to Deloitte and an undisclosed amount to PricewaterhouseCoopers, with contracts specifically designed to offset media criticism and to neutralize the Pacific Carbon Trust in advance of a yet-to-be-released report from the Auditor General.

My question is to the Minister of Finance, who is the sole shareholder of the Pacific Carbon Trust. Does he believe it's appropriate that the Pacific Carbon Trust is spending public money to offset criticism and to neutralize a yet-to-be-released Auditor General's report?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for the question. It sounds like he is aligning himself very much with his former colleagues in terms of being opposed to progressive climate action policies, where this side of the House is recognized as world leaders on taking action on climate change.

[1430]

I find it interesting to note that the member opposite has been critical of Pacific Carbon Trust, yet a very robust supporter of the Carbon Offset Aggregation Co-op, which is exactly the kind of offset that we are looking for in British Columbia to have innovation, to see fuel savings and that helps rural British Columbia. That member supports that kind of offset. I wish he would be consistent, at least, in his criticism of our carbon-neutral government, the first jurisdiction in North America to take responsibility for its own carbon emissions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The one legitimate project that the Pacific
[ Page 13400 ]
Carbon Trust has on the go does not excuse the rest of the projects the Pacific Carbon Trust has put public sector money into. Over $50 million gone to the trust should have been spent on teachers. It should have been spent on nurses, and it should have been spent on care aides — not bogus carbon offset projects that the Pacific Carbon Trust is involved in.

In the FOI documentation a senior staffer at the Pacific Carbon Trust states that the Deloitte contract is "rich" but then goes on to state: "However, with the Hoekstra articles and the Auditor General's upcoming audit, I think we need to get this contract signed ASAP."

There is a statement by another staffer at PCT in the FOI documentation that states that the Auditor General's report "is called carbon-neutral government. They are looking at more than just the PCT, although obviously spending way more time on the PCT part and glossing over the rest."

In addition to spending money to try and offset criticism, I've come across what appears to be an orchestrated attempt on the part of the Pacific Carbon Trust to undermine the Auditor General's upcoming report, including an active letter-writing campaign. This whole activity begs the question of what it is the Pacific Carbon Trust is truly trying to offset.

My question, again, to the Minister of Finance, who is the sole shareholder of this Crown corporation: is it appropriate for a Crown corporation to spend public money engaging in activities to offset public criticism and to offset or neutralize an upcoming Auditor General's report?

Hon. T. Lake: I understand the inconsistent approach to looking at projects that the member has voiced here today — certainly consistent with his inconsistent approach, as in 2009 he vociferously campaigned against a carbon tax, one that is supported by the majority of British Columbians.

The reality is that we are showing leadership on carbon-neutral government. We are showing leadership on climate action. We take responsibility for our own greenhouse gases, and through that process, we have invested in public sector organizations all over this province with energy-saving initiatives that save each one of those organizations hundreds of thousands of dollars each and every year.

INCLUSION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
IN GOVERNMENT ASSET SALE

B. Ralston: The government has claimed since February 2012 that it will support the deficit budget it tabled this year by selling over $800 million worth of government-owned real estate.

Despite their best efforts, it has now become public that the B.C. Liberal government also plans to sell $125 million of financial instruments. Will the minister advise the House what financial instruments are for sale?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the question has changed a little bit in the intervening 48 hours. A few days ago the member stood in this chamber and attempted to suggest that I had purposely withheld information or tried to mislead people.

I hope, and I would have hoped — and he still has an opportunity — that in his supplementary he will correct the record, because I am certain that he has had an opportunity since posing that question to know that I was very specific in addressing the issue in the presence of a couple of hundred people, including 100 journalists or so.

[1435]

I guess it was our little secret that the government proposes to — having identified surplus property, assets.... But included in that was $125 million dollars relating to financial instruments. I made it clear at the time that being more detailed about what those specific types of instruments are may impact the market in a way that would negatively impact the interests of British Columbians.

So I would hope, in the time he has available now in pursuing this line of questioning, that he would correct the impression he tried to leave a few days ago that I tried to withhold information when, quite clearly, I did not.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Page 57 of the 2011-2012 Public Accounts shows a portfolio of financial instruments owned by the government. Those listed include pooled investment portfolios, provincial government bonds issued by other provinces, equity investments, and commercial loans and investments valued at approximately $2.6 billion.

To the Finance Minister: are any of those financial instruments for sale?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the over 19 years I have been here, I've occasionally made a mistake and at times felt obliged to come into the House and withdraw a remark or make it clear to members that I have misstated the facts.

The member, regrettably, has chosen not to do that, despite levelling a specific assertion and making a specific accusation against me. So I regret that he hasn't taken advantage of the opportunity today to do that.

The member also knows that the government holds, on behalf of British Columbians, certain financial instruments, whether they are debt instruments or bond instruments. He knows that they are marketed and that transactions occur relating to them. I am acting on the advice of senior officials who say that it would be unwise and improper in a way that would negatively impact the interests of British Columbia to say more about specific instruments that are involved.

The member made an assertion a few days ago that was wrong. He and his colleagues have opposed a budget
[ Page 13401 ]
that is balanced. He wishes to be taken seriously in a discussion where he and his colleagues steadfastly, despite the passage of now two weeks, to reveal that secret plan that they have tucked away somewhere…. So if he wants to be taken seriously, release the NDP's plan if indeed it actually exists.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report of the Special Committee to Inquire into the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons and to Audit Selected Police Complaints for the fourth session of the 39th parliament. I would move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

M. Coell: I move the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments. This report, entitled Progress Reported in Implementing the 2009 Braidwood Report Recommendations and Processing Police Complaints, summarizes the work of the special committee from July 2012 to February 2013.

The special committee had a dual mandate to conduct a follow-up review of the implementation status of the 19 recommendations arising from the June 2009 report of the Braidwood Commission, Restoring Public Confidence: Restricting the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons in British Columbia, as well as to review scientific research into the medical risks to persons against whom conducted energy weapons are deployed. The second part of the committee's mandate was to conduct an audit respecting the outcome or resolution of randomly selected complaints and investigations under part 2 of the Police Act.

On behalf of the committee members, I am pleased to report that satisfactory progress has been made in implementing all 19 recommendations of the June 2009 Braidwood report. In addition, the complaint process in place at the B.C. Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner is addressing complaints in compliance with part 2 of the Police Act as well.

[1440]

I would like to thank all the committee members and our staff who gave their time to contribute to the production of this report.

K. Corrigan: I want to start by thanking the member for Saanich North and the Islands for chairing the committee and to thank all the other members of the committee. It was a hard-working committee. We met literally dozens of times from the beginning of the summer through till very recently. I also want to thank Committee Clerk Susan Sourial and committee researcher Josie Schofield for the wonderful work they did on this committee.

I'm proud of the extensive work that was done by the committee. It was done in a collegial manner, but it was very important work. It was work that was reviewing whether or not the recommendations of Mr. Justice Braidwood — in his inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski in 2007 — had been implemented. So it was very important to check back. In fact, it was statutorily mandated that this Legislature should look back and check and see whether those recommendations had been implemented.

There were 19 recommendations, and they were very detailed and extensive, outlining the appropriate use of conducted energy weapons, more commonly known as Tasers, and many recommendations about the training of the officers. As well, as has been mentioned by the member, we looked into whether or not there is new scientific research into the medical risk to persons against whom conducted energy weapons are deployed.

The committee was somewhat surprised that there wasn't more of a public response to our invitations to submit, but I think the reason that that was the case is that for the most part, very substantially, the recommendations have been implemented to the satisfaction of everyone involved. I think it's good for this province that those recommendations have been implemented, and I think we can rest more easily that the use of Tasers has been carefully looked at.

With regard to the second part, the audit. I'm pleased that we are doing a good job with regard to police complaints in most areas — apart from the fact that there is some amount of time that the investigations are being reviewed. It's 45 percent that are not completed within the expected six-month time frame.

I'm pleased with the work of the committee. I congratulate all members and congratulate the government for the work that has been done.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, does the member for Saanich North and the Islands wish to move adoption of the report?

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

Motion approved.
[ Page 13402 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 11. If and when that is complete this afternoon, the next order of business will be second reading of Bill 15.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

Mr. Speaker, amendments to the Criminal Records Review Act recognize government's appreciation of the invaluable work provided by volunteers and non-profit agencies to children and vulnerable adults in British Columbia.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Certainly, British Columbia is the only province in Canada that protects the vulnerable sector by requiring people who work with children or vulnerable adults in publicly funded or regulated sectors to undergo criminal record checks. Amendments to the Criminal Records Review Act will allow our government to extend this program to volunteers and the non-profit sector free of charge. This includes volunteers working for organizations currently covered by the act, like hospitals and school districts.

Non-profit agencies will have the option of opting into the government's program for criminal record checks or to continue using their local police agencies for screening. Individuals who are identified as having a relevant criminal record will undergo a risk assessment by program experts to ensure our vulnerable sector is protected.

[1445]

Amendments will also require volunteers to update their criminal record checks every five years. These requirements parallel the existing requirements of those working with children and vulnerable adults.

Another very important aspect of this act is actually the issue of portability of criminal record results. One of the things I know that I've heard in my community and that many other MLAs have shared with me is the fact that volunteers and employees are often asked for a second criminal record check if they're volunteering for a second specific organization.

It's an incredibly important step in this amendment to actually allow consent for the sharing of that criminal record between organizations. It means that if you want to volunteer with the Salvation Army and then another organization, once you've gone through the criminal record check process, the review process, you can then request having your information shared with another organization that you may want to be involved with.

Certainly, we know that parents are very busy and volunteer for, in some cases, several of their children's activities. Those parents currently would need a criminal record check for each sporting organization, school or other non-profit club their children attend. So the ability for parents and others to share their criminal record results between agencies will save them both time and, importantly, the cost.

The amendments that support the sharing of criminal record results are important in streamlining the criminal record process in both the non-profit and employment sectors while, importantly, continuing to protect the safety of our most vulnerable citizens.

Because the statute is very procedural, and it is divided into repeating sections for different employment-related sectors, amendments were required throughout the bill. It does, I admit, make it very lengthy. But it's important to point out that it is actually replicated in sections.

In closing, I would like to say that we are very proud to demonstrate our commitment to supporting the important services provided by volunteers and the non-profit sectors in our communities. With that, Madam Speaker, I look forward to hearing comments of other members in the House.

K. Corrigan: I'm happy to rise and speak on Bill 11, the Criminal Records Review Amendment Act, 2013. Since this does deal with volunteers, it's important to note that there are thousands and thousands of volunteers in this province that do very important work, and our society could not function without the many hundreds and thousands of hours that people volunteer in British Columbia. So our hats-off to the volunteers today.

Some volunteers deal with people who are vulnerable — people who are very young, people who are ill, people who have disabilities. It's very important, when you have volunteers working with people who are vulnerable, that we ensure, as a society, that those people are protected. It's an important thing to do. One of the things that happens in this province — and I'm not sure that it happens in every province; I do think we have been a bit of a leader in this — is that people are required, if they're going to volunteer, particularly with vulnerable people, to get a criminal records check.

When I first saw this bill, it looked pretty innocuous and straightforward, although it's very important. I certainly agree that it's straightforward. But in that, the proposed changes will allow volunteers working with children and vulnerable adults to receive free criminal record checks, provided the non-profit sector organization they work for has opted into the new provincial program.

I saw that in the press release that the government did at the time the bill was introduced. It was very positive and talked about a couple of organizations that had expressed their support for the bill and were appreciative
[ Page 13403 ]
of that — viaSport B.C., for example. I was pleased with that, and I thought: "We will support this bill."

[1450]

We will continue to support this bill, but there was a little bit of a glitch, and there was some homework that I believe that government did not do. So I did a bit of it for them. What I did was I contacted AVRBC, which is the administrators of volunteers in British Columbia. It's the organization that is administrators of volunteers, and Administrators of Volunteer Resources of British Columbia is the name.

AVRBC represents well over 100 organizations in the province. They are very well respected. In fact — a little plug for AVRBC — they are having their 2013 conference coming up very soon, I think in the month of May. I attended their conference last year, and it was very worthwhile. I really appreciated the invitation, and I hope they invite me again. They're having things like coaching and sharing our own work and diversity workshops and so on.

I mention them because I have followed the work that they do, and I've been appreciative of the work that AVRBC does and the fact that it represents administrators from well over 100 — I think it's 170 or 180 — organizations in this province who are very professional. I contacted them about this bill and asked whether or not they were supportive.

In addition, I spoke to leadership of Volunteer B.C. Now, Volunteer B.C. represents literally hundreds and hundreds of organizations across the province. So I thought that it was important to speak to Volunteer B.C., as well, to make sure that Volunteer B.C. was supportive of Bill 11.

I'll give you an example of some of the members of Volunteer B.C.: the Campbell River Volunteer Society, Deltassist Family and Community Services, Hope Community Services, Volunteer Burnaby, Volunteer Chilliwack, volunteer organizations from all around the province, SUCCESS, Boys and Girls Clubs — hundreds and hundreds of members, associate members or affiliate members. So I thought it was important to talk to Volunteer B.C. as well.

The leadership of both of those organizations, to my surprise, responded that they were concerned about the bill. The reason they were concerned about the bill was they were concerned that the criminal record checks that are done by the provincial government do not include crucial information. The crucial information that is not included is information that comes from federal databases.

They're particularly concerned, for example, about the fact that pardoned criminals who have been convicted of sex offences were not being…. Those lists were not being checked as part of the criminal record check that was being done by the province.

Both of those organizations, of course, between them, recognize literally hundreds and hundreds of volunteer organizations and therefore reflect the will of literally tens of thousands of volunteers in this province. The leadership of both those organizations at that time encouraged us to take a good look and, in fact, to not support Bill 11, which I found to be surprising.

However, this story has a bit of a better ending to it. The reason is that within a day or so of when I contacted both AVRBC and Volunteer B.C., they had a meeting with the provincial government, with the ministry folks, and they were told that the record checks that have not previously been done and are not presently being done — which would include, for example, as I said earlier, the records of those that have been pardoned of serious sexual offences, including sex offences against children — would now be checked.

[1455]

So that very serious gap, I'm told by the volunteer organizations, is going to be closed. In addition, those checks will be funded, they are assured. I particularly wanted to mention this because I wanted to make sure it was on the record that that was a concern and that the government has assured those organizations that those criminal record checks will include that information that is so critical to getting a really good idea of who it is that you're having come to volunteer.

It seems to me that in the past, that has been a critical gap, to the point that those organizations, AVRBC and Volunteer B.C., in their criminal record checks, when it dealt with vulnerable people like children, some elderly people who may have challenges or people with disabilities, those people would in fact have…. Those checks would include what the present checks don't include.

These organizations actually did not get their criminal record checks done through the province of British Columbia and instead opted to pay for their own criminal record checks — the more extensive criminal record checks that included this important federal information.

I'm going to assume that AVRBC and Volunteer B.C. are comfortable. They've told me that they are. They're pleased that government is now going to fund, is going to do that as part of the criminal record check and that those checks are going to be funded by the provincial government.

One of the things that I'm concerned about…. It seems to be a pattern with regard to Bill 11 and Bills 15 and 12, which we're going to be dealing with later today — Bill 15 being the Justice Reform and Transparency Act and Bill 12 being the Community Safety Act. In many cases — in fact, I think in all three of those cases — promises are being made, plans are being put into place which involve costs. They involve costs to government.

It is very much a concern to me that we are having future promises made which do not have budgets associated with them. When we get to the committee stage of Bill 11 and Bill 15 and Bill 12 — if we get there — I am certainly going to be asking about what the expected
[ Page 13404 ]
costs are.

I've asked in briefings whether or not, in the costs associated with Bill 11 and the other bills, there's anything in the budget for it. And there's nothing in the budget. Promises are being made. In fact, in the case of these bills, commitments are being made by the taxpayers of British Columbia, because we're going to have to pay for it. If it's in a bill, it has to be done.

When you actually have a law, when you have a statute that says this is what's going to happen, when in fact it hasn't been paid for, it hasn't been budgeted for…. What we have, when we have claims of a balanced budget, is we're going to have some examples here of things that have not been budgeted. I've asked. They're not being paid for. We supposedly have a balanced budget. Well, here are going to be several examples of things that are being promised by this government now without having any budget to cover it.

It's a real concern that this is part of a pattern. I believe the promise that was made…. It was going to be, starting in November, that these criminal record checks were going to be free — nothing in the budget for it, but they are going to be free starting in November — for the volunteers and the volunteer organizations, which are required to and should do criminal record checks in British Columbia.

This is a good thing, but it is unfortunate in a time when we have claims of a balanced budget, which we all know is very suspect, that things like this…. This is not probably a huge item in terms of costs. But it is my understanding — I've been told by ministry staff — that it is not covered in the budget. So I'm not sure where the money is going to come from.

[1500]

On the spirit of the bill, I'm certainly supportive. I'm pleased that this is going to provide a further check and further access. You know, we have so many small non-profits and large non-profits. But particularly the smaller organizations were finding the costs of the required criminal record checks, which they did not disagree with, in some cases to be oppressive. So not only is it nice to hear that the cost is going to be covered now but that, in addition, there is going to be more efficiency.

As the minister stated in her statement, it will allow for more efficiency in that a person will be able to get a criminal record check at one place, and if this organization has signed on to being part of the system that shares the information, the record checks can be shared with other non-profit organizations, which means that people are not going to have to go and regularly get and seek criminal record checks. It can be centrally located.

In addition, there is going to be a risk assessment. There's going to be an adjudication process which provides expert, consistent risk assessment when a check identifies a criminal record containing relevant offences. I think it does make sense and is a good piece of legislation in that regard.

I think it would have been better if the government…. It seems like there's quite a rush to get out some bills that this government can go to the hustings with. I would say that's why this flurry of bills and promises and plans is coming out right now, many of which — almost all of which — are not funded in any way.

In its haste, I think it would have been better if the government had contacted AVRBC. They didn't, unless they talked to somebody other than the leadership. Both AVRBC and Volunteer B.C. had not been contacted, had not been told that there was going to be a change — I don't know if it had been planned or not before the meeting happened — to include this very important information that the federal databases were going to be checked and that that information was going to be included.

When we go to committee stage, I hope that the minister will be ready to provide an estimate of how much it is going to cost taxpayers and can tell me if it's not, you know…. I've been briefed that there is no money in the budget for it, but I may get information that's contrary to that from the minister when we go to the committee stage.

Overall, we're sorry that AVRBC and Volunteer B.C. were put in a bit of a…. They were surprised, not particularly happy. But I think the result of this in a way has actually been good for AVRBC, Volunteer B.C. and volunteers all around the province because it may have forced or moved forward a commitment that the extra information that has not previously been provided in the provincial criminal record checks will be provided.

Of course, that was information that was of such concern to the major volunteer organizations around the province that they made the choice that they would pay for their own criminal record checks. As I said earlier, it is pretty costly to volunteer-reliant organizations, non-profit organizations in this province.

When you think about it, it's things like hospitals and immigrant-serving organizations, children-serving organizations — every type of volunteer organization that you can imagine around the province. You can imagine that there have been, up till now, hundreds of thousands of dollars that individuals and volunteer organizations have had to spend because they have felt that the provincial record check was not sufficient to protect the vulnerable children or adults that they were serving. So I'm glad to see that that's going to be covered.

I'm looking forward to finding out from the province how much it's going to cost taxpayers to do this and getting a confirmation of whether it is or isn't included in the budget. With that, Madam Speaker, I'm going to take my seat.

[1505]

C. Trevena: I'm happy to stand and support this bill. I think that we all have contacts with the non-profit organ-
[ Page 13405 ]
izations in our communities who have faced problems in trying to ensure that there are criminal record checks — the cost of this and access to it. I know that I've actually written letters to the Solicitor General, the Minister of Justice, on this when we have problems about it, so it's good to see that there is something moving forward.

I think the fact that these are going to be free for those people working with children and vulnerable adults is very important — as long as, obviously, the organizations opt in to this program. The fact that there is going to be the ability to share the information — I think it really is going to be a useful piece of legislation. It is going to help those volunteer organizations in the community which we really so much depend on.

The bill proposes that changes are going to allow volunteers working with children or vulnerable adults to have these free checks, provided that the non-profit sector organization worked for has opted in to new provincial program. I'm sure we're all going to be dealing with this in our constituency offices, about the opting into the program and how that works. Hopefully, our constituency assistants will all be briefed on how this is all going to work before we start getting the phone calls into our offices.

Volunteers and publicly funded employees covered by the act will be able to have record checks shared with other non-profit organizations. Again, I think this is very useful in that it is going to allow for a greater flexibility for the non-profit sector.

There is an increasing reliance on the non-profit sector in all our communities. Whether that's good or bad, I think, is a philosophical discussion that we can have separately, but the reality is that we do need to have volunteers who are willing to work in our communities, volunteers who are working with children and vulnerable adults. You do want to ensure that they are going to be okay — basically, safe — to work with these people. I think it's very important that we are trying to streamline that and trying to make it available and accessible.

B.C. was the only province to require criminal record checks for employees working with vulnerable adults two years ago. There have been thousands and thousands of checks on this. So again, I think that as we move forward, it will make the situation much more streamlined.

Unlike with the bill that I was speaking on earlier today, the result of this is because there have been consultations. My colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake did talk about some gaps in consultations. It seems that has been resolved, and it seems that most people are on board with this, which, as I say, is very comforting.

One of the things that I think is also useful is that there is going to be an adjudicating process so that if there is something that comes up on the screen, something that is flagged, it's not immediately saying: "That's it. You're out." There is going to be the opportunity to have some adjudication. There will be a criminal records review program, an adjudication process which is supposed to provide expert, consistent risk assessment when a check identifies a criminal record containing relevant offences.

However, non-profits that opt out can fund their own screening approaches. I think it's very important that we have that adjudication process, that extra screening there. It's a matter of fairness, I believe, and that really is very important in legislation such as this — that there is the fairness and the accountability.

[1510]

The minister, when she tabled this, in speaking to the media said she hopes to have it up and running by the end of November. Again, I have to echo the comments from my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake. At present it doesn't seem to be…. While this is a good framework and will really encourage and assist those organizations in our communities that rely on volunteers, I think that with no budget line specifically for this, there is a red flag.

To be honest, one does start to get rather cynical at this stage in the legislative session, so close to an election. How much of this is good window dressing ahead of the election, and how much is it real policy that will help our non-profit sectors with a matching budget line?

As I say, from what we understand, there hasn't been a budget line for this. We're already facing a deficit budget. This is obviously going to cost more because it's going to provide free checks for the non-profit sector. So if we can get that clarified and find out where the money is coming from…. I think that would be our one great concern.

I know that my colleague from Burnaby–Deer Lake will be following up with that, but I know that the non-profit sector and volunteers will be very happy to see this piece of legislation.

With that, I'll take my seat.

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

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly do appreciate the member's comments on what is an important piece of legislation. One of the comments I'd make, and I look forward to the chance to discuss this more in committee…. I would hardly suggest that anyone would suggest that, as a government, we actually rushed this bill.

This has been a conversation that we've had for a very long time. In fact, I think a promise was made to do this.

Of course, we're concerned if there are organizations that feel they haven't been properly consulted. But I can assure you that the response to the decision that we made to move forward with an opportunity for volunteers to, first of all, receive their criminal record review checks without cost has been fantastic. Secondly, perhaps the more troublesome issue for many people has been the need to have more than one criminal record review done.

Certainly, from our perspective it is fantastic news. I am completely humbled when I look at the work that vol-
[ Page 13406 ]
unteers do in British Columbia. One of the purposes of this bill is to ensure that there are not barriers or impediments, while at the same time being sure that we're keeping our children and vulnerable adults as safe as possible.

I can assure the members opposite — and I look forward to committee stage — that the review check that is being offered certainly will include the federal pardoned sex offender database. That is referred to as the vulnerable sector check.

That was made clear to AVRBC when our ministry staff did call them. To suggest that we needed to be forced to consider that is inaccurate. In fact, it was perhaps a matter of communication that could have been done much better. But we recognize how important that is.

This is an important piece of legislation. I do appreciate the input provided by the members opposite.

With that, Madam Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 11.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 11, Criminal Records Review Amendment Act, 2013, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading of Bill 15, intituled Justice Reform and Transparency Act.

BILL 15 — JUSTICE REFORM AND
TRANSPARENCY ACT

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 15, Justice Reform and Transparency Act, be read a second time now.

This new legislation is a foundational piece to achieve our vision of a timely, transparent and balanced justice system. We know that a well-functioning and accessible justice system is an essential component of all democratic societies. Certainly, despite how challenging it might be, it is the responsibility of those who lead and manage the justice system to make changes that focus on modernizing it and meeting the needs of the people who use it.

It is imperative that British Columbians have confidence that our justice system works to keep families and communities safe and, most importantly, that it is timely, that it ensures accessibility and fairness and that it is managed within available public resources.

This legislation actually aligns with and enhances the recommendations from Geoffrey Cowper's review of the justice system.

[1515]

We asked Geoffrey Cowper to do a review and come back to us and bring us a series of recommendations. At the time, there were many people who were skeptical and cynical and simply pointed out: "It's another report. It's going to sit on the shelf and gather dust." I can assure you that the work that Mr. Cowper did for us has done anything but gather dust.

This legislation actually establishes the governance framework for a well-functioning, transparent justice system that is strengthened by greater collaboration amongst all the participants. It will also bring amendments to the Provincial Court Act and the Supreme Court Act to support court reforms.

The legislation will foster collaborative leadership by the province's justice functions in statute by creating a new justice and public safety council. That was a direct recommendation in the Cowper report.

The council will set the strategic direction and vision for our justice system and will guide the way to an open, transparent and accountable leadership. To begin with, the council will be made up of senior leadership in government, although in the longer term the act does allow the Minister of Justice to appoint others to that council.

The council will be required to develop a strategic vision and an annual strategic plan for the justice system. The plan will develop clear performance goals that will be publicly reportable. The council will be required to report on progress through an annual report within six months after the end of a fiscal year for which that report is prepared. This annual report will also be made public.

The council will collect and share information and work to promote cooperation and collaboration across the justice sector. Input from all areas of the sector will be important for reform to actually take place. The act allows the minister to establish advisory boards as needed to provide expertise and advice to support the council's work.

One of the things we want to do is encourage innovation and facilitate cross-sector collaboration. The act requires the minister to convene a justice summit, and the summit will be held at least once a year. The summit will be a forum for open discussion and to discuss how the system is working and how it continues. Could it continue to improve?

It was very interesting to note that recently one of the most recent appointees to the Supreme Court of Canada actually spoke about the need for a national justice summit. It was fantastic for us to see that kind of validation in the work that we're doing here in British Columbia — knowing that there is a call for a national justice summit when, in fact, this legislation will bring to statute in our province the need to have a provincial annual justice summit.

As we all know, the judiciary plays an important and critical role in B.C.'s justice system. The act provides the framework for government to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the B.C. Court of Appeal, the
[ Page 13407 ]
Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Provincial Court on matters relating to the administration of the courts.

A memorandum of understanding will identify roles and responsibilities, include provisions governing how the parties will share information, promote and measure effective court administration, and report to the public.

I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to the chief justices and chief judge in the province. It has been an interesting discussion. We have had, I think, a very cordial and constructive working relationship, recognizing, and always being very careful to recognize, the constitutional independence the judiciary has in our province, in our system. I do want to express my gratitude for the constructive advice and discussion that we have held. It's been very helpful as we've looked at the issue of justice reform.

We know that not only is the justice system about the judicial side; it is also about the police side. In this act we look at the Police Act. This bill will amend the Police Act to provide the director of police services the authority to set standards respecting the collection, disclosure and analysis of information regarding the administration and management of policing.

The information collected will be needed by the justice and public safety council to carry out its mandate and prepare its annual plan. This change does not relate to individual cases but aggregate descriptive data.

[1520]

One of the things we know is that you can't improve something until you can actually measure it. We are working — through this bill and through other reform initiatives, including our recent white paper — to look at how we can build in the measurements necessary to give British Columbians confidence, first of all, about the outcomes in our justice system but also to look at the issue of cost. The member opposite — the public safety critic, actually — in her comments on the previous bill talked about cost.

In fact, when we look at justice funding in British Columbia, the budget for this ministry went up this year. British Columbians today invest well over $1 billion in the justice system — $1 billion. Before we start looking at how we're going to add more money to the system, it's my view, and certainly that of our government, that we actually need to make sure the money we're investing on behalf of taxpayers is working as effectively as it can.

Yes, as we move forward there may well be need for new investment in the justice system. But first we're going to contemplate and tackle the issue of reform.

I'm very pleased to say that on the national stage, British Columbia is a leader in this initiative. In fact, when I meet with my colleagues from across the country — federal, provincial and territorial — they look to British Columbia because of the work we've done and, in particular, because of the work that Geoffrey Cowper has done. We've spoken together across the country on this topic.

The last area of the bill proposes amendments to the Provincial Court Act and the Supreme Court Act to help the chief judge and the chief justice better manage the administration of the courts. Amendments will clarify and enhance the administrative roles and powers of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court.

We will also be clarifying and setting the term of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court in statute. The term will be set at seven years. While appointments have typically been for five years, this change will give the chief judges appointed in the future enough time to develop and implement longer-term planning and administration.

Further amendments will allow for a realignment of the regional organization structure to support the chief judge's ability to exercise more effective and efficient administration.

Another recommendation made by Geoffrey Cowper, through the work that he did, was to provide for a specified, stable judicial complement for the Provincial Court. Amendments will provide the authority to establish the criteria for determining the judicial complement of Provincial Court judges. The government will work with the judiciary to develop these criteria. That's an important point, because constantly we hear the cry for additional judges in our province.

Recently, as Madam Speaker would know, we appointed nine new judges, bringing the total to 32 over the last number of years. But we need to actually be able to assess when one might need a new judge, not simply by looking at: "Well, this is the highest number we've ever had, and we think that's the number we need." There needs to be an ability to look at what is essential in determining the judicial complement. I look forward very much to continuing to work with the judiciary as we move forward with this kind of thinking.

Finally, there are other amendments that allow the Supreme Court to reassign judges to areas where they are needed. This bill is an important piece of legislation. It is about tackling the issues that were referred to in Geoffrey Cowper's work. He talked about a culture of delay in the system. He talked about the need for accessibility, for transparency, the ability to measure the effectiveness of the system.

We know this — that it is a fundamental component of our democratic system to ensure that our courts are timely and accessible. Nothing troubles me more than when I look at the circumstances where a family or an individual has been a victim of some form of crime. Yet months and sometimes, tragically, years later they continue to wait for some form of resolution or consequence.

We can do better than that in British Columbia. I am very pleased today to introduce a piece of legislation that does reflect the initial steps in a reform agenda that will
[ Page 13408 ]
help us create a timely, transparent and balanced justice system — the system that British Columbians deserve.

With those remarks, I'd be happy to entertain comments by other Members of the Legislative Assembly.

[1525]

K. Corrigan: I am pleased to rise on Bill 15, Justice Reform and Transparency Act. There are many things in this bill that are good things. I think some of the provisions related to transparency in the court, complements of judges, and so on, are good additions to our justice system. But you will forgive me and other people in this province for being a little bit cynical about the timing of the flood of suggestions and plans that the government is making about reform of the court system without any money attached to it.

After all, this government has had the ability to reform the justice system for 12 years. Where we are at the moment, where we actually are after 12 years of Liberal government, is a court system which is in chaos.

Just today we had another example, two police officers who had been accused of assaulting a Surrey senior having the charges stayed because their case had been delayed for 22 months. It was a year ago that the Premier was telling us that we were still seeing increases in the number of cases delayed and stayed and admitting that this tells us that systemic changes are needed.

The timing is quite breathtaking. We've had 12 years of neglect, years of chaos, dozens of cases — many, many times very serious cases — where criminals have been let off scot-free because the court system is so overloaded and in such disarray that their cases have not come to court for months and months and even years.

So it is fine that we have a plan here, but we have a plan which seems to be timed perfectly for just before an election, where we have grandiose plans on all sorts of fronts. I do credit government for coming up with some plans, but no money — no money whatsoever — is attached to most of these plans. The budget this year has cuts.

This is where the rubber hits the road. The plans are great, and we've spent, now, years — literally months and months — coming up with plans. But what we have, and this is what matters, is cuts to justice services for this year. We have cuts to prosecution services. We have cuts to court services, cuts to legal services, cuts to victim services and cuts to crime prevention.

So the government can plan all it wants and talk about the wonderful things that are going to happen, but in the budget that they set, that this government set, there is no money, it appears, for almost anything that they are planning or talking about doing.

I think that the people of British Columbia have a right to be a little bit cynical about this last-minute presentation of a flurry of bills, a flurry of ideas, a flurry of white papers that this government has no plans to spend any money on.

On the other hand, going to the content of what's in the bills, there are some things that are good, and we will be supporting them. There's some work that's been done that's good. The problem is: how can any government follow through on these things at a time, particularly, when this government has claimed that it's got a balanced budget? Well, I'll be interested in adding up the things that are not in this budget that this government obviously wants to run on and says it's going to do. But it has not actually put any money into the budget for it.

This is the Justice Reform and Transparency Act. As I said, there are some things that are good in this bill that we'll be supporting. But it does seem, as I said earlier…. The minister said that it was not rushed, but if not rushed, then certainly the timing is interesting.

[1530]

As Rob Gordon, the director of the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, said: "It really is a pity that government doesn't take its role as a producer of sound social policy more seriously, instead of trotting stuff out strategically at important times for government, obviously weighted with an eye to being re-elected." That was Rob Gordon in the Times Colonist on February 27, 2013.

The B.C. branch of the bar association, on February 19, was scathingly critical of the province's failure to address the "critical need for increased financial support for legal aid and the justice system as a whole" in this year's budget. Yes, there is some money for policing and corrections. I acknowledge that. But in terms of the court system, there is no assistance — in fact, cuts.

What that means is that apart from any plans — the idea of having reporting and of having the new justice summit and so on — the reality in this province is that we have women who are finding they're unable to access court in important cases, like in cases where they may lose their children.

[D. Black in the chair.]

So many people that are going to court are self-represented, and that in itself is creating chaos in the justice system. But they're there because they have no way of going there with representation because there is no legal aid for them. So we have self-represented litigants all over the place, which creates further chaos in the system. We have cases like the one that happened again today, one of many, where criminals are getting off because there is such a delay and such chaos in the justice system.

Are the ideas of having some changes that are represented here — the justice and public safety council and the justice summit — good? Yes. But I'm waiting to hear. I don't believe there's anything in the budget for that.

Plans. There are plans, but there's no money attached to it. Really, if there's no money attached to it, what is the point of changing the justice system? We're still going to
[ Page 13409 ]
have the same problems.

As I said, I think the timing is quite suspect. I note that in terms of the comment that the Justice Minister made that this was not rushed…. Well, I think it's interesting that the dinner and the summit that are going to be happening are happening on March 15 and March 16.

Now, the cynical of us would wonder about the timing a couple months before an election. But there's absolutely no notice, no notice whatsoever. We heard about it and got invited to it eight days before it's happening. To me, it does say something about the timing in the fact that this was all being kept very hush-hush as part of a plan by the government to get re-elected, to try to get some sympathy, get some support, because of a package of justice which I suspect will be very prominent in their re-election campaign.

Unfortunately, it's a lot of talk, a lot of ideas and a lot of plans, but no money and no money intended to go into the various provisions of Bill 15 and some of the other bills.

With that, we will be asking lots more questions about this and how it works. I believe that there are some good things in this bill. We'll be supporting this bill, I expect. But again, it's a justice system that is sadly lacking, that is not accessible, that is in a fair amount of disarray and no money to fix it.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to make a few comments today about Bill 15, the Justice Reform and Transparency Act. I want to say that I will be supporting this legislation. I commend the minister for bringing it forward. I did have the privilege of having Geoffrey Cowper in my community. He did come out to a meeting that I put together, together with all the stakeholders in Abbotsford.

[1535]

What we did was had Geoffrey Cowper out. We had a closed meeting. I tried to have good representation from all of the stakeholders, and we had a very productive and frank discussion about the issues in the justice system.

We did have defence lawyers as part of the stakeholder group there. Of course, we had good representation from the Abbotsford police. We had Ross McLeod, the head of the Crown counsel in Abbotsford. We had all of the parts of the system. Restorative justice was represented there. We had sheriffs and probation officers represented there. So I was very pleased. We didn't invite the media to that so that we could have very frank discussion.

It was interesting to have defence lawyers comment on how the system could be improved and in fact, in some cases, put defence lawyers out of business. They really were frank about some of the frustrations with the system and how it actually added cost to the system and made it less effective for everyone.

I was very pleased, also, by the comments that Geoffrey Cowper made about the way the justice system was functioning, based on all of the comments and feedback he got in our community. Really, I do believe that Abbotsford is something of a model of collaborative leadership in the system. It was very clear to me that the various players were on good speaking terms, were working together collaboratively to make the overall system work better.

I do believe that what you have in the justice system is the tension between the independence — and, I think, the very necessary independence — of the various players, such as the police, the judiciary and Crown counsel. They do have to have their independence. It's very paramount, I believe, that that independence be respected and asserted and maintained.

At the same time, in order to make the system function better for everyone, we need this collaborative leadership that I believe this proposal attempts to put in place, and I support that.

I would just have one comment about the construction or the design of the council that the minister contemplates. I do believe that some diversity of membership will be helpful and important, that it isn't just government people or people directly in the justice system. Some diversity over time, I believe, will be a good thing.

I know that in the past we've had various committees to try and improve the justice system. I think sometimes that if they're all internal to government, all internal to the justice system, there isn't some of the fresh, innovative ideas that might be considered. So I am sure that over time that will be included.

Having the engagement of all players will be important, and I think that the effort to connect respectfully with these independent players in the system will help make that happen. As I've said, I believe it's possible to respect independence and have collaboration at the same time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I also support some of the amendments that are being proposed for the various courts. I think it's important that we listen to people in the system with the valid concerns that they are struggling with internally in the justice system, to help make it work better overall.

With that, I'm very pleased to make a few comments on behalf of my community on this bill. I look forward to further discussions and the actual implementation of the ideas in the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. S. Bond: There are some afternoons in this House when I wish, for once, we could set aside the partisan politics and cynicism about what is a legitimate attempt to reform the justice system in British Columbia. For the member opposite, the public safety critic, to suggest that we could just fix everything, when it has taken
[ Page 13410 ]
decades, decades of inaction, to get to the place we're at….

[1540]

I pointed out to the member opposite that in fact, British Columbia is viewed as a leader in justice reform. Yet the first ten minutes of the critic's comments were all about the politics.

Well, there are some things fundamental enough that it's time to set aside the partisan nature of the discussion in this House and embrace legitimate, realistic attempts to change a system that is…. The member is correct in this point. It is unacceptable for victims to wait. It is unacceptable. Any stay is unacceptable to me.

So let's be clear. Let's just look at the statistics on judicial stays in the province. To suggest that the government has been inactive…. Perhaps we should look at the recent stats, because we've actually seen a fairly dramatic decline in judicial stays. In fact, we've seen them drop from over 100 in 2012 to just over 60.

Now, are 60 acceptable? Or is one? No, they're not. But what we have in front of us is an opportunity to actually grapple with issues that have troubled the justice system for a very long time.

Backlogs don't start happening overnight. They didn't start happening under the B.C. Liberal government. They've happened for decades. Every time someone starts to look at justice reform, it's just too hard — partly because of the comments that the independent member spoke about. That's because of constitutional independence — the fact that we have independent organizations which have to learn how we can respect that independence but make change.

To suggest that there are budget cuts…. This budget saw an increase. In fact, there will be no front-line reductions. We made that essential decision.

I would just challenge the member opposite. We've laid out a plan based on thoughtful, careful analysis, working with stakeholders in an increasingly difficult environment to do that and in a sensitive way — recognizing judicial independence, recognizing the independence of the police, recognizing all of the independent organizations and groups that we need to work with.

This isn't a partisan matter. All of us want to have a justice system that's accessible, that is effective, that is efficient. But let's be clear about reform. We ask about why we're not just pouring more money into the system. Well, there are a few factors that would indicate why we should take a moment and see if the money we're investing is actually working.

The crime rate is at the lowest rate it's been at in more than three decades in British Columbia. Fewer cases are going to courtrooms in British Columbia. We continue to add resources — more sheriffs, more judges. In fact, we added money to legal aid — certainly, not to the degree that many would like to see us do, but these are tough fiscal times. This is about finding that balance between looking at the over $1 billion that we invest today and actually attempting to look at how we can change this system.

Perhaps the most upsetting comment for me personally that the member opposite made was questioning the validity of the justice summit. If the member opposite knew for one moment how difficult it has been to bring partners into the room…. And then to suggest that the timing is suspect? I celebrate the fact, and I'm hopeful that we will be able to bring those important stakeholders into the room for the first time in the history of British Columbia — in fact, looking at something that Canada is calling out for, that we are standing up for ahead of time.

Just to clarify for the record, both of the opposition critics have been invited to attend both the dinner and the summit.

With those comments, I look forward to committee stage. I also hope, as we do our work as legislators, that there are issues that are so important that we choose to set aside the politics, the skepticism and take advantage of the opportunity that we've been given because of the great work that's been done by people like Geoffrey Cowper, who laid out that plan and said: "Please, do something about this."

[1545]

That opportunity is before us. It's not about politics. It's about giving British Columbians the justice system that they deserve, and that's why the government brought this bill to this House at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Attorney want to move second reading?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, eventually. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.

I move second reading of Bill 15.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 15, Justice Reform and Transparency Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading on Bill 12, intituled the Community Safety Act.

BILL 12 — COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 12, Community Safety Act, be read a second time now.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, Attorney.
[ Page 13411 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments about this bill. I'm hopeful that members opposite, particularly the Finance critic, will find the opportunity to speak. I know his personal interest in this bill previously, and I do want to reflect that here today. I'm hopeful that he will feel led to make some comments about work I know that he has done in the past on this topic.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Ensuring that families are protected and feel safe is a very important part of putting our families first in this province. The Community Safety Act does fulfil a commitment that we made as a provincial government to bring legislation to the House to improve community safety by authorizing a provincial response to target — and, if necessary, shut down — properties where unlawful activities impact neighbours in surrounding communities.

Again, I know that much work has been done on this — for example, by the opposition Finance critic.

We have all either heard stories or witnessed properties in communities that become magnets for criminal or other threatening activities. Whether it's a crack shack or a property used to support gang or organized crime activity, the experience is the same. People living in the vicinity of these problem properties fear for their safety, often, and their loved ones. This in turn undermines the development of those vibrant, strong communities which all of us want to see, where people and their families flourish.

This legislation establishes a complaint-driven process where members of the public can submit complaints about properties in their communities that are routinely used for illegal or disturbing activities.

As we looked at this piece of legislation, we looked across the country at what else had been done. The list is based on some of the work we've done there.

When we look at the list of activities…. For example, it would include the use, sale and production of illegal drugs; prostitution; unlawful sale or purchase of liquor; sale or consumption of intoxicating substances; child sexual abuse; unlawful possession or storage of prohibited firearms or restricted weapons; and obviously, gang or organized crime activity.

Complaints would be made to a provincial authority, the director of community safety, who is authorized to launch an investigation of a property and, if that director believes that the complaint is substantiated, to take steps to have unwanted activities cease at a property. These steps include a warning letter or reaching an agreement with the owner of the property, the goal of which is to get the owner to take responsibility for what takes place on their properties.

When I looked at the outcomes in other jurisdictions, it's been a very successful regime in other provinces.

In the event that unwanted activities continue, the legislation does then authorize the director to make application to the B.C. Supreme Court for a community safety order. That order, if granted, may include one or more of the following. It may require a person to vacate a property and prohibit that person from re-entering or reoccupying the property, terminate a tenancy agreement and require the director to close a property from use and occupation for up to 90 days.

The court is to apply the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, when considering an application for a community safety order.

[1550]

To make an order, the court must be satisfied that a property is habitually being used for specific activities, as defined in the legislation, and that the activities in question adversely affect the community or neighbourhood in which the property is located.

It is very important to strike the right balance between sanctions imposed by a community safety order and the rights of an affected individual. Any person, owner or occupant who is affected by a community safety order has a right to apply to vary or appeal the order.

The bill also creates offences and sets out penalties for non-compliance. For example, a person who fails to comply with the conditions set out in a community safety order, such as closure of a property, could be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 and, ultimately, imprisonment for six months, or both.

The Community Safety Act follows the model of Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods, where it's called SCAN legislation, which has been enacted in six other Canadian jurisdictions: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the Yukon, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. These other jurisdictions have experienced significant success having unlawful and disruptive activities stop at properties without having to seek court orders.

In the decades since SCAN legislation was first introduced in Canada, just over 50 community safety orders have been made by the courts across all six jurisdictions. That's an important point to note, particularly considering the last bill we were discussing, which is: how do we make sure that our courts aren't being clogged up unnecessarily?

If we think about that for a moment, it's been a decade across six jurisdictions, and if you look at it totally, there have only been 50 community safety orders issued. Yet illegal and unlawful activities have ceased at countless properties through means such as landlord-assisted evictions or agreements with owners or occupants to stop the activities.

The plan is to deal with this through as many other mechanisms as possible before ultimately, if necessary, ending up with a judicial process. We have consulted with a broad range of stakeholders, including
[ Page 13412 ]
the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the Rental Owners and Managers Society, the B.C. Apartment Owners and Managers Association and the Union of B.C. Municipalities. All of these organizations have expressed support for the approach taken in this bill.

In closing, the Community Safety Act continues our government's work to look at innovative civil legal approaches to help make British Columbia communities safer and more secure. In this bill it's important to note that we've had the benefit of learning from the experiences of other jurisdictions. We have taken time to make sure that the bill, after looking at other jurisdictions, is the right fit for British Columbia.

With those opening comments, I very much look forward to comments of other members.

K. Corrigan: I'm going to have to be very brief in my comments, but I'm looking forward, as well, to the comments from my colleague for Surrey-Whalley, who has a particular interest in this bill. We will be supporting this bill, although we do have some concerns about it, which we will more fully explore in the committee stage.

I do have to say that Bill 12, the Community Safety Act, is a bit of a tip of the hat to the member for Surrey-Whalley, because it is very, very similar to a bill that was introduced four years ago by that member, in 2009, a wonderful bill that was called the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, as opposed to the present bill, which is called the Community Safety Act — very similar.

What this act does is set up a scheme wherein somebody who has concerns about activity in their neighbourhood, a house that would be seen as…. We call them crack houses, drug-trafficking houses — prostitution, child abuse — houses that habitually are being used for criminal purposes, gang activity. If they see that in their neighbourhood and it's one that the police have not been able to deal with for whatever reason, people can make a complaint to this new unit.

When the complaint is made, then the director has the ability to investigate those complaints, to obtain evidence, to see whether or not the prescribed activities are happening regularly and are adversely affecting the neighbourhood.

[1555]

I think this is an important and positive part of the act. Instead of going directly to punitive action, the director has the ability and, in fact, will first try, if it's a rental property, to work with the property owner and the occupants to provide warnings and to try in some way to resolve the problems and have the problems addressed at that point.

But if they're not, then the director has the ability to go to a community safety court and seek from the Supreme Court more punitive types of ways to solve the problems that are happening. That would be having a community safety order that could go as far as having the property vacated for up to 90 days or a tenancy agreement being terminated and so on. There is also built into it the ability of those that are affected to vary or appeal the community safety order.

Overall, I know that in my community there are many residents that are very concerned about houses that just seem to have one problem after the other. It's very difficult, I know, for municipalities, from the municipal perspective, to address those problems. It's that the police can't get the conviction or don't have enough evidence, but everybody knows that they are problem houses.

I want to say, though, that it's unfortunate that the bill of the member for Surrey-Whalley was not supported four years ago. We could have had four years where communities could have had the ability to do exactly what is being planned in this bill, would have had the ability for four years to get rid of those problem crack houses and so on. Unfortunately, this legislation did not get passed in the House. I've got to say it is, as I said earlier, a bit of a kudos to the member for Surrey-Whalley.

As the member said in 2009: "It's time" — as it was back in 2009 — "for B.C. to catch up with other provinces and bring in strong measures to target criminal organizations and gang-related activities operating in residential streets." That's what the member said after introducing the Safer Communities and Neighbourhood Act. So I'm very pleased.

They say plagiarism is a form of flattery. I'm not saying this is plagiarism. I'm not suggesting that at all, but it is saying…. I'm saying the fact that the government has decided to move forward with this legislation is a positive thing which recognizes how positive the bill was that the member introduced four years ago.

I did say, though, that there are some concerns. One of the concerns is, yet again, despite what the minister says, that I continue to be skeptical about the fact that there are many plans that are not being costed. This is another one. This will cost some money. I don't know how much it is, but I do know that it's not in the budget.

What we have is a government that is, at the end of its mandate, making what will turn out to be financial commitments for the next sitting of the Legislature. It's passing legislation which does not have any money attached to it in the budget, is not costed, does not have money, and yet is committing all of us…. Whoever is in government, it's committing that government to pay for it without there being anything in the budget for it.

I think that's very unfortunate, and I guess we'll have to find out how much it's going to cost. That's one concern, and it's a serious concern, because I'm not sure how much that is going to be.

The other concerns that I and other members have on this side of the House are concerns about civil liberties. I am looking forward to committee stage, where we can ask questions about what the government has done in terms of assessing the constitutional validity of this
[ Page 13413 ]
piece of legislation.

I certainly know that the B.C. Civil Liberties Association has expressed concern and says concerns that it's had in the past about similar legislation in other jurisdictions apply to this piece of legislation — worried about whether or not this will stand up to a constitutional challenge. So I look forward to exploring that more in the committee stage.

[1600]

As well, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, Elizabeth Denham, has sent a letter to the minister expressing concern about provision 8(1) of the act, which overrides the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy provisions with respect to the process. I do have concerns about that, and we'll explore those further. But with that, some concerns overall, we do support the legislation, and we'll talk more about our concerns in the committee stage. With that, I'm going to go catch a plane.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister and the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for their recognition of the small part that I played in bringing this forward. I think, though, the real recognition is due to a constituent of mine named Gerry Morden, who came to my office and had a very well-researched brief and explained what was going on in other provinces. He explained the legislation.

We talked about some of the problems that had occurred in his neighbourhood and, indeed, at a house next door to him where, despite complaints to the municipality and the health authorities, he was not able to really get satisfaction in terms of the trouble that was being generated by this problem resident.

He convinced me that this was a good idea, so back a few years ago I brought it forward. I'm pleased. I've already spoken to him, and he's very pleased that the government has followed up on the idea that he first explained to me.

I do want to make a few further comments, though, about the legislative scheme that's here. It's important, I think, to note that there is really a legislative gap between the municipal and provincial Health Act powers to investigate problem residences. Try as they might, the tools available to municipalities under the Local Government Act are sometimes limited.

On the other side, police powers are sometimes not effective in dealing with what is the real problem, the unaccountable actions. This doesn't apply to every landlord, obviously, but the typical problem property has an absentee landlord who either negligently fails to supervise what goes on, on the property or sometimes, I think, deliberately.

Perhaps that turning the blind eye might be facilitated by cash payments that are well above market so that criminal activity can be pursued on the property but without any direct connection to the landlord and the extra cash revenue that is being obtained from the property.

These are real situations. Every person has the right, I think, to live in a neighbourhood that's safe and peaceful and reflects the kind of surroundings that we would all wish for. Ordinarily, in legal proceedings, one might as an individual citizen, if a problem property was there, go to civil court and seek a remedy under the law of nuisance. But for most people, understandably, that's a prohibitive cost and something that most people are not able to do. So they turn to the authorities, either the police or the city or municipality, for remedies.

On some occasions they're able to deliver that, but often they're not. This is designed to fill that legal gap with a different set of legal tools. When those complaints are made, there's a power to investigate. As the minister has rightly pointed out, the experience in other provinces is that for the most part, the fact that there is the possibility of resorting to court action at some point is usually sufficient to gain compliance from an absentee landlord, and it works quite well.

I'm sure it will be welcomed by municipalities. That was certainly the reaction I got back several years ago when I introduced my version of this idea. It will be welcomed by the police. In some cases police will, because they're obliged to record and make statistics on a number of calls…. Some residences can have tens, even dozens, even hundreds of calls to a specific residence involving complaints by the neighbours about alleged criminal activity.

[1605]

The standard to get a search warrant for, say, a residence where drugs are being sold is very, very high. It requires many hours of surveillance evidence and affidavits, and given police resources, that's not always possible. Sometimes these situations fester in neighbourhoods and make residents and their lives in that neighbourhood very, very miserable. So this will, I think, be effective if it's used properly.

The only difference in emphasis in the bill that I brought forward would be a concern that…. There's an emphasis here on speaking to, reminding and using legal instruments to make landlords aware of their duties.

Sometimes caught in this process are tenants who may be relatives or other unrelated individuals who reside at the premises and don't have the same kind of access to other accommodation that they might otherwise wish for.

What I had suggested in the bill was that the director — I called it the director for safer communities — be obliged to consider other alternatives to eviction in the sense that if, in the effort to deal with the problem, the residence was to be closed, there be a separate obligation on the part of the director to consider what the consequences of eviction might be and to assist those who would be evicted to be accommodated elsewhere — the tenants in some cases where it was appropriate, but not every case, if they're the cause of some of this, but sometimes fam-
[ Page 13414 ]
ilies, sometimes children.

I think that it's a slightly different emphasis. I agree with the legal tools in terms of bringing the landlord to account, but I think it's important in these kinds of situations to take into account the unintended consequence that it may have in rendering people who are typically on the low end of the economic scale homeless and otherwise left to fend for themselves.

Perhaps that's something that we, doubtlessly, will be able to discuss, should this matter get to committee. I'm not sure, in the days remaining, whether it will, but that would be the one suggestion that I have in terms of a slightly different emphasis in part of the bill. But broadly speaking, this will provide a useful addition to the toolkit of authorities.

I think it will be welcomed by neighbours who experience the kind of disruptive waves of activity that so far, in some cases, authorities are really powerless to stop. In particular, gang activity which may be directed to or taking place in residential neighbourhoods, I think, would be targeted by this this kind of bill and, again, give the authorities a broader range of legal alternatives to deal with it.

I'm pleased that this bill is coming forward. On behalf of my constituent Gerry Morden of Surrey-Whalley and the Whalley area residents association, I want to thank the minister for bringing this forward, and I look forward to further detailed debate at the next stage of the hearing of the bill.

V. Huntington: I am surprised to hear the welcoming comments that the official opposition has for this bill. I am very concerned with elements of the bill and hope to review these carefully in committee. I do look forward to that stage of the bill.

The minister comments that the bill itself has gone through extensive consultation with various organizations, but I can tell her that my municipality knows nothing about it and my police chief knows nothing about it — both of whom are extremely involved, through their bylaw enforcement activities, in incidents exactly of the nature this bill is attempting to resolve.

My primary concern with the bill is that of the civil liberties that we are used to enjoying in this country and the public's understanding of the achievements of common law and how common law protects the individual.

[1610]

We have all been affected by incidents that this bill is attempting to correct. In the desire to correct these harassments of neighbourhoods that we all have seen happening and that some municipalities are not able to deal with, we are, in fact, reviewing the application of what we have all understood as the law.

When we were dealing with the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, the first one, I was uncomfortable when I supported it because of primarily these same reasons. There was something about it that was an attempt to change the common understanding that the public have of how we deal with the law and with people's relationships to the law.

In the case of this bill, we're looking at creating a provincial arm that is dealing in an administrative capacity with issues that we would normally think of as belonging to our municipalities or to our police departments. We're creating the role of a director who is not compellable in court unless it's a criminal matter. I'm looking forward to hearing when a grow-op, for instance, becomes a criminal matter in the hands of the director. He's not compelled to give evidence or to give reasons to a court.

The court is compelled to look at the balance of probabilities, not the evidence, on the order it is giving. These are very significant changes to our understanding, especially when that community order can terminate a lease, evict an occupant — do things that we normally understand are part and parcel of our right and our civil liberty to home and to the protections our home offers.

I suppose some of the questions that I'll be asking are: why haven't these powers been given to the municipalities and their bylaw enforcement operations?

The municipalities would hunger for the opportunities in this act, which this act gives to a brand-new unit — a unit that is, to quote the minister, "authorizing the provincial response to target and shut down unlawful activities in a neighbourhood." I can tell you, and I'm sure the member for Delta North can tell you, the number of times we've had to deal with situations as members of a council that fall directly into the areas that this act, as the Finance critic for the opposition says, is trying to plug holes in.

Could we not, for instance, look at giving the municipalities the power and say to do these things with their own police forces and with their own bylaw enforcement officers that the minister is attempting to create an entire new unit in the province to do?

I think it would be more efficient. It would be giving municipalities powers that they already are very, very skilled at enforcing. It would be much cheaper for the public purse if you were just to provide the municipalities and the local police forces with the opportunity to actually engage in bringing back and restoring the peaceful enjoyment of a neighbourhood to the residents.

I'm looking forward to the committee stage. I recognize this bill is attempting to solve a significant problem that we have all experienced in our communities. However, it's how we solve that problem and whether we're doing it with truly the best interests of the public at large in mind.

I look forward to committee stage. Hopefully, it will convince me that this bill is the best way to go. At the moment I'm tempted to feel that it's another incursion into civil liberties of the public that will be constitutionally challenged, and at the moment I feel that its validity
[ Page 13415 ]
is somewhat questionable.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to take my place just for a few moments to talk a little bit about Bill 12, the Community Safety Act. Essentially, what Bill 12 will do is create a director of community safety, and it creates a vehicle to be able to deal with concerns in communities and neighbourhoods about properties where there are activities going on — criminal activities, other activities — that are problematic for the community, for the neighbours, for the people who live in those areas. It provides some alternatives to be able to deal with those issues.

[1615]

As has been pointed out before by other members here and by the minister, this piece of legislation, Bill 12, the Community Safety Act, picks up on a private member's bill that was introduced by the member for Surrey-Whalley in 2009, the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act, which would have accomplished many of the same objectives as Bill 12 is intended to accomplish here.

Generally, I know — and I think about my own constituency in Vancouver-Hastings — there is no doubt that we have challenges. We have properties there and have residences that are very problematic. I hear from people who come to my office who are concerned about activities they believe are going on in houses in their neighbourhoods, on their block. They inquire to the police. Sometimes the police have an ability to deal with those things, and it seems that sometimes the police don't have the ability to deal with those matters.

I'm generally supportive of the piece of legislation. I think that community safety, neighbourhood safety — creating opportunities for people to be able to feel secure about their own homes and the block they live on when some of this kind of activity is going on — is important. I think this does provide a vehicle and a tool to be able to get at that without necessarily having to go through some of the longer processes that are encompassed in the courts.

I heard the member for Delta South, and other members have made some references to questions around civil liberties. I'm sure that the minister gets this. There are civil liberties questions to be addressed here. I think those are legitimate questions. They need answers, and they need to be explored.

I'm sure that in committee stage there'll be the opportunity to explore some of those matters with the minister and her staff and, hopefully, to get a better understanding of how, in fact, those questions will be dealt with to protect those issues around civil liberties. I'm sure that we all want to be cognizant of that.

The other concerns that have been raised around this piece of legislation, most specifically, have been those raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Denham. Ms. Denham has raised concerns about areas in this legislation that in fact provide a bit of an override for the act, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

I think anytime the Information and Privacy Commissioner raises questions about why decisions are being made to override the legislation that really kind of comes under her purview and looks for an explanation about why those decisions are being made…. Particularly when she raises a concern that she believes the scope of the act is sufficient to deal with these matters and suggests that she recommends removing the unnecessary override contained in section 8 of the Community Safety Act, I do think that that's an important consideration.

Whenever the Information and Privacy Commissioner raises those issues, I think it's very important that we pay attention to those flags and either get explanations that satisfy her, in this instance, or give serious consideration to an amendment of the legislation that's before us, Bill 12, to deal with the matters that Ms. Denham has spoken about.

The other point, I guess the last point I'd make — and this point was made by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, the critic, and I think it's an important point; I'm sure the minister will be more than happy to respond to this in committee stage — is to get a better sense of what the expectation is around the costs of the implementation of this piece of legislation, of Bill 12. What's it going to cost us?

[1620]

How's it going to be paid for? And where does the money come from — particularly when you consider the limitations that we saw in the most recent budget in a whole array of areas but, most specifically, as it relates to the potential envelopes of funding that might pay for an office such as this. But again, that will be something for us to deal with more specifically when we get to committee stage.

Again, I think there are some significant questions to be dealt with here. I'm hopeful that those questions will all get satisfactory answers and, if there's a need for amendment of the legislation, that that will be borne out when we get to committee stage. But generally, I know from my constituents and from people who have come to see me in my office for comments that have been raised to me….

In cases where we have found houses, residences, where there has been significant illegal criminal activity going on, I certainly know that when action can be taken — when the police can take action, when the city can take action — the people who live on that block always breathe a great sigh of relief whenever that occurs and they see an end to that kind of activity on their block. They feel a little safer and a little more secure when they see an end to that kind of activity on their block.
[ Page 13416 ]

I'm very open to any legislation that will in fact provide that support. I'm hopeful and confident that that can be done in a way that provides that balance around civil liberties — to protect the legitimate civil liberties of people who might be brought into this conversation or implicated. I'm hopeful that it can be done in a way that deals with the concerns that Ms. Denham has raised around the overrides to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

With that, I look forward to proceeding to committee stage.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. S. Bond: I will resist the urge to answer all of the questions. I know that will come in committee debate. But I do think it's important to note — and I think it's important to celebrate — that occasionally we bring bills to this House and people actually support the same principles and outcomes. I do want to clarify just a couple of things.

Certainly, I'm very cognizant and respectful of the views of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. We have been working very carefully, and I have responded to her initial concerns. I do want to point out to the members opposite that if you are going to have a complaint-driven process, it's essential that you actually have the ability to protect that complainant. Any compromise of that complainant's identity would undermine the viability and effectiveness of the legislation. So we're very aware of the concerns that have been expressed.

I do want to note that in other jurisdictions their respective legislative regimes are similar to this one. So British Columbia is not leading the charge in terms of dealing with the issue of civil liberties and the protection of privacy and all of those things.

I'm very respectful of the views that have been expressed. I have responded directly to Ms. Denham, and I'm sure we'll continue to have that discussion as we go through the House.

I also did want to let the independent member who spoke know that the Delta chief of police was invited to the consultation about this piece of legislation. So there was an attempt to reach out, certainly, to Delta.

I do want to clarify that the bill does not assign cost. The public safety critic was critical of the fact that we would assume costs at this point in time, waiting for an election. That's actually not what happened, and that was explained in the briefing.

This is enabling legislation. It is the framework. It would mean that a business model would have to be created, with all of the costing elements in place. In fact, there is no intent to move this bill more quickly than developing an appropriate business model. All of the costing assumptions would have to be considered with the development of that model.

This does not assume any cost for government at this point. It is enabling. It is the framework. It's something that people have been asking for, including the member, the Finance critic, who wanted this four years ago. It has taken us a while to come to this spot, but it does not assign any cost to government until we work through that process. But it is enabling legislation.

With those very brief comments and clarifications, I know there'll be much more debate at committee stage.

[1625]

I move second reading of Bill 12.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 12, Community Safety Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage on the Supply Act, Bill 13.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2013

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 13; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 4:27 p.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: There's a calculation of a sum in this clause of $17,568,202,000, and it's referred to as being substantially 6/10 of the total amount of the main estimates.

But in the introduction to the estimates in the blue book it says — I'm looking about four paragraphs down: "Legislative authority for voted appropriations is provided by the Supply Act, which includes a summary of the estimates appropriations as schedules to the act." We'll get to some of those later. "Expenses from special accounts are disclosed in the estimates. However, they are not included in Supply Act totals, as these accounts have separate statutory spending authority. Expenses cannot exceed individual vote totals without additional legislative authority."

Can the minister explain, then…? There are a series of votes set out — so-called votes — in the blue book: 52 votes. Can the minister explain how the total figure is calculated, given what is said in that paragraph — how expenses or spending from special accounts takes place?
[ Page 13417 ]
Given that, apparently, as I read it — at least that note — this does not provide authority to spend from those accounts.

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: Two questions I think I heard from the member. One is the basis of the calculation. The calculation to which the 6/12 applies is the sum of all the votes divided by two, which provides that $17.5 billion figure.

The difference with respect to the special accounts, I'm reminded, is that there is statutory authority for expenditures out of the special accounts. Now, that spending cannot exceed the amount in the special account, but the same type of interim authority is not required as is the case for the votes themselves.

B. Ralston: Just looking at schedule B, which is the special accounts summary, there are a number…. It's approximately $1.243 billion. I just want to understand that, then. There's no restriction on the power of the treasury or the government, then, to spend in accordance with the total there. So there's no apportionment of 50 percent, or 6/12, as in the main estimates.

Choosing one, for an example — the children's education special account, which has $306 million, or the corrections work program account. There's no restriction on any spending authority. It can be spent up to that amount as the minister may see fit. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member's submission was correct, with this caveat: the special accounts in some instances have legislation that determines the nature of the spending that can occur. So there may well be some limitations there that differ from account to account. Of course, spending is also guided by what is in the budget and the estimates. But I think the member's point, as I understood it, is that the statutory authority, such as it is, already exists.

B. Ralston: On page 167 there's reference to Vote 45, which is the contingency. It's in the category of other appropriations. It is an amount of $225 million.

[1635]

Is the authority, then, that's granted, when this interim supply bill passes, to spend up to half of that? Or is that discretionary in some other way?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm reminded that the authority interim supply traditionally grants, and what is sought here, is 6/12, one-half of the sum of all the votes. Historically, and it's the case here again, it does not break it down by vote, so that the expectation likely is that on an operating basis, you would have that authority and it would apply across the votes. It would be incorrect for me to say that in the case of Vote 45 the authority is for 50 percent of that amount. The authority relates to one-half of the cumulative value of the votes.

B. Ralston: Similarly…. I just wanted to take an example and look at Vote 21. That's the Ministry of Education. Let me just find my page here. There's an amount referred to as total operating expenses, and obviously, Vote 21 is ministry operations.

Given the variability…. And to some extent there is a different, I suppose, rhythm of expenditure in public education that may have something to do with the school year. So is it a similar stricture, that there's not a strict expectation that only 50 percent be expended by the time this authority expired? Rather, it would be that if the total amount was below 50 percent, more of the authorized appropriation could be spent, in the case of this particular ministry.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is correct. It could, depending on the circumstances, be 45 percent of one vote and 55 percent of another vote, but the cumulative total could not be more than the 17.5, roughly equating to 50 percent of the cumulative total.

B. Ralston: I'm taking it that this is perhaps obvious, but I just wanted to confirm it. Given it's half, the expectation is that this would take spending to approximately the end of September 2013, and beyond that there would not be authority. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Ralston: This section looks at what's referred to as "capital expenditures" in schedule C of the main Estimates. Perhaps if I could just turn there. It's on page 178, looking at capital expenditures for the fiscal year. This authorizes two-thirds of the voted amounts referred to, I believe, in our speeches at second reading — if we can call them that.

[1640]

Both the minister and I made reference to the fact that the two-thirds number is designed to recognize the construction reality in British Columbia that most construction would begin in the spring and take place in the summer with completion aimed for the fall. Is that the reason why this is two-thirds as opposed to the 6/12 in clause 1?

Hon. M. de Jong: That's correct.

B. Ralston: The minister has spoken in reference to section 1 — the ability to notionally reallocate within the expenditure here, providing the total amount is below
[ Page 13418 ]
the two-thirds.

Would that same stricture apply here, given…? There are obviously very big numbers here — health facilities, schools, post-secondary education. If there was a reallocation or a choice, depending on construction schedules, to fund some facilities in advance of others, providing it didn't exceed the two-thirds at the expiry of the spending authority, would that be permissible under this legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: The rationale is the same. Probably should be cautious, though, about using the term "reallocation." We're drawing, perhaps, at different rates from different…. But there is no reallocation. The amounts don't change at the end of the day. They are just, perhaps, drawn at a different rate. But the rationale is the same.

B. Ralston: The other reference in section 2 is to schedule D. I'm wondering if the minister could explain the purpose of schedule D and what it records.

Hon. M. de Jong: The best way that I can describe this is how it's been described to me. These are financial balance sheet transactions, so we're recording ins and outs, but there are no impacts on the surplus or deficit numbers.

An example would be the land tax deferment account that I think appears there. These are balance sheet transactions. But they are, as the member correctly points out, referred to in the bill.

B. Ralston: Perhaps predictably, I'm going to ask a question about the release of assets for economic generation — development and sale of surplus properties and buildings. There's a disbursement of $5 million and an asset of $3 million. Can the minister explain what that was expended for or what he intends it to be expended for in the budget?

[1645]

Hon. M. de Jong: Essentially preparation, site preparation requirements. In some instances, perhaps marketing costs, but the costs associated with putting properties on the market.

B. Ralston: I recall — perhaps my memory is not entirely accurate — a discussion with the previous Minister of Finance where he allowed that $5 million was going to be spent in the last fiscal year for similar activities to prepare properties for sale. Is this, then, an additional expectation of spending a further $5 million? As I recall, the $5 million in last fiscal year was going to be spent from contingencies. Can the minister at least help me understand that point?

Hon. M. de Jong: What the line item shows is, firstly, receipts in the amount of $8 million from similar expenses that have been expended in the past and — as the member, I think, has correctly pointed out — an expectation estimate of $5 million going forward with respect to the transactions anticipated in the two years ahead.

B. Ralston: The minister will, perhaps, not welcome this question, but I am going to ask it nonetheless. This particular line item is silent on any reference to financial instruments. Is the sale of the financial instruments — any costs that might be related to that — intended to be included in this line item or not?

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, I don't mind the question. It's a fair one, and the answer is no.

B. Ralston: Is there anywhere else, then, in this particular schedule where notional expenses for those particular contemplated sales would be included?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised no.

[1650]

B. Ralston: Again, still on schedule D, which is referred to in section 2, there is a reference under the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to Crown land administration. The description is "development of land for sale in future years," and there's a disbursement of approximately $6.7 million. Further, tourism development, development of land for sale in future years — a $600,000 allocation.

How do those accounts — as they would appear to be references to sale of Crown land — differ from what's referred to above in the release of assets for economic generation, so-called?

Hon. M. de Jong: It would relate specifically, I'm advised, to land held within the Crown land special account. I was endeavouring to obtain for the member, perhaps, some specific examples. I can't off the top of our heads, though I'm happy to try and do so.

B. Ralston: As I understood the description of the program, in the budget — and I'm going to refer to pages 42 and 43 — there's a reference to surplus government properties. But it doesn't make reference on page 42 and page 43 in the budget document, the topic box, to the Crown land administration or tourism development, and it doesn't make reference to the Ministry of Citizens' Services and Open Government.

I'm wondering what the distinction is, if there is any, in how properties were chosen. It would seem, at least notionally, that if you are selling Crown land that's deemed to be surplus, that's indistinguishable from what's described as this program and the description that is given of it in pages 42 and 43 of the budget. I'm wondering if
[ Page 13419 ]
the minister could answer that.

[1655]

Hon. M. de Jong: The distinction, I am advised, relates to the fact that there are, within the Crown land special accounts, properties that are owned by the Crown proper, if you will. But the majority and costs associated with transactions involving those lands would be referred to in the provisions we are discussing now. But the majority of the properties would be held by agencies outside of the CRF. The preparatory costs associated with the marketing of those properties would be reflected in the provisions that we just discussed.

B. Ralston: Just, perhaps, a little further question of clarification, then. I think Crown land is self-evident. That's land, obviously, owned by the Crown, and this is money expended to sell it.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Is the minister saying that the properties that are referred to in the line item "Ministry of Citizens' Services and Open Government release of assets for economic generation" are held outside the consolidated revenue fund by government agencies or Crown corporations only and that there is no Crown land in that category? I'm interested in the distinction.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised that statement is correct.

B. Ralston: So the development of sale of land in Crown land administration is not what is referred to in the topic box on pages 42 and 43 of the budget. It's two completely different funds, and there is no Crown land being taken and sold that would generate revenue that would fill the expected revenue of $475 million that is set out in the budget.

[1700]

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things that we're talking about. The member has referred to the topic box on pages 42 and 43. If I get this wrong, he'll correct me. I think his question was: does that include exclusively lands owned by agencies — Crown corporations, agencies, health authorities?

The majority of the property addressed there falls into that category, but it also includes an amount in the neighbourhood of $60 million, $65 million of what we would call Crown land — different than that land owned by the agencies that we just discussed.

B. Ralston: Looking again and making a reference again to the topic box in pages 42 and 43. There's a reference to, at the last sentence: "A further 65 properties are being prepared for market." Does that include only properties then…? Is this the mixture of some Crown land and some properties owned by other agencies or Crown corporations? The prospective sale there — is that what's being referred to, the two sources?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think that is a fair statement. I can't say with particularity at this moment which of those 65 properties fall into which category. I just don't have that information, but I think the notion that the member is advancing, that it represents a mix, would be accurate.

B. Ralston: Last year the previous Finance Minister spoke of a list of 100 properties. Again, it's referred to here. There is some slightly further disclosure. Last year three were disclosed. On page 43 there are about 15 that are disclosed of the 100. When would the minister be able to make a list of the further 65 properties available so that one might know what the $5 million was being spent on?

Hon. M. de Jong: The best answer I can give the member at this stage is that, as he knows, the plan would be for these properties to be brought to market over the course of the next year and the year after. As they are prepared and presented to the marketplace, the intention, of course, would be for the greatest number of people and number of potential buyers to be aware of their availability. So it's a matter of making that information available.

He has correctly pointed out that the documents now provide additional information about properties that are in the process of being marketed or for which there are agreements in place or close to being in place.

B. Ralston: The member for Stikine has just provided me with a document, and I want to ask a brief question about it. I think it may be something that's included in schedule D, but I'm not sure. There's a reference to the provincial government providing $32 million to the First Nations Limited Partnership to facilitate a non-equity investment in the pipeline.

[1705]

I'm wondering if that is something that falls within schedule D or, if not, the minister might advise under which schedule it falls.

Hon. M. de Jong: Can the member describe again what the particular transaction was or is?

B. Ralston: I'm quoting from a news report, which is sometimes a perilous approach. What this speaks of is an arrangement with First Nations to enter into an economic partnership for the proposed Pacific Trails pipeline. The specific reference is to….

I'm going to quote again from the story. "The provincial government is providing $32 million to the First Nations Limited Partnership to facilitate a non-equity investment in the pipeline. The partnership is comprised of
[ Page 13420 ]
15 northern First Nations along the route of the pipeline and will generate revenue for each of the First Nations' communities."

I'm wondering if that falls within the financing transactions or "loans, investments and other requirements," which is what schedule D describes — if it falls properly within that schedule. If so, could the minister point to the line item? If not, could he assist by advising under which schedule it might fall?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the member will accept that I'm not trying to avoid…. I'd have to check, and I'm happy to do so. But I wouldn't want to give an answer or to say definitively, "No, it's not here," without being certain. I'd simply want to confirm the nature of the transaction referred to in the report.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that. To the Finance Minister: just to put it into context, it was announced by the Premier last week at an LNG conference — this $32 million to the First Nations Limited Partnership. Another report said it was a $32 million provincial loan to those First Nations.

We're trying to get an understanding of whether it's a loan or what the nature of the revenue provided is, so I appreciate the answer given by the minister. If you would commit to providing that answer before we leave the Legislature, before the session is over, then I'd appreciate that, because it's a considerable amount of money. We're not sure where it's coming from in the budget or whether it's booked into this interim supply.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm happy to confirm for the member where the applicable funding would derive from in the budget.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

B. Ralston: This section makes reference to "disbursements referred to in Schedule E of the main Estimates," and they appear at page 180 of the blue estimates book. This appears to be relatively straightforward, in the sense that these are big expenditures for individual projects and authorities. But can the minister just explain what is set out in this schedule?

[1710]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, to confirm, yes, this represents the means by which we account for revenues that are received by government but are either statutorily or by agreement dedicated to a third party. For example, the northwest transmission line represents the flow-through of dollars we received by agreement from the federal government. This, I am told, represents the usual interim supply means of dealing with the transfer appropriation in schedule E.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madam Chair, I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:12 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2013

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 2013, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage on Bill 3.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — DESTINATION BC CORP. ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 5:14 p.m.

On section 5.

S. Chandra Herbert: Hon. Chair, great to see you. Great to see the minister and his staff as we discuss Destination BC Corp. Act. I know there are requests for singing. I don't think I'll get there today. The bill won't go singing through, but it will proceed.

It's section 5 here, "Capacity and powers." I guess, under section 5, there's a discussion around what the powers of Destination B.C. will be. Of course, earlier we discussed a little bit more around how the corporation will act in practice. Now here we're talking about the policy and how it will work legally.

[1715]

I just wanted to ask…. Under subsection 5(2)(a), it discusses acquiring, holding and disposing of property. Is that to allow Destination B.C. to take over the Tourism B.C. building, where Tourism B.C. is housed — maybe
[ Page 13421 ]
not the whole building but the offices? What other kinds of property or acquisitions does this foresee?

Hon. P. Bell: This is a standard section for any bill of a Crown corporation that gives it the ability to hold or dispose of properties. The current site of the office in Vancouver is actually leased.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister share if Destination B.C. currently holds property and if there is any consideration…? Does it hold property, and if so, what?

Hon. P. Bell: I should be a little bit careful. I think the term "property" probably is fairly broad in terms of what it includes, but I think what the member opposite means is real estate. I believe that the answer to that is no. We're not 100 percent sure that that's the case, but we're not aware of any property that Destination B.C. or its predecessor owned.

S. Chandra Herbert: Under subsection 5(2)(b), it discusses borrowing: "borrow and, despite paragraph (f), invest money in accordance with section 18 [investment powers]." Just wondering if the minister could explain that section.

Hon. P. Bell: This section also is a standard section for Crown corporations and simply allows them to do business in the way that one would expect a Crown corporation to be able to do business, without having to request specific authority each and every time it enters into an arrangement.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see under section 18 — and I know we'll get there later — that it allows them to borrow and invest with the minister's agreement. Do all Crown corporations function in this way currently, or are there other Crowns that may have more independence in this regard?

Hon. P. Bell: All of these clauses in this particular section are standard clauses for Crown corporations.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know that the member for Cariboo North also has some questions on this section, just around governance.

I'm curious what the process is — since it's not written down here, necessarily — for the minister to decide who to appoint to the board — on the initial board, for example. I know it does discuss board members putting forward names.

Could a minister, maybe not this minister but a future minister, decide on anybody? Or does it have to be recommended from the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., for example, or from people who work in regional destination marketing organizations?

How do you decide who is appointed to the board and ensure that it is coming with support from the industry that this board is supposed to serve?

Hon. P. Bell: The question the member is referring to is in section 7. If he doesn't have any other questions in section 6, I might suggest that we move on to section 7 and respond in that place.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, we can go to that section under that question. But can the minister explain why the minister decides who's the chair of the organization, rather than the organization?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, in this situation, the board would recommend a chair, and then the final decision would be made by the minister. That follows a similar pattern to other Crown corporations.

[1720]

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate that the minister refers to it as standard in other Crown corporations, but can the minister explain the thinking behind this? I know it doesn't say that the minister must take the board's recommendation. The minister could choose another person, or the board may not have a recommendation.

As we've seen, there's a new board that's just been appointed to Destination B.C. There was a member chosen as chair. I'm curious why the board did not elect a chair and why, instead, the minister appoints a chair. Maybe it's standard policy, but I'm curious why this is standard policy.

Hon. P. Bell: Just to be clear on Andrea Shaw's appointment, that was recommended by the Tourism Industry Association task force along with the minister's advisory council. I accepted that recommendation, and Andrea was appointed as chair of the board.

In future, again, based on the legislation, I would expect that recommendations would be made by a future board as to who the chair might be. The minister retains the authority through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make the final determination. That follows a similar pattern to most boards.

I spoke earlier when the member asked about accountability and how the Tourism Industry Association task force landed on the final proposal that we came up with. It was, as I mentioned previously, as a result of a discussion that we had about accountability to the taxpayer — in terms of how money is spent and to make sure that it's being spent in an open, transparent man-
[ Page 13422 ]
ner in the way that taxpayers would expect their money to be spent, because it is taxpayer dollars that are funding this organization — and then accountability back to the industry, based on being sure that dollars are being spent in the most productive way possible and that they achieve maximum results.

With that in mind, having the minister as the final decision-making authority, which is standard practice for Crown corporations, made the most sense.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess I'm just trying to understand the accountability that the minister speaks of. The board can recommend a chair. The minister can choose to appoint that chair or not, as the case may be. They may choose somebody else.

The argument is, I guess, that it's more accountable to taxpayers because the minister is potentially accountable to taxpayers in his own constituency or her constituency, as the case may be. Is that the argument? It's more accountable because the voters, if they don't like what the board is doing or if they're upset…. Maybe tourism isn't doing so well, or a board member says something or does something which might not be a good reflection on the province. Is that what he means when he's talking about accountability?

I don't see a mechanism here that the industry could exert their influence, necessarily, around accountability. They might be able to say something, but they don't have the same accountability as, for example, in a non-profit. If the industry were members, they might be able to vote out somebody that was not representing them correctly or vote in somebody new to reflect their interests better.

So is the accountability that the minister refers to an accountability with the voters?

Hon. P. Bell: As the member knows, I'm sure, the minister that has responsibility for the Crown corporation is ultimately responsible for the Crown corporation as the shareholder. As the member knows, in 68 days there will be an election day, and the ultimate accountability for every government will be played out at that point. I think the member kind of answered his own question in the dialogue that he provided, so I don't think I need to expand on it.

B. Simpson: Just on this section. I know section 7 talks about that at times specified by the minister, the board will make some recommendations, but what I wanted to deal with is the nine appointees to the board. How is the issue of regional representation addressed?

[1725]

The minister indicated yesterday in debate that when Tourism B.C. existed, as someone who was working in the tourism industry, he felt that there was a disconnect between what Tourism B.C. was doing and what was happening on the ground in Prince George. How does he see the structure of this board addressing that? Will there be some kind of policy or regulations requiring some kind of regional representation?

Hon. P. Bell: I think I answered this question in response to the critic yesterday, but I'll repeat it today. The board is not a stakeholder board. It's a professional board. The people that are selected on the board are selected for specific skill sets that they bring to the board, not for the location they live in or the industry that they represent.

We did go back and…. There was lots of discussion on this issue. It wasn't something that the Tourism Industry Association task force took lightly. We did spend a great deal of time thinking about it.

I'm guessing that that's why they brought forward the idea of the marketing committee, because ultimately, the accountability back to the industry is about making sure that the money is spent well, that it's spent fairly within the industry in different sectors and different regions across the province — those sorts of things.

To have a marketing committee with three representatives from each of six regions provided that opportunity to ensure that there is regional representation as well. I have asked the chair, as she is contemplating the appointments to those positions, to also factor in sectoral representation. It will be challenging to do that because with only three appointments in each region, you wouldn't have sectoral representation in each region.

But between the 18 appointments across the province, I do believe it's possible to mix a combination of regional appointments, regional representation and sectoral representation, and that's where the stakeholder opportunity comes in. I think that's appropriately placed, because that's the point of accountability back to the industry, which is making sure that money is being spent in the way that provides maximum results.

B. Simpson: I did hear the debate yesterday around stakeholder versus skill set. I guess at the end of the day, though, the board is the decision-making authority for Destination B.C. I'm just curious. Was there dialogue? Because you could have skill sets, but you could also have another layer there where you did want to have at least some representation from outside the Lower Mainland or outside the Okanagan, etc.

Part of that, of course, is that where the decisions are made will greatly impact some of the issues. We've had issues, for example, in the Bowron chain around the allocation policy for groups versus individuals. Some decisions were made, even in Williams Lake, that clearly didn't understand the nature of the Bowron chain. You get that all the time, and I know the minister is aware of that.

For clarification, was there discussion about regional representation at the board level, at the management decision level? Is the minister comfortable that as
[ Page 13423 ]
Destination B.C. evolves, that will sort of take care of itself between the — I think you said — marketing group and the board and that somewhere in between there the voices of the more rural, remote areas will actually be heard in the decision-making?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the solution that the Tourism Industry Association task force came up with is an elegant one. I think it will take work to make sure that it achieves the result that the member opposite desires, and I share the member opposite's view that that's something that we want to do.

I recall the previous time when, certainly, there were people in parts of British Columbia that didn't feel there was representation. So I very much agree with the goals that the member articulates.

I'm hopeful that the option that has been provided here will work, but I think it will take some work on the part of the board members and on the part of a future minister. As I said the other day, the one thing that is certain…. I'm the only minister in the House that knows for certain that I won't be in this position in 70 or so days.

So I think it's an elegant solution, and I look forward to watching from some distance and encouraging to make sure that it is delivered in a way that achieves the goal that the member has articulated.

[1730]

S. Chandra Herbert: Just to do one last question on this subject. I think what the member has mentioned is a skills-based board. I understand that. I understand that there are the regional marketing committees. In the end, it's the board that makes the decision. I know that some in the industry — and we'll see — have expressed some concern that having 18 people try to develop a marketing plan can be difficult.

Certainly, everybody's going to have to give, and everybody's going to have to take, to a certain extent. But given the diverse needs in the tourism industry, it's always challenging, I think, to come to some agreement. To decide we need to market — there's certainly widespread agreement around that. But what we need to market and how we do it is where that sometimes breaks down.

I guess what the member is referring to is you can have a skills-based board which is also one that seeks to be regionally representative so everybody feels that they have a place at the table. I'm just curious if there's further thinking about adding that on as a layer. We know that there are great lawyers, great accountants, great marketers and great professionals in many, many different fields all across the province.

Certainly, some have expressed concern around a board which could conceivably be made up of people who all live on the same block or in the same city or most of the same people who all live in the same region, which may or may not be the case. It's a hypothetical, and that can change, depending on who gets appointed and who gets recommended.

I think people would feel a little bit more comfortable if regions were also considered as part of it. If we don't look at that as a layer, you could find that Metro Vancouver, for example, dominates or the Island or some place where people have ready access to the powers that be, to cabinet or to MLAs or population centres. So rural parts of the province, which are equally worthy of understanding and marketing and bringing their ideas forward, could feel shut out and could be shut out.

The perspectives, as the minister knows, of somebody who lives in northern B.C. may be different, in terms of being an accountant or a lawyer or something like that, than somebody who lives in downtown Vancouver, where I live, where snow isn't really an issue, for example. That's just one of many factors in how you, for example, decide on what to market, when to market, how to market.

Just curious if that could potentially be considered as an option to be added in. Obviously, you need the skills first — but whether or not region is also something that might be added on as part of the consideration for who becomes a director on Destination B.C.

Hon. P. Bell: There are two reasons why that would not be my advice to a future minister. The first is what we ask the board members to do — any professional board, whether it's a corporation, a Crown corporation in this circumstance or even if it's a not-for-profit.

Good board governance dictates that members are not there to represent their specific interests. They are, in fact, to leave their interests at the door and to make sure that they are considering the broad interest for their mandate, as would be articulated through the government letter of expectation, the legislation that they have, other means of communication with whoever their shareholder is — which ultimately is the people of British Columbia in this circumstance.

The first reason why I would not recommend that is that immediately when you engage in a stakeholder-driven board where someone is there for a reason, they feel it is their responsibility to represent the interests that they have, as opposed to making good governance decisions.

The second reason why my advice to a future minister would not be to do this. I actually think this is the case where the member lives as well. I think it's a little different there. But as the member knows, I live in Prince George. Oftentimes people refer to me as a northern MLA. I'm actually a centre-of-B.C. MLA. There's about as much province north of me as there is south of me.

If you were to have even two representatives from northern British Columbia, you would not have rep-
[ Page 13424 ]
resentation from the north, because I'm not sure whether that would start in Prince George. It's the largest population centre in central and northern British Columbia. You might have one person there.

I know that you might want to have a person from the Peace region. That would be an important area, and that would give you two representatives. But that would completely exclude the coast region, which is an enormous region that has tremendous tourism potential and lots of wonderful facilities right now.

[1735]

If you added in a third stakeholder from that part of the province, everyone would be happy, except for the member for Cariboo North, who would say: "You've got to have someone from the Cariboo as well. The people in Prince George don't know what's important to me. The guys in the Peace definitely don't know what's important to me, and those guys out on the coast just live in a different world altogether." So we'd have to have someone from there.

Then if I think about the Thompson-Okanagan….

Interjection.

Hon. P. Bell: I was just getting to the Thompson-Okanagan Tourism Association.

You know, I know for a fact…. In fact, I have a member with red hair, just sitting slightly behind me and to my right, who would feel that if we were going to have representation from the Thompson-Okanagan, having a member from Kamloops would be absolutely critical. And I would be respectful of that, of course.

Then if I think of someone…. I don't think he's actually to my left. I think I'd have to just turn around and say he's off to my right. If I thought about a member from Kelowna, he'd say: "Well, it's fine that you've got someone from Kamloops, but they don't represent our interests, so we need to have someone."

Then if I looked back at my colleague from Cranbrook, I know for a fact that he would tell me: "I'm glad that you got someone from Kamloops and from Kelowna, but they don't represent me."

I think the member gets the issue. You would have a very, very large board. So I think the notion of having a professional board whose obligation is to consider the interests of the corporation and the mandate that they're operating under is better. I think when you get to a stakeholder board, it's very, very challenging.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know we're going to get to discussion around the ministerial directive and that question, but under section 11 it says: "The board must manage the affairs of the corporation or supervise the management of those affairs."

I know some boards — and forgive me if this answer is obvious and I don't see it — sometimes have issues where lawsuits can happen. A board may be sued for something that a staff member does, or sued wrongly for something that they didn't do but that somebody thought they should do.

I'm just curious. I know there is the option of the minister directing the board to do certain things. If the minister directed the board to do certain things, the board fulfilled that obligation and then somebody decided there was a legal issue there, who gets sued? Is it the board members, the board, the Crown corporation, the government as a whole or the minister? What does that look like?

Hon. P. Bell: Not being a lawyer — and I say that with a point of pride — it's always hard to know for sure where a lawsuit would go. I would say: probably all of the above, depending on the circumstance. But it is important for the member to know that, of course, directors are indemnified by the province of British Columbia in the event of a suit of that nature.

S. Chandra Herbert: In this section it talks about the board having the power to establish committees of the board. If a minister decided that the board should establish a committee of the board, is that allowable under this? Is that covered under a different section, or is that left just to the board to make its decisions?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll just give the member opposite some examples of what's really intended by this. Typically, there would be a human resource committee, a finance committee and an audit committee — those sorts of things. Again, just good governance practice would dictate that.

I suppose the minister could direct the board to form a committee, perhaps through the government letter of expectation or something of that nature. That's not anticipated. This is just normal governance practice, and this language is largely standard for all Crown corporations.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

S. Chandra Herbert: This is around board remuneration. I'm just curious if the minister or his staff might be able to help me know what the Treasury Board directives are, in relation to a Crown corporation like this, around board remuneration.

[1740]

Hon. P. Bell: Board remunerations are set by Treasury Board. It's set depending on the complexity of the Crown corporation. In this situation it was determined that this is a level 3 Crown corporation. There's a grid for all different levels of Crowns.

In this particular case, the chair would receive $6,000 per annum. A director would receive $3,000 per annum. The audit risk management chair retainer would be $2,000. That would likely not be the chair of the board. So $3,000 plus $2,000 is $5,000.

Other committee chairs would be $1,000, and then there is a meeting fee provided of $300.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just reading through this, it's pretty prescriptive around what happens if the chair's not there and the vice-chair takes over — that kind of thing. Quorum is defined.

I'm just curious why meeting notice — giving members notice of when the meeting is coming up, when their decisions might have to happen — is not defined?

Hon. P. Bell: This is, again, standardized language for Crown corporations.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

S. Chandra Herbert: Under this section it talks about how a director or officer must act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation.

What happens if the letter of expectation says one thing and a board member doesn't feel the letter of expectation is in the best interests of the corporation? Or if a ministerial directive is put in place that — I don't know — "You guys must market X, Y and Z" because the minister likes it, but the tourism industry might not feel that's a good thing or the board members might feel it's crazy?

What happens in that circumstance? How can the director act honestly and in good faith for the best interests of the corporation if they feel that a ministerial directive or a letter of expectation goes against the best interests of the corporation?

Hon. P. Bell: The question the member asks is highly speculative.

First of all, when ministers of the Crown prepare the government letters of expectation, they consider the mandate of the organization and make sure that the mandate is not conflicted by a government letter of expectation.

[1745]

I'm respectful that that circumstance, I suppose, could occur, so we'll just for a moment depart from what I think is the likely outcome, which is that it would not occur. But if the board was in a situation where it felt it had a choice between meeting the fiduciary responsibilities that they hold as directors or meeting a government letter of expectation, then the board, ultimately, would make that decision.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section is around the chief executive officer. It gives the board powers to appoint, to determine remuneration — that kind of thing. What happens if the minister and the CEO don't see eye to eye? Maybe there were some concerns. Does the board deal with those concerns? Does the minister?

What if it gets to such a place that maybe the minister just cannot work with the person. Is that the board's decision — to fire the person, for example, or find some other way to deal with that? Or is that something that the minister has the power to step in and say: "That person's gone. Go find a new person"?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite should know that the accountability line is the CEO to the board, the board to the minister. So the minister…. If they believe the organization was not running in the best interest of the industry and/or the people of British Columbia, the accountability point would be with the board, and the minister's authority ends at that place.

Noting the hour, Madam Chair, I would ask that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:47 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:48 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 © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada