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)

Monday, March 11, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 44, Number 2

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

MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf and mine, I would like to welcome to the Legislature a number of guests that were here to witness the naming of the new front entrance for people with disabilities.

Ann Mowat, the wife of former MLA Doug Mowat, and her friend Anne Bremner.

Wendy and Don Taylor. Wendy is Doug's niece.

Grace McCarthy and her husband, Raymond, were here. I'm not sure if they've stayed for question period.

As well, from the spinal cord injury community and from Spinal Cord Injury B.C., Dr. Chris McBride, Maureen Brownlee, Candice Vallantin and Scott Heron, a resident of Victoria.

From B.C. Wheelchair Sports Association, Gail Hamamoto and Arley McNeney, and from B.C. Wheelchair Basketball, Sian Blythe.

From the Neil Squire Society, Dr. Gary Birch. From the Sam Sullivan Disability Foundation, Mr. David Ostro.

Would the House please make them all welcome.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce today Isaac Vallee. He has recently joined my office as a constituency assistant, and I must say that Isaac is fast becoming an indispensable member of our Burnaby–Deer Lake team. I hope you will please make him very welcome.

[1335]

Hon. M. Stilwell: Earlier today we marked the third anniversary of Canada's ratification of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities with an event here in the Legislature announcing new funding and initiatives that build on B.C.'s leadership as an inclusive, accessible province.

I am pleased to have some of our event participants joining us in the gallery today. Each of these individuals has made a significant contribution towards ensuring that B.C. is embracing ability and encouraging inclusion. Please join me in welcoming the chair of Vancouver Foundation Giving in Action Society, Dr. Vera Frinton; Carla Qualtrough, a Vancouver-based human rights lawyer, two-time Paralympic athlete and chair of my Minister's Council on Employment and Accessibility. Carla is here with her mom, Pat Qualtrough, and her four-month-old son, Matthew Main.

Dr. Nigel Livingston, who is a member of my Minister's Council on Employment and Accessibility, the founder of CanAssist and a recent recipient of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal, and Rachael Ross, who is involved in the national consultations and development of the UN convention on rights of persons with disabilities. Rachael works in the Ministry of Social Development and is also a Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal recipient.

I'd like to acknowledge one other person — Barb Goode. Barb wasn't able to join us today, but she's a Diamond Jubilee Medal winner who, as a self-advocate, has been working since the 1970s to change the public's opinion of people with developmental disabilities. I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

S. Simpson: It's really a pleasure for me to introduce some family who are here visiting today. I have here my mother-in-law, Linda Jones, and my brother-in-law Brett Jones, both of whom are residents in Victoria. They're here to watch this, I think, for the first time. My daughter, Shayla Jones, is also here visiting us today. So I hope the House would make them all very welcome.

Hon. T. Lake: I have a number of introductions today. First of all, I'd like to introduce Dr. Russell Currie, who is the dean of the School of Business and Economics at Thompson Rivers University. Dr. Currie was here today with me to have some very productive meetings with several cabinet ministers about an innovative entrepreneurial program at Thompson Rivers University. So would the House please make Dr. Currie very welcome.

I'm also really delighted to have a couple of my daughters here today. Stephanie, who is a University of Ottawa graduate in health sciences and will be entering a master of science and population health at UBC in September, is here along with her little sister, Gemma, who is at University of Victoria studying ocean and earth sciences. With them is another great Kamloopsian going to University of Victoria, Lachlan Benoit. Would the House please make these wonderful Kamloopsians very welcome in the House today.

J. Trasolini: It is indeed a pleasure for me to introduce my son, Darin, who's visiting us in the gallery today. Darin is a doctor at Vancouver General Hospital, and he's attending a conference here in Victoria. I'd like to ask the House to give a warm welcome to Darren.

D. Horne: In the members' gallery this afternoon is Mr. Seiji Okada. He is the consul general from Japan and is joined by his wife, Mrs. Yasuko Okada, and Consul Naomi Namatame. The consul is here today on his first official visit to Victoria. I'd like to mention to the House that during my conversation with him this morning, he spoke about all of the really wonderful work and support that British Columbia and Canada have given to Japan at the time of the earthquake and tsunami two years ago. I
[ Page 13446 ]
hope the House will make him very welcome.

R. Fleming: I just want to recognize a number of individuals who are with us in the gallery here today from the Clayoquot Sound Conservation Alliance, which is a coalition of some of British Columbia's most prominent environmental non-governmental organizations. I look forward to meeting with them this afternoon after question period, and I would ask the House to make all of them welcome.

[1340]

R. Cantelon: I'd like to have the House join me in welcoming four visitors in the gallery from the Ladysmith and Cowichan area: Nancy Myers with FortisBC; Jeff Nahnybida, an insurance broker; Jason Adair, who is the manager of the CVRD in waste management; and Aman Gossal, also with FortisBC. They are here to observe our question period and take notes and join me for lunch. Please make them all feel welcome.

J. Slater: It's my extreme pleasure to welcome to the precinct my daughter, Alana Slater. She is in her fourth year at University of Victoria. Would the House make her very welcome.

D. Hayer: Joining us in the House today are six very special guests. They are outstanding volunteers, and they have been helping in my office throughout my term as MLA. They are always there to help and are ready whenever help is needed in my constituency. My very special guests include my wife, Isabelle Martinez Hayer, and my daughter Sonia Hayer, who is studying as a teacher. She's just finishing her degree from Kwantlen University in education, and she will soon be starting her PDP program at SFU. My son, Alexander Hayer, is finishing his master's in public health at SFU in a few months, and his girlfriend, Iha Louise Farquhar, is a teacher in our public education system, which is one of the best in our world.

Also, I have two of my staff members here, two of my constituency assistants. Manuel Santos is a full-time assistant, and Paul Keenleyside is a part-time assistant. They perform excellent work in my constituency. They look after my constituents' issues and community concerns as well as the office itself. They are also outstanding volunteers who spend countless hours helping me and the community.

Manuel has been an exemplary and dedicated worker in my office since 2007. In addition to volunteer work hours benefiting our community, he and his family and his wife and all his friends have been helping me with the election campaign and also in my community work.

My other guest is Paul Keenleyside, who is a part-time assistant. He fills in when Manuel is not there and also looks after our communications and research. Paul has been helping since 2000. He also has distinguished service helping out in the municipal and provincial elections for 64 campaigns at the municipal level, the city level, the provincial level and the federal level. He is an excellent worker, an excellent helper. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Thank goodness the city of Surrey wasn't any bigger.

N. Macdonald: Just two introductions to make. One is Hugo Desnoyer. He taught at Golden Secondary School for many years. He's here with a different school now, but he's a fine educator and somebody that I'm happy to introduce here.

I also see up in the gallery Joe Foy, who was very active with us on the Save Our Rivers campaign — one of the most inspirational speakers and activists that I've met. I ask you to make both welcome here in the House.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, this is a Saskatoon Hilltops jersey. Last fall the Saskatoon Hilltops defeated the Langley Rams 23-21. I'm sure it was an upset. However, I made a bet on behalf of everyone in the House with the Minister of Sport for Saskatchewan that I would wear this jersey. I would have worn the jersey with your indulgence, hon. Speaker, but I believe he may have sent me a defensive back's jersey or a wide-receiver jersey, and I'm now an offensive lineman. Congratulations, Minister Doherty.

M. Sather: Joining us is Una St. Claire. She's here with her son Mark and daughter Cody. I had the pleasure of sharing a forum with Una on wireless technology. She's here today as the executive director of Citizens for Safe Technology Society. Would the House please join me in making her welcome.

Hon. N. Letnick: We look around this House and see 85 leaders that have come through their communities. I imagine a lot of the leaders in this House have been helped at one time or another by some organization, whether it be Cadets, Scouts or the B.C. 4-H Club.

Here today in the House we have Kevin Rothwell, B.C. 4-H manager. Would you please help me welcome them to the House.

[1345]

S. Fraser: I have a guest visiting from the far west side of my constituency, from beautiful Tofino, British Columbia. We have Gillian Nicol visiting us today. Please help me make her feel very welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm really pleased today to welcome to the House two young individuals and their escort, who have come over from Vancouver. Jennifer Johnson and Tyrone Lengert are young individuals who are interested
[ Page 13447 ]
in the political arena. My colleague the Minister of Justice and I had the opportunity to have lunch today with the two of them as well as David. Jennifer, who is in grade 7, advised us that her political aspirations included being either the Premier of British Columbia or the Prime Minister of Canada. So we thought that was very exciting. Tyrone volunteered that he would be willing to take on the responsibility as Minister of Finance and follow Jennifer's rule.

Would the House please welcome both Jennifer and Tyrone but also David Lengert, who has come to host them.

M. Karagianis: Today in the gallery we have a dynamic duo. I'm going to introduce one of the people here, and my good friend from Juan de Fuca will introduce the other one. They are keen aficionados of this place and of politics and not strangers to the Legislature, as some of you may have seen them.

I'd like to give a big warm welcome to Mark Bridges, and I know my colleague from Juan de Fuca will introduce his companion. I know all of you will have an opportunity to greet them and welcome them here again today.

M. Mungall: Well, it's always such a treat to look up in the galleries and see friends. Joe Foy was already mentioned, but there's also with him LeeAnn Unger, who I worked very closely with to save Glacier and Howser creeks in my riding. Really, would the House please make her very welcome. She did such an amazing job for my region.

I was joined for lunch today by two other friends, Gerald and Martine Rotering. Gerald was the mayor of Nelson in the 1980s and was, in large part, the person who spearheaded the downtown revitalization. By 1985, I think Steve Martin had heard about it and came on by in 1986, and we have the movie Roxanne as a result. For anybody, when you travel through Nelson and you take some time on historic downtown Baker Street, think of Gerald. May the House please make him very welcome.

L. Reid: I, too, wanted to join in welcoming Ann Mowat to the Legislative Assembly. Her niece is married to a dear friend of mine — a teaching colleague, Don Taylor. Back in the '80s he and I taught together for many years, and it's lovely to have her friend Ann with us as well. I'd ask the House to please join in welcoming the entire family.

J. Horgan: For anyone who wasn't introduced yet today, I welcome you all here. I want to follow on the introduction from my colleague from Esquimalt–Royal Roads. The Speaker will know full well my friend Kody Bell, who is joining Mark Bridges today. Mr. Bell has been a guest of the Speaker many, many times. He's touched every phone in the office. Just a warning to all members of this place: keep your cellphones in your hand. Kody will get your codes in 25 seconds and will be phoning you and phoning you and phoning you. Kody Bell, welcome to the Legislature.

M. Coell: I have 36 grade 8 students and four adults from Salt Spring Island Middle School. Would the House please make them welcome.

Speaker's Statement

STATUS OF AUDITOR GENERAL

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, members have asked me to seek clarification regarding the intentions of the Auditor General of British Columbia with respect to his acceptance of a recommendation contained in the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor General and media reports concerning an offer of employment as Auditor General for the state of Victoria, Australia.

I can inform the House that the Auditor General of British Columbia will be vacating his office on or before May 28, 2013.

[1350]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — AUDITOR GENERAL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Auditor General Amendment Act, 2013.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: This bill and the amendments contained therein will provide for the appointment of future Auditors General to a single, non-renewable eight-year term. That is the first amendment contained within its provisions.

The second amendment contained within the bill will also ensure that the Legislative Assembly has the authority to appoint an acting Auditor General in those circumstances where the term of office of the Auditor General is set to expire or otherwise end in the time period during the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly.

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.
[ Page 13448 ]

Bill 14, Auditor General Amendment 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 M209 — PROMOTING YOUTH
VOTE ACT, 2013

A. Dix presented a bill intituled Promoting Youth Vote Act, 2013.

A. Dix: I move that a bill, the Promoting Youth Vote Act, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Dix: Only 52 percent of registered voters voted in the last election, and hundreds of thousands of eligible B.C. voters were not even registered to vote. The Promoting Youth Vote Act is designed to ensure that more people, especially young people, participate in our democracy. This legislation alone will not reverse the worrying decline in voter turnout that we have seen in recent decades, but it's part of the solution.

In 2011 Keith Archer, B.C.'s Chief Electoral Officer, recommended lowering the age of voter registration as a means to increase turnout. Acting on his advice, this legislation would provide 16- and 17-year-olds the chance to preregister and would allow the non-partisan Elections B.C., in cooperation with schools and other public institutions, to promote voter registration and sign young people up in advance. The goal would be to ensure that all young people are registered to vote on their 18th birthday, when they are first eligible.

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 M209, Promoting Youth Vote 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)

RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

J. Thornthwaite: I rise in the House today to recognize the third anniversary of Canada's ratification of the U.N. convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, a convention that is spearheading the guarantee of human rights for an estimated 650 million individuals with disabilities worldwide.

Canada was one of the first countries to originally sign the convention, and the B.C. government is proud to recognize today's anniversary. This day has significant meaning for B.C. It signals our commitment to protect people's rights to equality.

The goal of this convention is to ensure that basic human rights are extended to everyone, no matter what their ability. With so many British Columbians living with a disability, including people of working age, this ratification helps to acknowledge our continuous quest for inclusion.

Last year I spearheaded special needs round tables with respected members of my community who specialize in special needs issues, including parents, teachers, principals, aides and administrators. One thing is for sure. We can and continue to do things better for special needs children.

March 11 is a chance for us to promote the abilities of our community members and to reflect on how we can better support individuals with disabilities in B.C. We know that when barriers are removed and people with disabilities are able to participate fully in their communities and support their families, everyone benefits. Let us all vow to work together to ensure that every British Columbian has the chance to take full advantage of the amazing opportunities our province has to offer.

CYCLING IN NANAIMO AREA

D. Routley: I rise to tell the House how we roll in Nanaimo, in the Hub City. Nanaimo is called the Hub City because of its transportation hubs, but to us cyclists, it means something entirely different. For commuters, for racers and for touring cyclists, the Nanaimo region is an excellent place. The city of Nanaimo supports us with bike paths and an excellent bike-to-work program.

[1355]

Racers have road races, criteriums, time trials and cyclocross and mountain bike races regularly every week. The tourists who come to our region on bicycles can tour our beautiful, pastoral rural communities, such as Cedar and Yellow Point, and hop on a 20-minute ferry ride to Gabriola, where we have bed-and-breakfasts that support cyclists and even rent bicycles.

For road racers, we have a club, the Mid Island Velo Association, which coordinates racing and clinics and group rides. We have a mountain bike club, the Nanaimo Mountain Bike Club, which does the same — organizes races and clinics for riders and excellent BMX programs for BMX racers of all ages.

Excellent athletes have been produced by the Nanaimo region. Currently Brodie Hay — a young junior racer who races at the road, track and cyclocross events — routinely competes for B.C. championships. Steve Smith, a professional downhill mountain biker, last year finished first place at the UCI World Cup, Hafjell, Norway race. In 2011 he was third at the world championships. He has five first places at the World Cup professional level and
[ Page 13449 ]
one second. Janna Gillick, seventh in the Cyclo-cross World Championships.

These are just a few of the athletes produced by the cycling community in Nanaimo. For anyone in the House who is a cyclist and for anyone in British Columbia, all of us in Nanaimo welcome you and invite you to take part in our many events and enjoy the Nanaimo region by bicycle.

ETHEL TIBBITS AWARDS

R. Howard: Every year the Richmond Review and our community celebrate the Ethel Tibbits Women of Distinction Awards that honour outstanding women in our community. The event is named after the Review's 1930s editor and publisher Ethel Tibbits.

Ethel was known for her fearless editorials on topics that were seen as controversial at the time. She was a true pioneer in her field and has inspired many women to reach their full potential. The deserving award winners we celebrate include: in the business category, Cady Xu; in the sports category, Shirley Olafsson; in the arts, Annette Jakubowski and Heather Joosten-Fair; in the community volunteer category, Clara Chow; in the community professional category, Ella Huang; and in the pioneer award category, Irene Frith.

Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed a particular sense of pride as I read out the names, as the winner of the pioneer award, Irene Frith, is my mother. She was honoured for a lifetime of accomplishments, including being a founding member of the Richmond Hospital Auxiliary; starting the Richmond branch of the Canadian Cancer Society; Richmond citizen of the year in 1989; the first-in-Canada female chair of a port authority as chair of the North Fraser Harbour Commission; also, president of the Pacific Coast Association of Port Authorities; a city alderwoman; president of her own personal placement agency; and much more — a rich life full of accomplishments and the best mother on the planet.

The 20th annual Tibbits Women of Distinction Awards were, appropriately, held on International Women's Day. We congratulate all of the nominees and celebrate with them their many achievements.

CENTENNIAL OF PORT MOODY

J. Trasolini: "Blest by nature. Enriched by man" — the city of Port Moody, incorporated on March 11, 1913, is 100 years old today. Perry D. Roe was elected the first mayor on April 3, 1913 — unopposed. The first city hall, on St. Johns and Kyle, was built in 1914 at a cost of $10,000.

That same year the Port Moody police department was founded, and C.A. Mills was the first chief constable of the one-man force. He policed the whole city on foot.

Mills had the uncanny ability to surprise motorists by jumping out from behind a tree or bush to issue a ticket. He had to be effective in these sneak attacks, as his salary came entirely from the fines he levied.

Col. Richard Moody, commander of the Royal Engineers, fearing winter freeze-up in the Fraser River, built North Road to link New Westminster, the new B.C. capital, to the ice-free Burrard Inlet in Port Moody.

Then in 1879 Ottawa chose Port Moody to be the western terminus of the transcontinental railway. Quickly, the forest was transformed into a pioneer town of hotels and businesses. The historic day came on July 4, 1886, when the first passenger train arrived in Port Moody.

[1400]

Today Port Moody has grown into a jewel at the end of Burrard Inlet, where residents and visitors can enjoy nature trails, waterfront recreation and amenities, heritage and modern pedestrian-friendly shopping areas, and quaint restaurants and cafés.

The thriving waterfront city of Port Moody is indeed blessed by nature and enriched by men and women. Will the House join me in wishing Port Moody a happy centennial.

LIFESAVING SOCIETY AND
VOLUNTEERISM IN BURNABY

R. Lee: A week ago I attended the 101st Lifesaving Society Honour and Rescue Ceremony. Volunteers who have served for more than eight years are recognized for their services to the association. Rescuers who are volunteers in the right place and at the right time are awarded for their bravery.

Non-profit organizations and public institutions across B.C. rely on the services of over one million volunteers. Nationally, Canada has over 13 million volunteers. In Burnaby dozens of volunteers serve in the city's ten advisory committees. Almost 100 volunteers serve in the committees of the Burnaby Board of Trade. Hundreds of volunteers serve in the parents advisory councils in schools, and tens of thousands of volunteers serve in hundreds of non-profit organizations.

You're never too young to be a volunteer. Many students in elementary schools serve as crossing guards, executive members of school clubs and student governments.

Many volunteers serve in NGOs in health, like the Burnaby Hospital Foundation hospital departments, Burnaby Hospice Society, Charlford House Society for Women, Down Syndrome Research Foundation, SPARC B.C. Society, TB Vets Charitable Foundation, etc. We should thank the volunteers working for NGOs like SUCCESS, Burnaby Family Life, Burnaby Seniors Outreach Services Society and Burnaby Meals on Wheels for their services.

This year Canada's National Volunteer Week takes place from April 21 to 27. The annual Burnaby Festival of
[ Page 13450 ]
Volunteers, organized by Volunteer Burnaby with many community partners, will be held at the Brentwood Town Centre on Saturday, April 27.

It's time, again, that we recognize and celebrate the significant contributions of our volunteers.

CLARENCE LOUIE AND OSOYOOS
INDIAN BAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

J. Slater: "I can't stand people who are late. Indian time just doesn't cut it." This sentence was the opening line in a speech delivered by Chief Clarence Louie of the Osoyoos Indian Band almost nine years ago, and it's still making its rounds through social media today.

I am very honoured to say that Clarence and I have been friends for over 30 years. We used to play fastball against each other, and to this day he still brags that he used to strike me out.

Clarence first ran for chief in December 1984. He has only lost one election since then, in 1989, and has just won his tenth straight race this year. Chief Louie has won many awards and recognition for his achievements in economic development and will go to any reservation in the country to speak on the topic, as he strongly believes that "you're going to lose your language and culture faster in poverty than you will in economic development."

Just 40 years ago the Osoyoos Indian Band was bankrupt and living off the crumbs of government social assistance. Now the band, under Chief Louie's leadership, has become a flourishing corporation that employs hundreds of people, owns and operates many businesses on and off the reserve, including the famous Nk'Mip winery — the first aboriginally owned winery in North America.

In February 2012 they were awarded the largest project in the South Okanagan — the correctional facility located at the Senkulmen Business Park. They were shovel-ready and had the support from their neighbouring communities, who they continually partner with on many other successful projects in the South Okanagan for the benefit of all the people in the South Okanagan.

Clarence, I congratulate you on your recent election and the successes of the Osoyoos Indian Band.

[1405]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF
WOOD INNOVATION CENTRE PROJECT

A. Dix: The list of unanswered questions surrounding the wood innovation and design centre in Prince George continues to grow. On September 19, 2011, the Premier travelled to Prince George to reannounce the centre as "the world's tallest multi-use wood building."

Does the Premier agree with her former Finance Minister, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, that she and the Jobs Minister made a promise that day unsupported by Treasury Board and, to quote him, "was clearly not something we could deliver on with the dollars available"?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the project has been in the works for a long time. It was first announced, as the member knows, in 2009 and was announced in a number of throne speeches since then. The project over those years has evolved. The business case has certainly evolved as well, and the scope for it changed. Part of that is the result of our changed financial circumstances here in British Columbia.

Our government is absolutely committed to making sure that before we go out and we ask taxpayers for another penny, we will make sure that we are scaling back everything we can do in government, because here's what we believe in. We believe in a bigger economy and a smaller government.

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

A. Dix: What happened in Prince George was that the Premier made an announcement for more spending, for a larger scope than the government could afford. That's not what I say, or not only what I say. It's what the member for Surrey-Cloverdale says very clearly, and it's not the first time.

The Premier will remember that in June 2012 the Premier claimed that $500 million was already budgeted for upgrades to St. Paul's Hospital. She will recall the letter that she and other cabinet ministers received at that time from the then Minister of Finance: "It was important for me to make sure that all ministers, every member of cabinet, understand there was to be no dollar announcements before Treasury Board approval of business cases with respect to capital projects."

Why did the Premier proceed to reannounce the wood innovation and design centre if Treasury Board had not yet approved the project?

Hon. C. Clark: I would remind the member that this project was announced in 2009. It was announced that it would be an iconic project that would revitalize the downtown of Prince George. And guess what. It's happening. It's going to revitalize the downtown of Prince George. It's going to be a model for the world of what we can do here with wood in British Columbia. After many, many announcements since 2009, it is happening.

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

A. Dix: Well, it's unusual that the leader of a government would celebrate many, many announcements and
[ Page 13451 ]
no action.

I know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat, Member. Just take your seat.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: I know that the Premier may not agree with the characterization of her former Minister of Finance, a person she called, just in July of 2012, "the best Finance Minister British Columbians have had in a long time." What he says is that he made it very clear to the Premier and to all of his colleagues.

What did he make clear? That the wood innovation and design centre was not something that should be talked about because it "was clearly not something we could deliver on with the dollars available." Yet the Premier went to Prince George and increased the scope of the announcement beyond which the government could afford.

My question to the Premier is this: did she talk to the Minister of Finance before doing that?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who celebrates many, many announcements and never comes up with any plans, we on this side of the House have not only announced it; we're doing it.

[1410]

Downtown Prince George will be revitalized, partly as a result of this investment, and it will help us continue to sell wood around the world.

We're still waiting to find out from the opposition: where's their plan? Where's their budget? What would they do for British Columbia? Do they support a revitalized downtown in Prince George? Do they support a wood innovation centre? What is their plan for forestry?

Three thousand new workers have been added to the forestry industry in the last year in British Columbia. It's been the result of the fact that this government had a plan. We stuck to it, and we're delivering on it.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN WOOD INNOVATION
CENTRE BIDDING PROCESS AND
CALL FOR INVESTIGATION

N. Macdonald: First promised in 2009, it sits, a hole in the ground, this very day. That is a plan, B.C. Liberal–style.

February 26 the Jobs Minister told this assembly that he had absolutely no involvement in the decisions around the proposed….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, take your seat.

Continue, Member.

N. Macdonald: Well, this is a testy group over here, isn't it? For good reason, for good reason.

Let's start again. February 26 the Jobs Minister told this assembly that he had absolutely no involvement in the decisions around the proposed wood innovation centre in Prince George — what people are now calling the ten-storey scandal.

Then last week, when we released a letter showing this minister and his colleague the Justice Minister had requested the Northern Trust to assemble land for the building, the Jobs Minister changed his story and said there is nothing wrong with making that request. Now we learn that the minister's deputy forced the Northern Trust CEO to rewrite that letter and to remove the reference to the ministers' involvement. So the government's story is undermined again.

The incompetence, I think, is clearly established, but there is a broader, more serious charge being made, and we have a minister's story that keeps changing. The question to the Justice Minister is: will she do what is needed here and call for a fully independent investigation into this mess?

Hon. P. Bell: It's interesting that the members opposite complained about a plan, because we haven't seen a plan from the members opposite.

We have a plan for forestry in British Columbia, and it is delivered. Let me give you, Mr. Speaker, and let me give the opposition critic, a little statistic that's relevant. I think we'll call this uncomfortable fact No. 13. I think it's 13.

In what has been the most difficult economic time the United States has ever faced, where the housing market has crashed, we've started to see growth in forestry in British Columbia. In fact, January 2013 over January 2012, lumber exports in British Columbia are up 9.8 percent. Value is up 37.6 percent year over year. That's because this government had the vision to go to China and make sure we opened a new market up.

The wood innovation design centre is going to open up a whole new market. Ten years from now people will be looking back and seeing this as the most significant shift forestry has ever seen in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: So 27,000 jobs lost since they became government, right? The land base degraded and a hole in the ground. That is what this minister is standing up and bragging about, right?

Let's go back to the original letter, the one Ms. North wrote before the Jobs Minister's deputy forced her to rewrite it. It said that both ministers had pressured
[ Page 13452 ]
Northern Trust to make a very unusual loan.

The Jobs Minister has now admitted to trying to pressure the Northern Trust. But will the Justice Minister confirm that she joined the Jobs Minister in requesting the trust to loan money to Commonwealth so that they could purchase land for the proposed ten-storey wood innovation centre in Prince George? Will the Justice Minister confirm that?

[1415]

Hon. P. Bell: I know the research does not fall in the long suit of the member opposite. But if the member was to go and actually look at the city council minutes from the city of Prince George, he would know that the province went to the city of Prince George and said: "Thank you very much for committing to donating a site to the wood innovation and design centre. We understand you have three possible sites to be selected from. We'd be happy for you to tell us which one you would like." The city of Prince George is the organization that actually chose where the wood innovation design centre is being built, and it's actually in the minutes of the city of Prince George because they passed a resolution exactly to that effect.

C. James: Words matter. We're talking about a letter here from the CEO of a publicly funded trust. I'm certain that Ms. North understands the hierarchy of government. She certainly understands, when referring to the wishes of "minister of the Crown," that that carries greater weight than, say, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. That's why the phrase in the letter matters — two "ministers of the Crown." So now we have two letters with the same sender and receiver on the same day, and we also know that the key line was removed between the first and the second version.

My question is to the Justice Minister. Wouldn't she agree that these two conflicting documents from a public body about a public project cry out for a full, thorough, independent investigation?

Hon. P. Bell: Words do matter, actually, so I will read some words for the member opposite. The direct quote from the document is that their "decision to act as a financier…was made independently by our board of directors." This document was released to the Globe and Mail. Interestingly, the Globe has chosen not to run it, which surprises me, frankly, but this was released to the Globe and Mail last week by Janine North, the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: Part of the problem here is the conflicting answers, the different answers, the different responses and the different letters that we've been receiving on this issue. The Justice Minister told Prince George media that there was nothing wrong with local MLAs getting involved in the procurement process. Yet within hours of a letter to the deputy to the Jobs Minister, the CEO of the Northern Development Trust was forced to take out a sentence in that letter that referred to "a request from 'two local ministers of the Crown.'"

Can the Justice Minister explain: if the request from a minister of the Crown were commonplace, why was there such a rush to remove that sentence from the original letter?

Hon. P. Bell: I can tell the member opposite that I had never seen or was aware of either of those two letters until last week, and that's been confirmed by the deputy in writing again to the Globe and Mail.

What I will say…. And the member, I believe, knows this. When the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act was originally passed and established…. As for the other regional trusts, many of the members opposite are members of these trusts. There are regional advisory committees established as part of that. Sitting on those regional advisory committees are the mayors of municipalities within each of those regions with a population of 500 or greater; the chairs of the regional districts; and the Members of the Legislative Assembly, regardless of whether you are a cabinet minister or an MLA. It is irrelevant. You have a responsibility to advise the Northern Development Initiative Trust, as well as all of the regional trusts, on projects that are relevant to your area.

I will not be embarrassed by suggesting that I want the wood innovation and design centre in downtown Prince George. It's going to be good for the community, and we're building it.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES
IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

J. van Dongen: For the last 2½ years the government has disclosed as little as possible in order to hide the facts about the controversial decision to forgive and forget $6 million legally owing to the province by Dave Basi and Bob Virk. The $6 million write-off actually happened during this term of government.

[1420]

I now have a copy of the Basi and Virk indemnity agreement signed by Tamara Vrooman, Deputy Minister of Finance. Paragraph 9 says that every advance of public funds to the defence lawyers "constitutes a loan to the indemnified person." A loan. The funds advanced were in the form of a loan.

Now, when someone gets a loan from a credit union or bank, that sets up a debt. That sets up a liability. That establishes a legal obligation from the borrower to the financial institution. So starting in 2005 this government advanced public funds by way of two loans to two pol-
[ Page 13453 ]
itical staff, and by October 2010 Basi and Virk had accumulated a debt to the province of $6 million — a $6 million loan.

Section 18(3) of the Financial Administration Act states: "A debt or obligation to the government may not be forgiven without the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council if the amount forgiven is $100 000 or more."

I am asking the Minister of Finance to explain to this House how Deputy Minister Graham Whitmarsh magically wiped out two loans, two debts totalling millions of dollars, without actually executing the transaction under section 18 as intended by this Legislature.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite continues to bring this issue to the Legislature, and I continue to provide exactly the same answers to him every single time he asks the question.

As the member opposite well knows, in fact, recently there was a court case in which the member was an intervener in that process. What was the outcome of that? That in fact the judge made it very clear that the government of British Columbia had met all of the commitments that it said it would in terms of release of information. He was very clear about the fact we said we were going to provide documents, and we did exactly that.

When it comes to the issue of the decision made, we have said over and over in this House that the Deputy Attorney General provided a statement at that time in which he said: "No one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge…or involvement. For clarity, neither the special prosecutor nor the Attorney General had any knowledge of the matter or involvement in this."

Since the time that the indemnity was altered, we have gone to Stephen Toope at the University of British Columbia. He has provided us with a number of recommendations to ensure that this process does not occur again. We have accepted those recommendations and made those changes.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. van Dongen: I'm disappointed in the minister's answer, and I'm also disappointed the Minister of Finance didn't answer, because he was the Attorney General at the time the deal was done.

The government has two storylines on this issue, both of which they are attempting to keep well hidden. There is the real story. And for the real story, I ask the Attorney General to read the actual indemnity agreements signed in 2005. I ask her to read the October 14, 2010, Basi and Virk agreement signed by then Assistant Deputy Minister Richard Fyfe and, third, the October 2010 public statement that the minister referenced, emphasizing three times Basi and Virk's legal liability to repay.

The second storyline, which I call the fictional storyline of this government, can be viewed by the Attorney General by reading the following documents: the April 19, 2011, letter to Mr. Edwardson, also signed by Assistant Deputy Minister Richard Fyfe; the e-mail of May 4, 2012, to certain members of the press gallery that no one in the Justice Ministry wanted their name attached to; and the Attorney General might even be able to find the so-called modified indemnity agreement signed by Graham Whitmarsh…

Mr. Speaker: Could the member pose the question, please? Could you pose the question?

[1425]

J. van Dongen: …as claimed by the government.

I'm asking the Attorney General to examine the glaring inconsistencies between these two sets of documents. My question to the Attorney General is: how is it that the Deputy Minister of Finance, Graham Whitmarsh, acting alone, was able to magically and illegally vaporize $6 million of loans to Basi and Virk in direct contravention of section 18 of the Financial Administration Act?

Hon. S. Bond: While I fully respect the member's opportunities to stand in this Legislature and ask questions, today I ask the member opposite to step out into the hallway if he is going to make the kinds of allegations he is making about senior public servants who are widely respected.

To suggest that the Deputy Attorney General or the Deputy Minister of Finance made any illegal behaviour in terms of this, the member opposite needs to shed the immunity of this place, step out into the hallway, provide evidence and stand up for the courage of his convictions and make those accusations in the hallway.

GOVERNMENT ROLE IN WOOD INNOVATION
CENTRE BIDDING PROCESS AND
CALL FOR INVESTIGATION

D. Donaldson: Well, with this government, it's getting hard to tell the scandals without a program.

I'd like to return to the two letters at the heart of the ten-storey scandal. The date on the two letters received by the Jobs Minister's deputy is identical. In other words, it took mere hours for the first letter to be read, for changes to be made to the letter and for the letter to be sent off.

We don't know who or what decision was made and who the decision was made by and why. We only know that a key sentence referring to the "requests" of the two ministers of the Crown was removed between the two documents.

British Columbians deserve an answer on this entire scandal. Will the Justice Minister order a thorough investigation to get to the bottom of the ten-storey scandal?
[ Page 13454 ]

Hon. P. Bell: What the member opposite does not get is: I am not offended by the line in the letter that suggests that I advocated for the project to be in Prince George. In fact, I have said that over and over and over again.

Now, what I can tell the member opposite is that I was not aware of or had seen either of those two letters. The two letters actually contained significant additional information to each other, including the fact that the information that the member refers to in the letter that includes the comment that I and others advocated for the project actually only includes six lots. The actual transaction was for eight lots, which is in the second letter.

I'm advised by my previous deputy — not the deputy I have now, but the previous deputy — who managed that file that she had gone back to NDIT and asked them to correct that, along with other pieces of additional information that were added. But I will not stand for one second and apologize for advocating for a great project for the downtown of Prince George.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Well, the Jobs Minister and this government are desperately trying to change the channel, not recognizing how serious this issue is.

Again, let's sum up. The stories change, depending on the day and depending on who is speaking. First, the ministers tell us they weren't involved. Evidence comes out showing that wasn't accurate, so the story changes to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: First, the ministers tell us they're not involved. Evidence comes out showing that wasn't accurate, so the story changes to "there's nothing wrong with being involved."

[1430]

Finally, we see that someone in the government, the former deputy to the minister, was clearly uncomfortable, showing just how involved the two cabinet ministers from Prince George were in this procurement.

Again to the Justice Minister: doesn't the host of changing stories and unanswered questions cry out for a full, independent investigation of the ten-storey scandal? [Applause.]

Hon. P. Bell: From the opposition's last round of applause, I would guess that even they are getting bored with the line of questioning that the member's coming up with.

I have been very clear all the way along in this. We did not direct, nor did we ask, NDIT to take decisions. In fact, the letter from Janine North that was sent to the Globe and Mail clearly articulates that the board made that decision.

But the member that just asked that question also sits on a regional advisory council for NDIT, and I would bet that that member advocates for projects from NDIT on a regular basis. If he doesn't advocate for projects, then I think the member is not doing his job, and I'm pretty sure there's going to be a different MLA for that riding come next election.

M. Karagianis: We seem to be getting a number of different answers with regard to the letter, so let's take a different tack here. Let's take a different tack to try and….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: I'd like to try a different tack to try and get at the heart of this ten-storey scandal. My question is actually to the Justice Minister. In July of 2009 the Justice Minister was then the Minister of Transportation and vice-chair of Treasury Board.

I'd like to ask: did she attend the meeting with representatives of the company involved in the wood innovation and design centre and three other cabinet ministers — the former Advanced Education Minister, the current Jobs Minister and the Housing Minister — in which the land assembly deal was discussed?

Hon. P. Bell: The wood innovation design centre has hardly been a secret in Prince George.

An Hon. Member: Three throne speeches.

Hon. P. Bell: I was going to say four throne speeches, but maybe it was only three. I'm not sure. I would stand to be corrected.

May 22, 2009, the Prince George Citizen: "Downtown Improvement Plan Explored." August 26, 2009, the Prince George Citizen: "Wood First Construction in the Works." February 10, 2010: "Wood at the Heart of Prince George Throne Speech Contains More Clues to Long-Awaited B.C. Liberal Project."

This project has been on the boards for a long time. But that's okay, because it's a complex project. It took time to penetrate the Chinese market in order to build the level of forest product sales that we have right now. It's going to take time to do this. But ten years from now people are going to look back at this project, and they're going to understand that it has changed the future of forest products forever and helped drive jobs and employment in this industry — something that the other side doesn't understand.
[ Page 13455 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: My question was actually directed very specifically to the Justice Minister for a very specific reason. We have been asking over and over again for an investigation into this scandal and getting no answers whatsoever and no satisfaction from that side of the House.

I would like to know exactly what involvement the Justice Minister…. She was named in the letter, so my question is very specifically to her. What involvement did she have in these meetings where this land assembly deal was put together, and has she met with other representatives of Commonwealth, the College of New Caledonia, the University of Northern B.C. and the current Jobs Minister when this specific land deal was put together?

[1435]

Now, I know the government likes to pretend, to try to sweep this off the table here with a lot of different answers, but it's very clear that two ministers have been named in a very scandalous land deal. I'd like to know if the Justice Minister will stand up and admit her involvement in this.

Hon. P. Bell: So let's review the facts. The city of Prince George was the one that determined where the wood innovation and design centre is going to be built. The Northern Development Initiative Trust — the board and the board alone — were the ones that made a decision to make a loan. The city of Prince George actually purchased the property.

Mr. Speaker, I have said over and over again that I am not embarrassed by the notion that I advocated for this project. It's going to be great for downtown Prince George. It's what the forest products industry needs. It's the vision that this government provides.

What we have not heard, just 65 days or so away from an election, is: what is the plan of the opposition? What do they propose to do to drive the economy? We know how they're going to spend money. You've got to tell us how you're going to make money as well.

[End of question period.]

K. Conroy: I have a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

K. Conroy: A petition with over 900 signatures from people in my constituency asking that the Pass Creek Road be brought up to at least minimum standards of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Horgan: I have the pleasure to rise and present a petition with 29,057 signatures from the Citizens for Safe Technology Society requesting the government to put a moratorium on the wireless smart meter program until the major issues and problems identified regarding wireless smart meters are independently assessed and full public consultation takes place and until acceptable alternatives can be made available to consumers.

V. Huntington: I have a petition to present: 1,700 names asking this government to stop the industrialization of agricultural land.

Tabling Documents

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my honour, pursuant to the Assessment Act, to present the 2012 Annual Report of the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Ministerial Statements

RESPONSE TO 2011 TSUNAMI IN JAPAN
AND DEBRIS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Hon. T. Lake: Two years ago today a 9.0 magnitude earthquake occurred off Japan's northeast coast and, along with the resulting tsunami, claimed approximately 16,000 lives and caused a devastating loss of infrastructure. On behalf of the government of British Columbia, I would like to offer my thoughts to those affected by these traumatizing events.

British Columbians share the Pacific Ocean with Japan, and as a common neighbour we recognize the long-lasting impact this kind of natural disaster can have on communities and on people. In a time of such great loss it is often very difficult to pick up the pieces and move on, but the people of Japan have shown amazing resiliency in beginning to rebuild both their communities and their lives.

The province continues to work with Japan and the Japanese consulate to identify and manage any culturally sensitive and personal items that wash ashore along B.C.'s coast. Sadly, thousands of people had all of their possessions swept away as a result of the tsunami. As part of our tsunami debris management plan, we are working to collect and identify debris in the hopes of returning items of personal value back to their owners. In the coming days, Mr. Speaker, I hope to tell you and this House more about our actions on that front.

Over the past two years B.C. has endeavoured to play
[ Page 13456 ]
a small part in the healing process and ultimately help Japan move past this terrible tragedy. B.C. is part of a jointly funded project to help with the reconstruction of public facilities in Japan, and in January of this year the first building funded under this project, a public library, opened its doors.

Today and going forward we continue to stand together with our friends and neighbours, the people of Japan. On this solemn anniversary, Mr. Speaker, we honour the memory of the thousands of men, women and children who lost their lives as a result of the earthquake and tsunami.

[1440]

R. Fleming: I would like to thank the minister for his statement and would like to, on behalf of the official opposition, add to his acknowledgment of this day when our collective thoughts are with our friends in Japan.

None of us can forget the sadness that attended the tragic news of this disaster two years ago to this exact day. We watched in horror as our friends, in a country that Canadians have strong and heartfelt ties to, were pounded by water from the most destructive earthquake Japan has ever known.

British Columbians and Canadians responded immediately. Government agencies, charities, service clubs, businesses, schools and school children gathered medical supplies, food and clean water, clothes and durable goods and money to send to a grief-stricken nation. Incredibly, generously and with characteristic dignity, Japan has given Canada and the United States a financial contribution to handle and process tsunami debris that has arrived and will continue to arrive on our shores.

Today in this House we join with B.C. communities — like Ucluelet, like Tofino and countless others — which are posting public observances of this anniversary to remember the 16,000 souls lost and the hundreds of thousands of Japanese people who lost their homes, loved ones and livelihoods. I'm sure that all members will join together in pledging to continue to provide our assistance to those Japanese survivors displaced and engaged in the rebuilding of their lives.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Hon. S. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, no child or youth in B.C. should ever go through the horrors of sexual exploitation. For anyone with children in their lives, imagining that they could be victimized in this way is absolutely gut-wrenching.

We want to believe that all children and youth are growing up safe, that they're enjoying carefree times at school or in playing games at the park, but it's important that we face the truth. While the sexual exploitation of children and youth is an uncomfortable topic, we have to talk about it, because if we fail to acknowledge that it's happening in our communities, we miss vital opportunities to stop it and to protect kids who are most at risk. In many cases, these young people are being forced to exchange sex for drugs, for protection and money and, sometimes, for the most basic necessities — food and shelter.

That's why B.C. is proclaiming March 11 to 17 as Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth Awareness Week. This is an annual event that raises awareness of the issue and recognizes communities that are working to combat this serious and growing problem that is threatening the safety of children and young people across B.C.

This week we recognize some of those dedicated to the cause — the Children of the Street Society, for its dedication to prevention through awareness, education and support for these kids; and community action teams comprising police, social workers, health professionals, educators, service providers, parents and youth, who are working in our communities on local strategies to eliminate this exploitation of young people. We can take our cue from those groups.

Today I ask people to remember that these kids are in our communities. They're kids, like our sons, our daughters, our grandchildren, our nieces and our nephews. They deserve our protection, and we must continue to talk openly about the sexual exploitation of children and youth in order to raise awareness and to stop.

S. Hammell: I would like to thank the minister for her statement. This is an important week to recognize all our responsibility in the effort to stop sexual exploitation of children and youth in B.C.

Events have been scheduled all week, starting today and continuing until Sunday, March 17, and are being held in communities across B.C. to raise awareness on this issue of sexual exploitation of children and youth. There are amazing organizations in our province that are there every day providing safety and support for those children.

I was in Prince George yesterday and met with Diane Nakamura, the executive director of AWAC, an Association Advocating for Women and Children. The issues around violence and sexual abuse that she and her staff deal with daily would be difficult for anyone in this House.

Sexual exploitation of children is the most heinous of all crimes. Whether it's being sexually exploited by a family member or extended family member, by a community member or by a criminal who lives off the exploitation, these crimes deserve a deep commitment from all of us to do everything we can to protect the most vulner-
[ Page 13457 ]
able in our society, our children.

[1445]

The scars a criminal leaves on a child or youth can and often do last a lifetime, as we have seen by the amazing men who have spoken out against the exploitation in churches and by coaches in their community. The trauma left behind can result in destructive behaviour by the victim to themselves. It can cost the victim a life of fulfilment.

Awareness of the exploitation of children and youth in British Columbia deserves our attention in this House daily.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 3, Destination BC Corp. Act, to be followed if and when that completes by committee stage debate on Bill 15.

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 2:48 p.m.

On section 15 (continued).

S. Chandra Herbert: Just a quick question. If the minister could…. I think we were just wrapping this section last time.

I'm actually okay. We can let that one pass.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wanted to ask if the Public Service Act will apply to employees of the Destination B.C. corporation?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct — through regulation.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister explain why the government chose to have the Public Service Act apply in this case? I understand that under the previous iteration of Tourism B.C., when it was industry-led, the Public Service Act did not apply in this way.

Hon. P. Bell: When previous Tourism B.C…. The member is correct. The employees were outside of the Public Service Act. When they came in as part of government, they became part of the Public Service Act.

If we were to transfer them back out of the Public Service Act, it would require changes in collective agreements and that sort of thing. It was deemed better to keep them inside. I think that was the general consensus. The employees were certainly asking. I heard them ask: "Are we still part of the Public Service Act?" They believed that was the right avenue to take.

[1450]

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand the reasoning behind the previous iteration, where employees were outside of the Public Service Act, was, in part, because…. The argument was that as a marketing board, as a private industry and attempting to be as private industry as possible — less government bureaucracy or strictures in place….

The argument at the time — and it's one that I've continued to hear made by small business owners across the province — is that it's important that the marketers be able to move quickly, that you be able to get the absolute best talent outside of government as well as inside where the talents apply. Their argument — how it worked before — was yes, there were some negotiations. But there was cooperation with the BCGEU, the employees union, as well as with the employees to create something that was somewhat similar to the Public Service Act but was not the same in terms of the benefits, time, hours and so on.

The way it's been explained it me — the reason it's important that it not be the Public Service Act — is that, for example, employees of the corporation may have to travel quite a bit. Some of the structures of the Public Service Act are more designed for working in an office, working at general functions, and may not be necessarily as efficient or give the employees the same flexibility that they might want to have.

I know there were many consultations, which the minister has referred to, and discussions around this. I'm just curious why the previous example of how it worked before was deemed not appropriate and why the Public Service Act was deemed superior in terms of providing performance for this corporation.

Hon. P. Bell: There are a number of different groups within government that do travel extensively, including in my ministry. I think, actually, the Public Service Act does not impede or act as a barrier, in any way, to travel. But I appreciate the member opposite's point, which is: which of the two models — inside, outside — is better?

The initial decision, based on the advice we had, was that to keep retaining them inside the Public Service Act was appropriate. What I will tell the member opposite is: should the board believe at some point in the future that being outside the Public Service Act has advantages and that the employees agreed with that, they could advise the minister of the day of that decision, and the minister of the day could take that forward for a change by
[ Page 13458 ]
regulation.

The fact that it's not in legislation creates some flexibility. There are arguments on both sides of the equation — inside, outside. We felt the arguments landed on the inside place at this point. But if somewhere down the road it was deemed by the board that the other model is better, certainly there is the flexibility to change that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the other question is: are they also included in the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the PSLRA? I'm assuming the answer is yes. I'm seeing some head nods, so I won't ask that question, then.

Now, what happens if you have a hotshot marketer, somebody in the private sector that anybody would dream of having come to work for Destination B.C., and one of the marketing positions comes up available, under the Public Service Act does that go to an in-service candidate? For example, somebody who does communications in the Ministry of Transportation or maybe social work or something like that would apply first and get the first dibs on the job before somebody in the private sector. Is that how that would work?

[1455]

Hon. P. Bell: By policy, the government currently looks internally for candidates, but only if the candidates are qualified. So if the candidate doesn't have the necessary skill sets or hasn't been able to demonstrate those skill sets and was not qualified, then we would look outside to fill that position. The fact that it's inside the Public Service Act is in no way a barrier to bringing in an individual from outside who's highly qualified and capable of taking on that role.

S. Chandra Herbert: Earlier I'd referenced the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the PSLRA and, yes, that it would apply. Will the Crown, Destination B.C., be obligated to accept governmentwide edicts around compensation, bargaining outcomes, strikes, picketing? So if the government says this is the way it's going to be, does the Crown corporation have to follow that, or could they go their own way?

Hon. P. Bell: The answer to the question is yes. Government can impose cross-government initiatives. But that is exactly the same as would have occurred under the old Tourism British Columbia model as well, so there's no point of difference.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just wondered…. I wanted to go back into the earlier discussion we had about lots of out-of-country travel and that kind of thing. What kinds of mechanisms would government have to use, in this case, to deal with the amount of massive overtime? There's a lot of weekend travel, evenings and that kind of thing, in the tourism field in particular.

Hon. P. Bell: There are other divisions within my ministry that travel extensively — internationally as well. But more often than not, those positions, because they're senior people that tend to do that type of travel, are excluded positions. Those contracts wouldn't apply in those circumstances.

S. Chandra Herbert: Around staffing, will other directives apply? Maybe downsizing, if the government had a target of X amount of workers they wanted to let go or employee transfers from other ministries, that kind of thing — will those also apply because of the Public Service Act or just because of the way this Crown corporation is structured?

Hon. P. Bell: The question the member asked is a bit speculative, so it's hard for me to really answer it. We're trying to imagine circumstances under which directives could or could not apply. As an example, we've already gone through the process of the government letter of expectation, so government or a minister could create some sort of direction that it's requiring the organization to go in.

But I think the point of difference between this Crown and some other Crowns, at least, is that their budget is formulated by regulation, as the member opposite will know. In the establishment of their budget, it'll be a percentage of revenue as opposed to other Crowns, which are often provided with an allocation that's fixed or that changes subject to government's direction.

Again, I'm being a bit speculative, Madam Chair, but I would think that in this circumstance, the board would be making the decisions around its employees, likely in an independent way, in terms of if there was a plan to reduce the number of total employees in government — or, I suppose, increase. Those decisions would be taken by the board independently because of the funding structure, but again, it's a bit speculative, so it's hard for me to imagine exactly what rules would apply.

[1500]

S. Chandra Herbert: Just as an example, I think what's been posed to me around this act is this. You are a marketer for China. If you had the head marketer for China or for Asia — however you structured it — quit, maybe retired, maybe went somewhere else, and the government currently had a hiring freeze on cross-government, would that be the kind of thing that…? I guess if it was in the letter of expectations as part of a budget measure, this Crown corporation could potentially be told: "Sorry, it's a hiring freeze. You can't hire a chief marketer for Asia."

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: Again, the question is a bit speculative, because most Crowns, most divisions of government….
[ Page 13459 ]
If there is a hiring freeze put in place, it tends to be linked back to their budget, looking to save money as part of that. That wouldn't be the case in Destination B.C. because the money would be retained inside the organization, and they would likely spend it somewhere else.

At the end of the day, I think the board would obviously want to work with the government in a way to meet their needs, but it is a bit different than many other Crowns. As I mentioned previously to the member opposite, I think the most important element of this is a relationship between the minister and the chair. As long as the minister and the chair have a good relationship, then generally most of these issues can be worked through. But because of the funding formula, I think it's a bit different than it would be in other organizations.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand this section is called "No borrowing or deficit." "The corporation must not borrow money without prior written approval of the Minister of Finance."

I'm just curious. I know the industry expressed a great desire to have certain maybe unique powers — certainly, the industry is somewhat unique — to be able to have money that rolls over, between years. Their argument was, maybe in one year they don't want to spend as much because they want to save up money so they can have a really big splash on the world stage. Maybe there's a big event coming to British Columbia which they want to put some money in towards stronger promotion.

What was the thinking around government deciding that we would set in place the yearly budgeting process similar to other Crowns instead of something more unique which could deal with variations year to year?

Hon. P. Bell: The issue with regards to borrowing and deficit and carrying moneys forward is one of the overall Crown and government's fiscal position. Because Destination B.C. is inside the entity from the Auditor's perspective, as was the previous Tourism B.C. inside the entity, any debt that is accrued by Destination B.C. or any deficit that's created carries into the government books and can impact the state of the overall government's financial position, which could potentially impact credit ratings and borrowing costs, and those sorts of things. This is the same as it was for Tourism B.C. and continues to function in the same way for Destination B.C.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

S. Chandra Herbert: Appropriation. This is the section…. Certainly, the tourism industry has been talking for a long time: "Formula funding, formula funding, formula funding." I could repeat it in my sleep and probably sometimes have.

K. Krueger: You just did.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just did. I'm not sleeping yet, and I'm glad I woke you, hon. Member.

An Hon. Member: Don't do that.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, don't wake him.

Anyways, one of the things that people, I think, had been expecting was an actual formula. Certainly, I had heard from a number of people that thought that the bill being brought forward today would include a real formula funding, because there certainly was some concern that if it didn't, down the road the government might decide not to do it, might decide that that wasn't worth pursuing. Maybe the minister changed or the Premier decided that that wasn't something that she wanted to do after all. There could be a whole series of reasons.

[1505]

I'm just curious if the minister might be able to help the House understand what negotiations are going on now, what discussions are happening now and why, despite it being so many years that this process has gone on, we don't have a formula in this bill.

Hon. P. Bell: One of the complexities — there are a number — of why we didn't include in legislation the specific formula, as opposed to putting it in regulation, is because we were reintroducing the PST at the same time. There was some discussion around if there would be a hotel room tax versus just a single tax, which of course is kind of where we've landed. The complexity of being able to articulate or to stipulate in the act the specific formula became problematic.

The second reason is…. There was discussion in the industry, from the task force and others, about whether or not hotel room tax was the best representation of overall tourism activity and that maybe we should be including other things — lift tickets from ski hills, meals in restaurants, flight arrivals, any one of those options — to get a better indicator of what the activity actually is like in the industry.

There are two kinds of points of entry in terms of the determination of what the final formula actually looks like. One is the Tourism Industry Association task force. We're doing some work, and we'll present some thoughts to the task force in due course. The second is that the finance committee of the board of Destination B.C. is now starting to do some work as well. What we've committed to and what I think is the right methodology at this point is….
[ Page 13460 ]

The funding for this year, for 2013-14, will be flatlined to what the 2012-13 budget was. Then, starting on April 1 of 2014, we will shift to the percentage of income based on the percentage of activity year over year. So their budget will go up or down in 2014, depending on the amount of activity that was generated.

But getting the correct understanding of what that activity is, is critical. I think, from the board's perspective, one thing that's important is that doing it in regulation does give the flexibility down the road if it's determined that that isn't an accurate reflection of the activity in the industry. Things will change, undoubtedly, over time. Different activities will become more important. Other activities will become less important to overall tourism. Having it in regulation would make it easier to go in and make a change.

The goal is to have an accurate reflection of the level of activity that's going on in tourism and to make sure we reward the industry appropriately, based on that level of activity.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for that answer. It's certainly something that I am aware of, as well. I know the ministry earlier — under a previous minister; I can't remember if it was one minister or two or three ministers ago, or could maybe be even four. Yes, it has been that kind of four years of a term.

I know there was a green paper which kind of looked at some of those options. Just curious what the timing is. One of the things I hear consistently is — whether or not it's our regional destination marketers or communities or others — just real concern every year when budget time comes around. "When is the budget actually going to come through? What are their budgets for the year ahead? How do they plan?"

I know there was a certain amount of disappointment from some — not everybody, of course; there's certainly a lot of interest in this other model as well — that this did not have that. It was another year of potential uncertainty for folks — this year, in particular, with it being an election year. So just curious what the timing is.

[1510]

Hon. P. Bell: It's been a blissful two years for this minister in this chair, almost to the date, actually. But the member opposite…. I would expect that that work would be done by the time we get into fall, and then the formula would be placed in regulation at that point.

I think that the member's point is a fair one, though, because calculating the revenue and what the time frame is for that revenue will be critical in terms of providing the budget allocation. That was discussed extensively, though, with the Tourism Industry Association task force.

At one point I was arguing that they might be better off with a three-year rolling funding envelope as opposed to tying it to a percentage of activity. But the industry felt strongly that that was not the case, and so it was not to me to make that decision. It was to them to make the decision, and that's why we moved forward with the funding formula.

But I think there are a number of elements that will need to be worked through over the next few years to make sure that the funding formula is timely and is accurately reflective of activity.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section is around the tourism marketing committee, something I know the minister has spoken of around the importance of ensuring that people across the province have representation. Just in reading this section here, it argues that the board must "establish the Tourism Marketing Committee, the members of which represent regional tourism interests, to provide advice to the board," and a whole number of other information, including performance indicators, etc.

I'm just curious. It does not, in this section, say that they must come from the six tourism regions or how that is going to be decided. I know the minister has said that they will come from the six tourism regions and that somehow they will be chosen from each one. Just curious why that mechanism isn't described in here, if that's the minister's argument — because the board isn't regional, but this is regional. Just curious why that's not determined — what regional means — in the context of this legislation.

Hon. P. Bell: The model in which the individuals will be chosen and the fact that there will be three from each of six regions is established by policy. The reason why it's done by policy as opposed to regulation or legislation is that it may change over time. There may be a time when there are seven regions or five regions and where the numbers could conceivably change.

That's why it's done in policy — to offer maximum flexibility. And those decisions are made, the policy is established, by the minister, not Destination B.C. So the minister would then potentially change that structure down the road.

S. Chandra Herbert: Just for, I guess, the public's knowledge…. As it's not in the act, sometimes it may be unclear because it's policy. They can't look it up in the policy. Is this going to be determined, shared somewhere — how this model is meant to be structured, policy-wise?

I know sometimes people will look at a press release, and they'll say: "Well, is that policy, or is that just the minister saying something?" No, they would never say that, would they, hon. Minister?

Can he clarify where those policies will be housed?
[ Page 13461 ]

Hon. P. Bell: We are anticipating that the board will actually post the policy on the Destination B.C. website.

S. Chandra Herbert: But there's a difference between the industry's policy and the policies of the board versus the minister's policy described to the board. So I'm just wanting to confirm. The minister is planning on putting the policy that he uses for Destination B.C. to Destination B.C., and they will then post on line. Is that the suggestion?

[1515]

Hon. P. Bell: The group that's actually physically doing the work to establish the policy right now is actually Destination B.C. and the board. They will then bring it to the minister and, with the minister's agreement, post it on the Destination B.C. board.

Sections 24 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

S. Chandra Herbert: This section is called "Ministers' directives." I'll read it out for those who don't have the bill and are following at home. I'm being generous. There may be a few. Six thousand people. Thank you to each and every one of them.

It says: "(1) Both the minister and the Minister of Finance may issue to the corporation written directives that are consistent with this Act and the regulations" and "(2) The corporation must comply with the written directives issued under subsection (1)."

I guess this is where, maybe, the minister and I part ways a little bit. We have obviously heard the call for industry leadership. It's come, I think, in part from a frustration with the fact that we've had a revolving door of leadership in the Tourism Ministry.

But I think it's also come because of real concern about partisan influence penetrating good public policy. I think that's a legitimate concern, whether it's government spending millions on ads promoting themselves or marketing documents which have come out from government showing that public money is to be used to help narrow a credibility gap that the current governing party is facing.

Now, I think it is a legitimate concern, because people want to make sure that their tax dollars are spent well. They want to make sure that tourism marketing dollars are meant for tourism marketing, not for Premier's marketing or ministerial marketing or MLA and swing riding marketing. They want to make sure that the dollars are spent well.

I think the concern here is that a minister — and it could be from any party, could be from any government here on and into the future — could potentially decide that they want tourism marketing dollars to be spent in a way which is beneficial to them but not necessarily to the industry. There's really nothing that the industry board could do with this directive. They could protest internally and say, "We don't like it," but in the end, under this act, they have to follow — either that or leave the organization.

That is a concern of mine, and I think it's a concern that the opposition shares, because we've seen the abuse this government has used — abuse of taxpayers' money — before. I think that is a concern. It's a legitimate one, and it's one that…. I think we all want government to be operating in the best manner possible because there are limited funds.

We also want to encourage the private sector to do cooperative marketing with the tourism marketer of the province. I think that's what I've heard from small business people in Kamloops, in Cranbrook, Prince George, Comox, again and again.

It doesn't matter where I've travelled. They want to be involved in the marketing of their province to grow tourism. They would participate more often in cooperative marketing with Destination B.C. or Tourism B.C. if they could be sure that partisan influence wasn't polluting the public policy.

I think that's where this issue that I have with section 28 really lies. It's nothing against the current minister. It's just about the potential abuses of future governments.

Obviously, this act will not apply to the current government, necessarily, because very shortly we're facing an election. But because of the government's previous actions over the last four years and currently, with the current ads that they're running, I think this concern is legitimate.

I just wanted to ask the minister if he might be able to share why he thinks it's important that the minister have the power to direct what is called on paper an industry-led board but in reality could become just a ministerial-run board with an industry group as its figureheads.

[1520]

Hon. P. Bell: I'll try and give the member opposite some comfort. I understand why the member has come to the conclusion or has the concern that he has, but I think it's unfounded, and I'm hoping I can clarify it for him. It's important to read the entire sentence that's in the act. "Both the minister and the Minister of Finance may issue to the corporation written directives" — and this is the really important part of this — "that are consistent with this Act and the regulations."

So there's nothing in the act that would permit a minister to provide a directive that says: "We want you to spend more advertising dollars on initiatives to promote government's image." The directives that are contemplated in this are things like the ability to finance the corporation, the ability to borrow money — those sorts of things.

The context — and the really important part of that
[ Page 13462 ]
sentence — is that any directives have to be consistent with this act and the regulations. There's nothing in the act or the regulations that would allow the minister to intervene in the way the member opposite contemplates.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for that. I'm just trying to understand here. We've got "written directives that are consistent with this Act." Potentially…. I appreciate the minister giving me some leeway here. One of the purposes of the corporation is marketing British Columbia domestically. Potentially, could the minister say: "We want you to market B.C. domestically — to up the buy and focus it on these five communities"?

Hon. P. Bell: The members of my staff and I can't think of any section in the act that would allow a minister to provide that sort of direction.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just trying to understand here. I had a conversation with staff before. So my understanding of that conversation was that in the end, a ministerial directive could very much be pretty prescriptive, that it could very much involve changes to how the marketing is being done, changes to where the corporation focuses.

For example, here under "Purposes of corporation" we've got: "(f) purposes prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." So, for example, under policy the government could say, "We think it's important to grow tourism in the far north of the province, and that is a purpose that the corporation must take," at which point the minister, through a ministerial directive, could say: "And they must increase the budget to go along with that." Is that not conceivable under this act?

Hon. P. Bell: I think I'll just try and clarify a bit more. I'm in no way offended by the member's questions. I know that that's the type of thing that people in the tourism industry want to know and have some confidence in — that in fact ministers won't be interfering in specific marketing decisions. Nor do I believe it would be appropriate.

[1525]

I'm just going back to section 5 of the act, which is "Capacity and powers," section (2)(f). I'll just give the member an example. I just quickly flipped through the binder. I think it's easier to understand it from this perspective. Sub (f) says, "if authorized by a directive of the minister issued under section 28,'' which is the section we're now referring to, they may "engage in revenue-generating activity." So that would be an example of a directive that's authorized in the act and that section 28 authorizes the minister to do.

It doesn't give blanket authority to a minister to provide directives for any circumstances. It provides relatively specific directives based on some of the sections of the act that we've already been through. The first one that just came to my attention — I just flipped through it very quickly — was subsection 5(2)(f).

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister. I guess where I am trying to figure this out is…. I understand what the minister just pointed out and the "Ministers' directives" — subsection 28(2) — and how that connects to the earlier section. But there's subsection (1), which just says: "Both the minister and the Minister of Finance may issue to the corporation written directives that are consistent with this Act and the regulations."

So the "and the regulations" part is, I think, particularly important. I think it's always important to look at acts in hypotheticals, because myself or the minister may not be here and there may be some future people who decide to interpret these things differently.

Is that under the powers…? With 4(f), "purposes prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council," there could be regulations brought in, or through an order-in-council which could, for example, say, that one of the roles of Destination B.C. would be to support heritage projects. Maybe that's a good thing. You know, maybe that's something they see that could potentially help generate growth and tourism.

But if the minister directive under one of the purposes would be to support heritage projects, the minister could direct, potentially — as it's a regulation — that X number of heritage projects be supported in this year. You know, we want five heritage projects in this year to be supported.

I guess what I'm trying to find is, if this is just limited to financial matters, which is subsection (2), why is subsection (1) so broad in its potential implications?

Hon. P. Bell: Subsection (1) simply says that the minister or the Minister of Finance may provide a directive, and subsection (2) says the board will execute on the directive. So that's the two sections.

But I'll just give the member opposite another question. Again, I'm being respectful, because I understand this is the kind of answer that people in the industry are looking for. I appreciate the fact that the member is taking time to ask these questions.

Regulation-making ability is also limited in the act. We have tried to only put it in the act in places where it's relevant and not seen as being invasive. So as an example, the "Tourism marketing committee," under section 24(2)(e), provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the ability to make regulations. Those are specific to what the marketing committee may advise the board on, so that would be an example.

As we have gone through the bill, we've passed a couple of sections that provide for regulation-making ability. I suppose, in this circumstance, a regulation could be passed that could say the minister may issue a directive,
[ Page 13463 ]
but it would pertain only to the advice the tourism marketing committee would provide to the board. So again, it's not…. I don't think it is invasive in any way.

I think the issue that the member points to…. So if the government of the day felt strongly that it wanted to support heritage sites and Destination B.C. did not share that viewpoint, the correct point of entry for that, actually, would be through the government letter of expectation.

I don't think you would use section 28. It would not be my expectation that section 28 would be used to try and get Destination B.C. to follow the request of government. The place where that request would probably be more appropriately placed would be through the government letter of expectation.

Not that that necessarily provides any more or less comfort to the member opposite, but this particular section, section 28, is unlikely to be one where the ministers would use to direct the board on a specific activity. It's because of the complexity of where those directives can be issued, and I've pointed out a few of them already.

[1530]

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate that answer and the discussion around regulation-making abilities as it pertains to the tourism marketing committee. I think, though, maybe the debate should have been had — and I think it was, in part, had at that time — around subsection 4(f), where it talked about "purposes prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council" as relating to the purposes of the corporation.

While regulation-making abilities may not have been put throughout the whole act, certainly you can't get much bigger than the purposes of the corporation in terms of regulation-making ability. Really, that comes down to the core business of the organization. Regulation-making ability could really change the purposes of the corporation in big ways, as a government may decide to go one way or another. Certainly, that then impacts the ministers' directives here, potentially.

Now, of course, the minister is correct that the letter of expectation — which, hopefully, is created through some cooperation between the minister, the chair, the board, those organizations and the wider industry — is good. However, it still stands that the minister could decide to do most anything, with the support of an order-in-council, to change purposes within an organization and then potentially use ministers' directives.

I will be voting against this one section, more just as a way of saying that I'm concerned about the potential for abuse, and I don't think this act goes far enough in terms of creating a possibility of the need for managed cooperation. It still leaves too open the possibility of a minister deciding to do what they want, which they might feel beneficial to themselves or their political interests but not necessarily to the board's interests. So I will be voting against this section on division.

Section 28 approved on division.

Sections 29 to 38 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:33 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — DESTINATION BC CORP. ACT

Bill 3, Destination BC Corp. Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. T. Lake: I now call committee stage of Bill 15, intituled Justice Reform and Transparency Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — JUSTICE REFORM AND
TRANSPARENCY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 15; H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 3:34 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

On section 1.

Hon. S. Bond: I look forward to the discussion this afternoon. I know there have been some initial comments made by members of the House as we were doing second reading.

I do want to introduce my staff that will be with me today. I'm joined by the assistant deputy minister of justice services branch, Jay Chalke; and also the executive lead, justice and public safety secretariat, Allan Castle; and Tyann Blewett, who is the senior adviser of corporate policy and planning.

There will be other staff as we proceed through committee stage that will be joining us. Kevin Jardine will be
[ Page 13464 ]
one of those, assistant deputy minister of court services. That is the staff complement.

I do want to begin…. I know we have a series of bills this afternoon, but I do want to reflect upon the incredible hard work that has been done by this team of professional public servants. They have grasped the whole concept of justice reform and have worked tirelessly to bring a series of bills to the House.

I know this one in particular has taken a great deal of effort, and I just want to put on the record the deep respect and gratitude I have for the work they've done.

With that, we are certainly ready to answer questions.

The Chair: Shall section 1 pass?

L. Krog: I realize everyone wants to get through the session quickly, but I wouldn't mind asking a question or two along the way.

Just to be absolutely clear, in the definition section it says: "'justice and public safety sector' means the justice system, including, without limitation…." So I take it the concept is that it will anticipate any potential reorganization of the ministries, as they now stand, given that they were formerly the Ministry of Solicitor General and the Ministry of Attorney General and now combined in one.

Hon. S. Bond: The member would be correct. We're not anticipating changes in the ministry. This isn't about the ministry as such, although as we look at "Justice and Public Safety Council," there will be implications for staff. We have made a transformation within the ministry that…. This is about looking at justice across the sector and finding a way to bring people together with a common purpose.

L. Krog: With respect to the definition of "qualified candidate," it's a fairly broad kind of distinction. I'm just wondering: what does the minister anticipate that a qualified candidate will be? Are we talking about…? It says provided "a senior leadership role." Does that mean they had to be at it a long time or that they are simply respected or that they are in a position of authority? What exactly are we talking about?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the definition of "qualified candidate," particularly initially, refers to senior leaders within government. Obviously, we want to move this forward.

But it does give the minister the ability to look beyond, more broadly than government. For example, organizations like Legal Services Society would be able to provide good advice about who some of those individuals might be, but certainly, the initial group will include senior leadership in government.

L. Krog: No disrespect to the hard work of the ministry or the people who are in it, but there has been a certain public comment or suggestion that this is government doing now what it should have been doing all along. So what the act itself is contemplating is that you're going to take senior ministry officials to examine and make the justice system work better. Some would be saying: "Well, they're the people who are in charge. Why isn't it working better now, after 12 years?"

[1540]

One of the concerns that has been raised is: is that pool is going to be limited to senior leadership now? Or is it contemplated in the near term that in fact, you'll be looking to, perhaps, the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society of British Columbia, a representative from the sheriffs and others who might be intimately involved in the process?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the work of Geoffrey Cowper was important to us. He suggested, in fact, that we begin with senior leadership within government. Obviously, we would like to transition as quickly as possible to being more inclusive. I think that is an important step in principle.

The member opposite would know well, far better than I in many cases, about the issues within the system. The justice system certainly isn't a result of the work of public servants.

Part of the challenge we're facing here is the whole issue of constitutional independence. Geoffrey Cowper speaks extensively about that — that the system over decades has had a challenge coming together to talk about the system from a systemic perspective.

I have every confidence that the senior leaders in government will do an admirable job of beginning this process, and we would move to transition and be more inclusive as quickly as we can.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if the minister has some concept already. I assume this act is going to pass before this session is over. What number of people are we talking about? What is the potential budget for it? I understand from the briefing — and I thank your staff for that briefing earlier — that it's going to come out of existing funds. If the minister could expand a little more, I would very much appreciate it.

Hon. S. Bond: While we haven't made a final determination on number, we're having the discussion about what would be most effective. But in fact, this team of people has spent the last year working on the issue of justice reform, dealing with white papers, looking at the whole concept.

In essence, this is the chance for them to then move on to the next step of their work, and they've accommodated that within the existing budget. That will continue. This is just the next step in the work that we did to bring the two ministries together to talk about reform from a
[ Page 13465 ]
holistic perspective. In fact, this would just be the next step of the work that they have been doing.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if perhaps the minister could outline what the positions involved are, without necessarily naming the individuals. Who are the folks we're talking about who've been working on this and will obviously form the nucleus, if you will, of this new council?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, just to reiterate to the member opposite, this team of people has worked tirelessly to bring us to this place, so it won't be dissimilar to the work and structure that they already are undertaking.

It's my intent in the short term, as we begin this work, to appoint the Deputy Minister of Justice to chair the council, and the assistant deputy ministers who have relevant justice portfolios would be the initial members of the council.

Again, I certainly take the member's point that we do want this to be a body that eventually is broader than simply government leaders. That is the intention, and certainly, we are honouring the recommendation of Geoffrey Cowper by beginning this work with senior government leaders. Then our intent would be to move that forward as quickly as we can.

[1545]

L. Krog: I'm wondering if there's any intention that at some point this would form a position in government that would be salaried outside of the public service in the direct sense, the way government has advisory boards or other positions — not perhaps so far, obviously, as the Office of the Auditor General or something like that. But is the anticipation that we'll move to some model that will be seen as quite independent of government?

Hon. S. Bond: That's not intended or contemplated at this point in time. I think the general goal is that the people who are responsible for delivery of many of the areas of justice take responsibility for the leadership aspects.

An important thing to note is that the council is only one way that there will be input gathered. That's an important thing — that we are also in the position of being able to, as necessary, appoint advisory boards. The summit is also an important way for us to gather input. So this is only one mechanism, and as I said, it responds initially to the direct recommendation of Geoffrey Cowper.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

L. Krog: Just to confirm that all of the members of this committee will in fact be appointed by the minister or by order-in-council — just to be clear. In other words, is the minister the sole authority under the act, or does it have to go before cabinet?

Hon. S. Bond: The minister.

L. Krog: At this point, just to confirm, the minister is not anticipating appointing anyone outside of government initially, for the foreseeable future. Is that fair comment?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct. The initial group will be senior leaders in government, as Geoff Cowper recommended. But as I pointed out earlier, it does not preclude the expansion of that to outside government at some point in the future.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Krog: A number of objects are set out here, including a strategic plan to report…. And that annual report, I take it, is to be prepared within six months after the end of the fiscal year, etc., and provide a copy to the minister, and then it's to be published. I think I'll save the questions on that specifically until I get to that area, but if the minister can anticipate that, I'd appreciate it.

It also has a catch-all phrase: "(g) to provide advice and recommendations to the minister and to perform any other functions respecting the justice and public safety sector that the minister requires." I'm just wondering: what are we contemplating there? Is that just a good legislative draftsperson saving the possibility of anything else being put before the council?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, two of the examples we could think of…. It isn't just a catch-all. For example, if there were research that the council wanted to see take place, the council could coordinate that research. Or if there was a significant transformation project that they were interested in seeing undertaken, they may also look at how that would be managed. So there are a number of ways that (g) could be used.

[1550]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's earlier comments that this will be funded within the existing budget, but I just have some concerns about how the minister sees that working.

We've appointed the chair. The council is up and operating. It's all in-house at this point, and there's some suggestion we're going to have to spend $1 million on, perhaps, a report or a study.

Will the chair have authority to do that within the existing budget, or are we going to be going back to
[ Page 13466 ]
Treasury Board at some point? If so, how does it work in a practical way? It's a very nuts-and-bolts kind of question. Nothing undue here.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, there are a number of ways that…. We certainly have never said — and I never have — that the justice system doesn't at some point in the future need, potentially, additional resources. We're saying today that the resources that we have in place are the ones we expect to operate with. There are a number of ways to gather information and to get work done, whether it's collaborating with universities and those kinds of things. There is not an intention today to add specific new resources.

Having said that, if within the ministry there is a way to generate savings…. One of the things that we believe is possible is that as we transform the system and do things differently, there may be a way for us to capture some of those savings. Those dollars could indeed be reallocated to projects that the council may want to recommend within the current budget allocation.

L. Krog: With respect to 3(d) of Bill 15, the minister has referred to collecting information. I'm just wondering: is it anticipated that the ministry will be relying on statistics or numbers that it already keeps, or is there some plan, in fact, to keep new statistics or to start to gather evidence or information that isn't already underway?

In other words, where is this going? Are we going just going to rejig the old horse, so to speak, or the old saw, or are we going to do something different?

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly are contemplating new data and, even more importantly perhaps, how we work across the sector to actually talk to one another about data.

One of the key initiatives would be to look at business intelligence systems across the justice system. So today, for example, there may be data in certain sectors, but we are not able to actually talk to one another because of those systems — created at different times, potentially. So yes, there is the need, I think, for there to be new data and perhaps even existing data that typically may not have been shared as effectively as possible.

L. Krog: Section (e) of 3 talks about facilitating that collection "needed to enhance the ability of the participants to (i) ensure careful management…(ii) engage in evidence-based decision making, (iii) make informed evaluations…."

What actual authority will the council have in a practical way? In other words, will the chair of the council be able to direct a deputy minister to do something? Or will the power of the council only come through the annual report, where it will say: "We recommended this and this, and the ministry hasn't done X, Y and Z"? How does it work on a practical level — the decision-making structure that flows from this council within the ministry?

[1555]

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's important to reflect on the fact that there's not meant to be an oversight role for the deputy or a directive role in that sense. This is about a collaborative approach. I think the member opposite would know that we reference, for example, an MOU with the judiciary, which would look at a way for us to work constructively with one another.

Data collection and management would be part of that. So there is, obviously, some ability to deal with police, for example, in this bill.

There is a bit of an expansion there in terms of setting standards and those kinds of things. But more importantly, this bill reflects the constitutional independence that is inherent in our system and important to it. It does, for example, reference an MOU as a collaborative way of getting to the same outcome.

L. Krog: If I understand what the minister is saying, it's full of good intentions. I appreciate that, and I don't mean that to sound sarcastic.

But in terms of practice, ultimately the chief judge will continue to exercise his or her authority within the judiciary and the minister will continue to exercise her authority within the ministry. Ultimately, it's essentially those two persons who will have the greatest authority within the justice system, as we understand it.

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly can't alter the constitutional independence or statutory responsibilities, and we're not attempting to do that.

To the member opposite's point, it is about being constructive and collaborative. I want, at this point, at least to note that in fact, that's exactly what is starting to occur. I think that even the fact that here we reference an MOU is an important step in the right direction.

It is the venue and the opportunity that we're creating in this bill to allow for that type of approach to be undertaken. Collection of data is one of those things that we will need to work on together, but I'm very encouraged by the progress that we've made and the fact that we can even include a reference to an MOU with the judiciary.

L. Krog: To talk about this in a fairly practical way, the justice summit is coming up this weekend. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to miss Saturday's venue for other commitments. Having said that and given what the minister has said about the proposed composition of the council, that's the first step.

How frequently does the minister see this body meeting? Is this a once-a-week, a once-a-month or a biennial event?
[ Page 13467 ]

[1600]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the justice summit would be at least annually. The justice council and safety council…. Right now the intent, as we've had discussions about this, would be probably monthly.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Krog: This is the section that deals with the appointment of the advisory boards, which will all be appointed by the minister to advise on various matters related to the administration of justice.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Again, I'm just wondering. What does the minister contemplate these advisory boards looking like? I presume, given the Cowper report, that she probably has some concept of this in mind, and I'd be curious to know what that is.

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the goal is to encourage and receive external input. Our initial thinking is rather than do it on a subject matter or topical basis, that we would contemplate, for example, advisory boards that would deal with criminal law, family law, civil and administrative. We're looking at it more broadly than by specific topics.

L. Krog: With respect to these boards, is it contemplated, then, that the assistant deputy ministers would likely be the chairs of these advisory boards?

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of the ability to designate, it is the minister's ability to designate a member of the group. Initially, it would likely be pragmatic for us to have assistant deputy ministers manage that role, but it does not preclude having an external chair.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, I take it that, initially, that's what the minister is contemplating. In fact, it will be existing members of the public service as opposed to going outside, picking someone from the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society or the union — BCGEU — representing sheriffs or something like that.

Hon. S. Bond: I think I want to just highlight the fact that the whole goal of having advisory boards would be to receive external input. If the assistant deputy ministers, for example, were to chair initially, it would be simply to coordinate, to organize, to make sure that we have the appropriate process in place for those boards.

We recognize how critical it is to have external advice, and I think this was a way for us to look at a mechanism for that input on a regular basis. Initially, likely there would be assistant deputy ministers involved, but as I said earlier, it certainly would not preclude having the minister designate someone external to chair those groups.

L. Krog: The advisory boards, obviously, will make recommendations to the council. Is it anticipated that those recommendations will be included in the public reporting that the council is to make annually? Or is that something that will be kept inside government, so to speak?

[1605]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the advisory board members are reporting that information to the minister, so this is for advice to the minister. For example, as the Attorney General, I have taken up the opportunity to receive advice from a number of organizations. So this information is intended to be provided as advice to the minister, and the minister can then also make sure that that information, if necessary, is shared with the justice council.

K. Corrigan: So these advisory boards — how often would you expect that they would meet? I'm trying to get some sense of what this would look like.

Hon. S. Bond: The intent is quarterly for those meetings to occur. In fact, one of the things we thought about was the ability for those members to network with their own colleagues. We want this to be as broad-based as possible. Even quarterly is obviously a fairly significant time expectation for already very busy people.

K. Corrigan: Is it expected that people who are appointed as members of the advisory board would be paid for being members?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, it's not the intent that we would pay these individuals. I think one of the things that's been really very encouraging and motivating, actually, is the fact that there is an enormous interest and appetite in the idea and concept of reform and, most importantly, the feeling that individuals are being engaged and included.

So from our perspective, we think that there will be lots of people interested in serving on these advisory boards, and they would not receive payment for that appointment.

K. Corrigan: I would assume, then, that the costs associated with the administration and travel, food, rooms and so on would be covered for these advisory boards.

Hon. S. Bond: Correct.

[1610]

K. Corrigan: I know there was an answer earlier about costs associated, I think, with the justice and public safety council. Is there anything in the budget that is allocated for these advisory boards?

Hon. S. Bond: As I made the comment earlier, the expectation is that we will manage the initial reform agenda within existing budgets. We have not built in additional resources. Until we work our way through the legislation, first and foremost, we don't expect that the advisory boards will be up and running in the immediate short term. Obviously, there are other things that will take place between now and…. Hopefully, this continues.

But we've been clear. We're going to manage within the budget that we've been given, and we will consider additional resources in the future as they become available and, certainly, if they are necessary.

K. Corrigan: Has the minister, then, if this is going to be managed within existing budgets…? Allocation of resources, scarce resources — we've had some cuts, certainly, in this ministry on the court services side. I'm wondering whether the minister has done an estimate of how much the advisory boards are going to cost. If so, what other areas are going to be cut back as a result of implementing the advisory board as well as the justice and public safety council?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we want to be clear that the Ministry of Justice received an increase in its budget this year. In fact, we exceed $1.1-something-or-other billion. We're committed to working within the budget that we have.

One of the things that's important to me is that we contemplate the use of technology, for example. There are excellent ways to communicate with one another which may not require the degree of expense that may previously have been necessary.

We're going to start this in a modest way. We are not anticipating starting up four advisory boards in the short term. We have a lot of work to do on the whole reform agenda.

So there are no additional resources being set aside at this point in time. As I've said in the other questions, we are prepared to consider, as we move forward, additional resources as they become available and if they are necessary.

K. Corrigan: My recollection from reading the budget — I don't have it with me right now — is that the increases that are in the Justice Ministry are almost entirely related to policing and corrections. Is the minister suggesting that the costs associated with the advisory boards and the justice and public safety council and the other initiatives that are being undertaken at this time are going to come out of either policing or corrections budgets, or is it coming out of court services and other budgets related more directly with the courts?

Hon. S. Bond: Like every other jurisdiction in the country, we're facing some pretty difficult economic times. I am not going to stand in this House or in public and promise millions of dollars that taxpayers have no idea where they're going to come from, other than from their pockets, potentially.

[1615]

What we've said as a ministry is that we are managing our ministry in its entirety, as one ministry. Our budget this year is $1.14 billion. It's up 2½ percent. And as we look at all of our priorities across the ministry, we will determine how we manage as we move forward.

We should also be clear that we expect the advisory boards to be a modest amount of money. We have not at this point got a budget amount, because we haven't even determined how many we would start with and what they would look like. In fact, we are also, as I said, contemplating the use of technology in a variety of ways to do this.

This is an enabling bill that would allow us to move forward with some of the major recommendations that Geoffrey Cowper brought forward. We, like other ministries, are working to accommodate all of the challenges we're facing within the 2.5 percent increase that this ministry experienced this year.

K. Corrigan: Can I just clarify, though? I know the minister talked about a $1.14 billion budget. But it is normal practice — is it not? — for the ministry to be organized in a way that if there is an increase in corrections and in policing, that if, in fact, there are initiatives, the funding for those initiatives will come from the line item or the area that we would expect to be associated with that initiative. In this case, we're talking largely about court services.

Hon. S. Bond: To correct the member opposite. This isn't about court services. This is about an entire justice system. The whole point of Geoffrey Cowper's work was to look at the system holistically and say: "What can we do differently?"

This is about bringing all of the partners into the room to talk about a strategic vision for justice in the province. It isn't about one part of the ministry or another. In fact, yes, if we can garner savings in one part of the ministry, of course we're going to look at where we apply those. They're not strictly tied to a particular budget line.

Having said that, the member opposite is correct. We're investing $15.7 million extra dollars to ensure that we can keep front-line police officers in their jobs. That's exactly where it's going to go. We, like other ministries…. I think taxpayers actually expect us to be prudent and disciplined.

This budget was increased by 2½ percent to over $1.14
[ Page 13469 ]
billion. We're talking about potentially four advisory boards that we may need to pay expenses for. I am positive that we can accommodate the need for the advisory boards, and as I said, they will be incrementally increased. To date we're not even at the point where we can determine exactly how many there would be.

K. Corrigan: The four areas that potentially would be advisory boards that were mentioned, I believe, by the minister were criminal, family, civil and administrative areas of law. None of those have to do with policing and corrections.

I think the point that I'm making here is that, yes, these are good ideas. We will be supporting this bill, I believe. But the fact is that it certainly points to a problem that I've seen in many areas of the budget, not just with this ministry. It is that we have plans, we have promises, and yet when you start to ask the questions about where the money is going to come from, you find out there is no money associated with it. So the money in policing and the money in corrections I would not imagine would be used to fund advisory boards in the criminal, family, civil or administrative area of law. At least, I wouldn't think so.

So I guess that the question to the minister is: where is the money going to be, and how much is it going to cost? There must have been projections done.

[1620]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, just to raise a point with the member opposite. I actually think that the member is a lawyer, in fact. I can't imagine how you would contemplate the criminal justice system without contemplating police and corrections. Police and corrections are a critical component of the criminal justice system. The member opposite misses pretty much the entire point of this bill, which is talking about the system as a whole.

For far too long — and if you look at Geoffrey Cowper's work — the whole issue of constitutional independence has been such…. Essential as it is, we have to find ways to actually work constructively together. So in fact, police and corrections are a critical component of the criminal justice system.

L. Krog: With respect to the advisory boards, realistically, we're not anticipating anything substantive — fair to say — until the election is over. Is that a reasonable comment?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the most important component is the fact that the act is not in force yet, so we can't exactly appoint advisory boards. And you know, I've heard, not from the Attorney General's critic but from the opposition critic, that this is all about a big rush and a ploy to do a bunch of…. You know, this is about systemic change. It's not going to happen overnight.

As I said in my previous comments, I don't actually believe this is a partisan issue. We're not rushing out to start appointing a bunch of advisory boards. It needs to be done thoughtfully and carefully. It needs to reflect the work, that this amazing group of public servants has brought us to this place, and the system has responded very well to our initiatives.

So we're not appointing them tomorrow. First of all, we haven't even passed the bill, and then it would have to be brought into force. This is about something much bigger than whichever government is sitting in place.

You know, we already have a lot of advice to go forward with. I mean, we've asked for input. We've asked legal services. We've asked Cowper. We've got white papers laying out our plans. So it's not a surprise. We're not going to start appointing advisory boards overnight.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

L. Krog: With respect to section 5, "The council must" — and it's mandatory, obviously — establish, in consultation, etc., etc., "a strategic vision reflecting desired outcomes for the justice and public safety sector." It says "develop a strategic vision reflecting desired outcomes…." They're wonderfully high-sounding words, but I'm curious to know: if the council comes up with something, will that be made public regardless of whether or not it, in fact, coincides with the interest or direction or strategic vision that the minister or the government may have?

Hon. S. Bond: The intent is for it to be public and to provide direction. This law would give that responsibility to the council to create the strategic vision.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

L. Krog: This is a requirement for the strategic plan in relation to the applicable period. So it looks like we're going to have a three-year rollout, much as we have strategic plans in other areas of government. It talks about proposing goals that advance the strategic vision referred to in section 5, identify impediments, propose strategies, establish performance measures, etc.

I'm just wondering what the minister thinks that plan is going to look like. Is it essentially what government does already, or is it going to be a different kind of an animal? Are we going to rely on traditional methods? Is this just, hopefully, a better and a different look at the process, or is there something very different about this from what we do now?

[1625]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I harken back to my previous
[ Page 13470 ]
answers. Jurisdictions around the world are grappling with this. Measuring outcomes in the justice system is a pretty complex and challenging thing to do. Is it worth the effort? Absolutely, it is. British Columbians deserve to have confidence in the system.

We are very cognizant of the fact that this is going to be incremental. It will take time, just as it has taken…. Despite what my colleagues on the other side of the House would like to claim, that all of the issues in the justice system were created in the last decade, we know that's not true. We know that, in fact, it has taken decades for the kind of concerns to be the way they are today. This is going to take time, but we are committed to a slow, thoughtful, incremental process that is inclusive and collaborative.

L. Krog: I have to cheekily say to the minister: we say it's 12 years, actually, not just ten.

Having said that to the minister, is that plan, as they say…? It's going to be published "in a manner that can reasonably be expected" to bring the strategic plan to the public attention, etc., etc. — so, I assume, published in a way that most plans of government are published. Or are we contemplating something different?

Hon. S. Bond: We're having a debate about how many ways we can get the message out there.

No, we've used standard legislative language, as I'm reminded, but the fact of the matter is that we would want to launch it, to talk about it, to have debate about it. That's exactly what we would intend to do. Obviously, the web and the Internet, all of those things, play very important roles in the dissemination of information today.

K. Corrigan: To the minister: I was out of the House for a few minutes, so if you've already answered this question, forgive me for asking it again. Would the idea of the strategic vision be essentially equivalent to what we have in the service plans in the ministries?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the content and the vision itself will be the responsibility of the council, but you know, it is broader than a ministry service plan. In fact, it's going to navigate some of the challenging waters of another branch of government, partners in the justice system. That, in and of itself, is challenging.

We are excited about the chance to actually have that kind of conversation in our province. I think we have set the groundwork with constructive, thoughtful dialogue to find ourselves in this place. It would be broader than a ministry service plan. It's about the justice system in its entirety and, of course, recognizing that it involves another branch of government.

[1630]

K. Corrigan: Would these plans be rolling plans? It talks about three fiscal years following the fiscal year, so I would assume they would be rolling plans.

Then the other thing that I'm wondering about: will there be budgets in any way associated with the strategic plans of the council?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, they would be three-year rolling plans. In fact, if we look at the council, ultimately, as we expand the opportunity to be inclusive and beyond government, their vision, their plan, would be their own. But ultimately, government retains the ability to develop budgets if that is their choice. So in the end of the day the council provides the vision, strategic direction, and government would still retain the ability to make the financial decisions.

K. Corrigan: It would be an interesting process. I am wondering if the minister is expecting, despite the fact that this is an independent council, that there would be collaboration or discussion.

For example, if the council were to suggest that, say, "We think it's important to bring the waiting list for court cases down to a certain point, and we are going to need 23 new sheriffs to do that," or something along that line, that would put the ministry in the position of having a recommendation that perhaps isn't going to fit within a budget or may be seen to be in some ways dictating to or strongly suggesting to the ministry that there should be budgets associated with their plan.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain how it's expected that the conversation would happen so that the ministry would not end up with surprises that it may or may not be able or willing to fund.

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, in the work that Geoffrey Cowper did, one of the things he does is point out that it creates a healthy tension between a strategic vision and the government. He points out that's not necessarily a bad thing. His point is simply that government would retain the ultimate decision-making authority around budget and resources. So there would be the council creating the strategic vision and providing that to the public and to others, and government then is in the position of responding to that and retaining financial authority.

K. Corrigan: I believe that originally the minister was speaking about how, initially, the justice and public safety council would consist of senior leaders in government, deputy ministers — well, assistant deputy ministers, probably. But I'm wondering whether there has been thought given to three or four years down the road, at the time that the strategic plans are becoming dynamic documents and the council has had the ability to become fully functioning and do these strategic plans.

What is the thought, three or four years down the line, of what the council would consist of, what kind of rep-
[ Page 13471 ]
resentation there would be on the council that would be creating these strategic plans?

[1635]

Hon. S. Bond: We canvassed this fairly extensively, I think, in section 2. The initial recommendation in the Cowper report was to use government leaders at the beginning of this process. Our intent is to, over time, be more inclusive throughout the sector. For example, the Law Society is a good example of where we might go and have that kind of discussion and look for external members. The intent is, certainly, as expeditiously as is possible, to expand the membership beyond government leaders.

K. Corrigan: Is it expected that the strategic plan that is prepared by the justice and public safety council would be made available to government before it is published? Or is it a completely independent organization that would develop and publish its strategic plan each year, without consultation with government?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the final determination hasn't been made about the process resulting in the release of the document. The point of the document is to make it public, to encourage debate and discussion. The intent would be to be as transparent and open about the process by which the plan is created and also to be transparent in releasing the document.

The specifics about how that works have not been finalized. As I said, this is an enabling bill that allows us to move forward on the reform agenda. But the intent is to be transparent, to be public and to allow the council to broadly publish that plan, as is noted in the legislation.

K. Corrigan: While I appreciate that all the details are not necessarily there yet and it's an enabling piece of legislation, I think it's fairly important to establish ahead of time whether it is or is not an independent council that is being created. I think one of the fairly important tests would be to determine whether or not the council would have ownership of the document or whether the council would be required or expected to provide drafts to government. Whether or not there would be suggestions about any changes or….

I'm trying to establish how independent this council will be. I'm not suggesting one way or another whether it should be, but I would like to get an idea.

Hon. S. Bond: The entire act is about collaboration and about consultation and about working together as a system. So we would expect the plan will be reviewed by many as it is being finalized — including, potentially, the draft being seen by the summit. The intent of the entire act is to be open, transparent, collaborative and consultative.

[1640]

That's why the act was written the way that it was. I think that the more input and feedback we get about the vision for justice in British Columbia, the better the plan is going to be. That's why the act is written the way it is.

K. Corrigan: Well, collaboration and discussion and so on is a worthy ideal, and I think it's important to do that. But the word "independent" was used as well, and that's why I'm asking these questions. I'm trying to figure out whether or not there would be a sense that the justice and safety council would, in fact, truly develop and own the plan, or whether or not there would be pressure and a certain lack of independence from the ministry. When one is sharing a document before its publication, that, again, reflects a certain tension that I'm trying to get at.

I think I'll leave it at that. I think I've got the answers I need for that particular section.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

K. Corrigan: This is a section that requires that the council "must, for each fiscal year, prepare an annual report that complies with" the following subsection. That's a report "that is consistent with the performance reporting principles developed by the Office of the Auditor General…." Is this in fact, then, an audit report?

Hon. S. Bond: No, this is not an audit. What it does is it actually incorporates the Office of the Auditor General–created reporting principles. We're saying we're going to use those principles. For example, some of those principles would include explaining the public purpose, linking goals and results, focusing on a few critical aspects of performance. The Auditor General's office laid out a series of principles on which you should prepare and report and use those in the process. That's exactly what we are going to use.

K. Corrigan: So it's not an audit. Is it expected that a performance audit could or would be done? Is an auditor involved in this process on a yearly basis or not?

Hon. S. Bond: Maybe I didn't answer that as well as I could have. Let me try again.

This is a performance statement. The performance statement would be created, and it would be created using the principles of reporting that were created by the Office of the Auditor General. So basically, we're taking the principles that have been created, and then the performance statement would be generated using those principles. It's actually the next section, section 8, which would then empower an audit of any of the aspects of the plan. So this is a performance statement; the next section
[ Page 13472 ]
actually empowers an audit.

K. Corrigan: So who is it expected that would do this report every year?

[1645]

Hon. S. Bond: It is the council's job. It is their responsibility. They need to do two things with it: to provide a copy to the minister and to publish it.

K. Corrigan: My understanding is that this will be September 30. So it'll be six months after the end of the fiscal year, which I guess would be about September 30. Thank you for the reference to the report going to the minister and being published.

Again, with regard to this section, is it expected that the report would be done independently by the council? When it says "provide a copy of the annual report to the minister," would that be the first time that the minister would see the report — when it's completed and, at the same time, as it's being published under subsection (ii)?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, back to the principles that are involved here. It is not that the process or the report or the creation of it is going to be a secret. It will be the culmination of work that is done collaboratively and consultatively. We will have advisory boards. We will have a summit. We will have a variety of areas that will feed information in. We'll see versions of the plan. The intent would be that the minister would receive a copy, and it would be published.

I think we should be clear that the whole purpose here is about expanding and talking about the system as a whole. You can't do that in isolation. There will be an ongoing process for the gathering of information and ideas that will both go into the performance statement and also the vision for the justice system.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that, but the minister talked about tension and talked about independence to a certain degree. What I'm trying to get at — again, I guess, with regard to the public reporting — is how independent this council is going to be.

I think what the minister is saying — maybe I'll just get this confirmed, then — is that this annual report would not be a report done by the council that would be completed and, at the same time as it's published, would be given to the minister. What the minister is saying is that there would be a back-and-forth between the ministry and the council, because the minister talked about collaboration.

I want to get a sense of how independent this report is, so if the minister could just explain a bit more…. If there is discussion, what would the nature of that discussion be?

[1650]

Hon. S. Bond: This is a performance statement after a year's worth of work. Part of the inherent goal here is to manage the justice system to achieve better outcomes.

Of course there's going to be a back and forth between the Attorney General and the performance statement. I'm hopeful that the Attorney General of the day will ask questions about how we are doing. Are we meeting performance targets? Have you actually done the work that we said we were going to do?

This is a performance statement which assumes that we will manage the system to certain outcomes. I would hope we wouldn't simply say: "Okay, here it is. A year later we'll check back with you." It's about laying out targets, looking at how we manage that system.

In this particular process there would probably be quite a dialogue with the Attorney General, holding some degree of accountability to the targets that have been set.

K. Corrigan: I'm combining a question about section 7 and section 8, because the audits and reviews are mentioned in section 7.

If there was an audit to be done…. The council has the ability to suggest that there does need to be an audit done. Would the council have the ability to call for an audit, and if so, how would it be paid for?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm assuming we're on section 8 now, or on section 7. Which are we in — both?

The Chair: We're still on section 7.

Hon. S. Bond: We're on 7, but we're talking about audits, which are in 8, so I'm assuming we'll be moving there shortly.

There are all kinds of audit functions within Crown agencies, and all of those audits are managed within their budgets. That would be the same case here. So yes, section 8 does empower the ability for council to request an independent audit of any particular part of the performance statement.

K. Corrigan: Yes, it does refer to the audits in section 8, but it also refers to it in section 7. I just wanted to stay on section 7 a bit. The reason why I'm asking about the audits that are referred to in both of the sections is that I'm trying to get an idea of who is going to pay for this. I guess my question, then, is: will the council have an annual budget?

Hon. S. Bond: It will be managed within the ministry budget. As I've said in numerous other responses, we will contemplate additional resources if and when they're necessary, and if and when we are in a position as a government to actually manage additional resources.

As I mentioned to the member opposite before, this budget line in our ministry has increased by over 2 per-
[ Page 13473 ]
cent, 2.5 percent. It is our expectation that we will manage the initial phases of justice reform within that budget.

[1655]

K. Corrigan: Let's say the council makes a decision that it wants to have a review. I know it's in section 8, but I'm talking about the reporting, and so on, that the council will be doing. If the council wanted to have an audit or the council wanted to have a meeting or the advisory boards wanted to have a meeting, the minister is saying that this is within the existing budget.

Let's say booking a hotel room in order to have a meeting. Let's say it wants to meet and talk about its report that we're talking about in section 7. Would the council be given a global budget to do all the things that it needs to do in a year? Or would it make requests for meeting rooms, and so on? I'm just trying to figure out how this is going to work.

Hon. S. Bond: Just as the ministry manages other meetings, other organizational aspects of the ministry, this would be accommodated in the same way. We expect the initial costs to be modest. We expect that they will be managed within our ministry budget.

You know, I really hope that as we work our way through the justice reform initiative, there comes a place where we actually do need to look at additional resources as we see the system work effectively together. That's not the case today. It's not going to be the case as we build through the system and work through reform initially. The costs will be modest. Initially, they will be managed within the ministry budget.

K. Corrigan: Well, has the minister, with the assistance of ministry staff, done an estimate? I know we hear the word "modest" and that it's going to be within the ministry budget. But has the ministry staff done an estimate of how much — even in the modest first year and I presume a second and third year, because we are looking ahead — this act is going to cost next year, the year after and the year after that?

Hon. S. Bond: I know the costs if we don't move forward with this act. We're going to continue to see delay for victims in British Columbia. We're going to continue to see inefficiencies where we believe there can be changes made. We should be very clear about this — that there is a far greater cost to not moving forward with some aggressive and disciplined approach to justice reform. I am very, very excited about the momentum that has been built and the constructive, collaborative approach.

The fact of the matter is that if…. Today, the ministry has not spent their time looking at additional costs or additional resources because, in fact, as a government we've said: "Here's what the budget is. We need to work within it." That's exactly what we intend to do, and as the reform initiatives progress and as the momentum builds and change is required, then additional resources would be considered just as any other budget item is considered.

K. Corrigan: I just want to be clear, then. What the minister is saying is that the costs of this act next year and the year after and the year after have not been estimated at this point. When the minister says it's going to cost more to have delays, and so on, I would agree that's probably true. But it's hard to know what more is when one doesn't know what the cost is.

And there are significant costs. We're talking about audits, we're talking about councils being appointed, we're talking about advisory boards, we're talking about meetings, and we're talking about summits. Surely, the minister must have some idea of how much this is going to cost.

Hon. S. Bond: The members of the team that have actually created this bill are sitting right here, and the answer is no. There are no cost estimates. Perhaps here's one of the reasons why. The first plan hasn't been developed and wouldn't even be tabled probably until 2014-2015. You wouldn't have audit costs because that comes a year, actually, after you have a performance plan to audit. So that's probably '15-16.

[1700]

What we've been concentrating on is actually sorting out how to grapple with inherent issues in the justice system. This bill reflects the best work that has been done in terms of moving that initiative forward.

So in the first year no budget allocations have been made because it will be incremental progress. There may be advisory councils that require some cost to have their meetings or to…. All of those costs are manageable — and, in fact, they will be managed — within our existing budget.

There will be additional costs further down the road, if we're lucky enough to see this bill move forward and then be proclaimed and brought into force. Those costs are at least 2014-2015 away. All of those things would be considered as we move forward with incremental progress.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

K. Corrigan: A couple of questions specifically related to audits and reviews. The section says: "Before completing an annual report under section 7, the council may commission an independent audit or review of the whole or any part of the material that the council intends to include in the annual report." Under this section, the council, then, would have the ability to independently make the decision that it would like to have an independent audit or review. So the council would be able to do
[ Page 13474 ]
that without seeking approval from the ministry, which would have to pay for it?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, the earliest date that we would be even contemplating an audit — and this would be if everything went according to the process that we would like to see take place — would be 2015-2016. And this ministry, like any other ministry or Crown agency that has an audit perspective or requirement, would need to cover that out of their budget. The earliest we would be facing an audit would be 2015-2016, so those costs are not being contemplated in this budget year.

K. Corrigan: Well, it would be contemplated for three years out, because the rolling budgets do go three years out, so I would assume that it would have been contemplated for the future.

But I'm really more trying to get at the principle of the independence of the council and checking to make sure that when the section says "the council may commission an independent audit or review," the council would have the ability to do that irrespective of the fact that the government would be the one that would have to pay for it. I just want to…. To me, it's a pretty good signpost of whether this is an independent council or not.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, if we harken back to the work that generated this bill, Geoffrey Cowper actually considered the fully independent model and rejected it. So in fact, this does not reflect a fully independent model. It meets the recommendations that Geoffrey Cowper put in place, and one of the reasons that he put them in place is that we also need to have that accountability mechanism related to the fiscal aspect here.

It is not a completely independent model, and we've been clear about that. In fact, Geoffrey Cowper considered it in his work and rejected it.

[1705]

K. Corrigan: Just on that very specific question, though. Would the council be able to independently make the decision that it wanted to have an audit or a review conducted? And could it make that decision without reference to or getting the approval of government?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, the council will have the ability to commission an independent audit. That's exactly what section 8 says. In fact, they can seek an independent audit of any or all of the annual report. Initially, that would allow — and I think it's an important aspect — the council to have independent validation of performance measures. That's exactly what we want to do.

If we're going to actually see progress, we have to be able to measure it. So that's precisely what they would do. And just as in many other organizations, the council can ask for the audit; the ministry or the agency is required to pay for it.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could just give us a bit of an overview of the intention of the justice summit. We had a very helpful briefing on the act, but I think it is worth having a little discussion now. So maybe a bit of an overview from the minister on the purpose of the at least annual justice summit.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I'm happy to talk a little bit about what the goal of a summit would be. That is an opportunity to facilitate innovation, to talk about the appropriate collaboration — obviously, fully respectful of the constitutional independence and how important that is.

Where we can appropriately collaborate across the system, it's an opportunity for us to engage routinely, creating those opportunities to collaborate on issues that affect the justice system. In fact, it's a chance, we believe, to look at a common vision. It is something that Geoffrey Cowper thought would be an important step.

I committed to the summit — it's important to note this — months ago. I know there's been some suggestion by the member opposite that it was rapidly created. I committed to a justice summit being held, I believe, in white paper 1. I can certainly look at the date, but I believe it was in October that I committed that we would certainly attempt to hold the first justice summit. I made that commitment in October.

K. Corrigan: Well, it makes the hurt just a little bit more that I didn't receive my invitation till a week ago. But I'm glad to hear that this has been planned for some time. Is the expectation that the justice summit would be a public event?

Hon. S. Bond: It is not intended to be a public event. That was designed specifically. What we need to do before we have a large, public discussion is that we need to create an environment. This bill is about creating a venue, an environment, an opportunity for there to be collaboration in the system. Today that doesn't exist.

[1710]

Certainly, we have made progress. As I've said repeatedly, I'm very encouraged by that progress. But no, it is not intended to be a public event. It is intended to be a place where we create the kind of environment where people feel safe sharing their views and their vision and all of those things.

It is a first step, and I am hopeful that it will create an ongoing legacy of opportunity where people can actually
[ Page 13475 ]
talk meaningfully about making changes to the system.

K. Corrigan: This is as good a time as any, I guess, to ask about the references to public safety sector. Now, I would understand that…. The minister has spoken previously about the importance of having communication and so on between the courts side and the public safety side, which is corrections and policing and emergency services. But my guess is that the intention is that we're talking about the justice system, and this would not include the areas like consumer protection, emergency services, emergency planning and so on. Just a clarification on that.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the boundaries are not black and white, and we have clearly delineated the fact that there are parts of the ministry which fall, potentially, outside of that description of justice and public safety. It does not necessarily preclude, for example, consumer protection as one of those areas. In fact, under civil law, it is very possible that there may be a role for advice or, as we look at topics in the civil law side, that we would have the ability to talk about consumer protection.

Certainly, corrections and policing are critical to the criminal justice system and would be considered part of the core. It does not, however, necessarily exclude other areas of the ministry that may be from time to time included or, in fact, included on advisory boards.

K. Corrigan: I'm just wondering maybe as a final question with regard to this section: what does the minister see coming out of the annual, or more frequent, justice summits?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think there are obviously the technical expectations in terms of the outcomes, but it is about creating a place or an environment where the justice system can actually talk about the importance of reform, outcomes. It will also help to inform the plan that the council actually creates.

It's an opportunity to build relationships, and one of the things I've learned about in my time in this ministry is that we need to do a better job of that. We need to find ways to connect regularly, to receive input, to receive advice. That's exactly what the summit is about.

[1715]

I think that, from my perspective, it is about a common vision. What is it that together we can talk about, work toward, and how do we hold the system accountable for better outcomes from British Columbians? I think the summit has every opportunity to do that.

Obviously, an inaugural summit is a minor and a baby step in the right direction, and it will be critical to the way that we shape justice summits in the future. But the important thing is that this piece of legislation will require that we have a justice summit at least once a year, and I'm hopeful that after the inaugural one, it will be something that people look forward to and willingly participate in.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the changes that are included in section 10 will mean to the operation and the administration of justice. These are sections that give the ministry, the Attorney General and the various justices the ability to enter into memoranda of understanding governing matters related to the various courts. I wonder if we could get a bit of an outline about that.

Hon. S. Bond: This is really, again, part of the enabling section of the bill. It will allow the Attorney General and each of the chief justices and the chief judge to enter into an MOU. It gives authority to do that, and the section actually identifies the scope of the MOU. That would include the roles and responsibilities of the parties, as well as how the parties are to share information, promote and measure effective court administration and report to the public.

It goes back to the comments I made earlier about how the MOUs, I hope, will be another way of assisting government and the courts to agree on some mutually shared goals. Those would include areas like transparency and improved administration — doing so, obviously, in a way that is consistent with judicial independence. That is absolutely critical.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could let me know whether or not this ability to enter into memoranda with the various courts or chief justices and judges…. Was that not possible to do before?

[1720]

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, the member is correct. MOUs and protocol agreements have been signed before with the courts, but they were addressing areas like the use and management of information and electronic technology — those kinds of things. When we looked at the section in the bill that actually talked about the nature of these MOUs, we felt it was important to provide a statutory framework for this kind of discussion.

It is very significant in terms of the type of information that would be dealt with in an MOU of this nature — for example, how to promote and measure effective court administration and how you report to the public. It is also critically important that we do that in the context of constitutional independence.

We believe that this will deal with…. First of all, it was a Cowper recommendation, and — one of the things that was critical to me as Geoff did his work — there were
[ Page 13476 ]
many questioning whether or not we'd actually give life to that report. In fact, this bill does exactly that. The ability to have an MOU would address a number of recommendations regarding effective administration — those kinds of issues.

It aligns with Cowper's recommendations. And we believe that because of the nature of the potential MOUs, they are different from ones previously signed. It's very important to lay out the specific reference as to how that would be done between the chief justices, the chief judge and the Attorney General.

K. Corrigan: I understand that there is a difference here. Would it be fair to say that previous to this legislation it wouldn't necessarily have been impossible to have memoranda of understanding but that this is more palatable, in terms of signalling an agreement with the various courts — that it has to be done by agreement and that it doesn't affect the judicial independence? I'm just trying to figure out what it really means.

Hon. S. Bond: What this is designed to do is to endorse the process that would see an MOU created and, in fact, give it some process. From my perspective, the easiest way to describe it is that it'd be less ad hoc. It's important for us to talk about this kind of progress and to do it in a way that brings with it the weight of statute.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

K. Corrigan: I think I can probably guess the answer, but perhaps the minister can tell me why it was important to have this section included in the act.

Hon. S. Bond: While all of us would want to be sure that people understand that we recognize the independence of agencies or participants, this makes it very clear that this bill is intended to promote cooperation and collaboration, but it is not intended to interfere with the independence of any individual agency or participant.

[1725]

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

K. Corrigan: I believe this is just a change of name, recognizing the actual usage that is common for addressing…. It's calling judges, as opposed to part-time judges, "senior judges." Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could explain what the intent and effect of this section is.

Hon. S. Bond: What this allows is for the director of police services to create a new standard. That would give the possibility of the collection and use of classes of data and information relating to policing and law enforcement. That's obviously critical to the justice and public safety council so that they can actually perform their mandate and create the report that they will do annually. The standards will be developed in consultation with the police.

K. Corrigan: This gives the power for the director of police services to prescribe information. Now, there was a mention about the council. Is it the idea that information could be gathered and then would be fed to the council in order that they can do their work?

Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite were to go back and look at section 3, one of the objects of the council is actually to deal with the issue of collection of data in order to do the work that they need to do in their mandate.

This is the section that enables the director of police services to create those standards for the collection and use of classes of data.

K. Corrigan: Sitting on the Public Accounts Committee, reading various Auditor General reports and being very involved with being on the committee that dealt with the use of conducted energy weapons, it has become clear that there are challenges for government in terms of integrating various systems, getting systems related to justice — certainly, policing and other areas — having them be efficient, having them talk to each other and so on.

This particular section perhaps doesn't have a direct cost related to it. But is it expected, I guess, that there'll be costs associated with this section?

[1730]

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things we recognize is that there is already a tremendous amount of data available. This would create the standard, in consultation with the police, to actually collect and utilize that data for the justice and public safety council and the work that they do in creating the plan. In fact, this is about creating standards. It's about creating consistency in how we collect data. And again, we would be doing this in consultation with the police.

K. Corrigan: I would assume that it also has to do with very serious issues of security of data as well.
[ Page 13477 ]

Hon. S. Bond: There is no intent to use data that would put operational issues with the police at risk. That's not what this is about. It would be the collection of high-level and aggregate data.

K. Corrigan: When established, would these standards apply to the RCMP?

Hon. S. Bond: The RCMP have agreed to harmonize their standards to be substantially similar or even exceed the standards set by the province. In fact, the result will be consistent standards between municipal police departments and the RCMP. The director of police services actually works regularly with the RCMP and municipal police in setting director standards to ensure that common objectives are determined.

K. Corrigan: These standards would apply to the RCMP, by agreement to comply; the municipal police forces; the transit police forces; and, I think, probably some of the First Nations. There's a First Nations police force as well. But just to be clear, they would not apply to corrections or the sheriffs. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: This section is related to those groups covered in the Police Act, and so it doesn't include, you know, sheriffs, courts, those kinds of things. They are covered under their own act.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could explain what these changes represent. They're mostly definitional, I believe.

[1735]

Hon. S. Bond: These define terms used in new provisions of the Provincial Court Act. It does amend the term used for a judge who holds office for less than full-time. The new provisions are being added to provide the chief judge with clearer authority to manage judicial administration of the courts. The addition to section 1 defines these new provisions.

K. Corrigan: Could the minister explain exactly what those changes are?

Hon. S. Bond: The provisions are being added, as I said earlier, to provide the chief judge with clear authority to manage judicial administration. The three areas that are being added are "judicial administrative region," which talks about the "area of British Columbia that is prescribed…," so the chief judge has more ability to deal with the judicial administrative region; the "judicial complement," which obviously means the number of judges that we have; and again, the third part is the definition related to "senior judge."

K. Corrigan: This will be my last question under this section. The "judicial administrative region" section — does this mean that there will be a change to what the administrative areas are in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: That will be determined by a recommendation from the chief judge.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

L. Krog: My question to the minister…. I take it, and the minister may not wish to use the language I'm going to use, that this is a bit of an olive branch to the judiciary — is it? — in terms of dealing with the concerns around ensuring that judiciary participate in justice reform in the province and efficiencies in the system but at the same time prescribing what government must deal with when it comes to appointing judges.

Is that a fair comment? Perhaps the minister can just comment generally on this section and what she sees the purpose of it actually is.

Hon. S. Bond: What this section does is it aligns with Cowper's recommendation — Geoff's recommendation. The whole purpose of this is to talk about a stable judicial complement.

[1740]

In our view, and certainly Geoff's, we want that to be based on a number of factors and on information. That information might include the workload of the court. It may look at the existing capacity of the judicial complement.

I think the concern and the view is that we continue to hear the need for increases to the judicial complement. We simply want that to be done in a way that looks at what the existing circumstances are. What is the capacity of the existing complement? Are they being utilized to their full capacity? What are trends in judicial workload and regional and special need for judicial capacity? Those were the recommendations that Geoffrey brought in his report. In fact, this responds directly to that.

L. Krog: I do note that it talks in 6.1(1)(a)(iv) about: "any other factors that the Attorney General and the chief judge agree will assist in that determination." Then in (3) it talks about: after the complement is established, "the Attorney General must" — mandatory — "publish a summary, in a manner that can reasonably be expected to bring the summary to the attention of the public…."

Will those agreements that would be reached between
[ Page 13478 ]
the Attorney General and the chief judge in fact form part of that report?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the factors that would need to be considered will be in regulation. They would be agreed to by the Attorney and by the chief judge. The discussions between the two would not be public. But in the summary that is now required…. At the end of the process, if the judicial complement is changed, the Attorney General would have to publish a summary that would include the relevance of the factors and how that played a role in the decision-making.

L. Krog: The judicial complement as it exists today: how is that determined in practice?

[1745]

Hon. S. Bond: I think what we need to remember is that this is the justice…. This is about transformation and reform.

Today the practice would be that the chief judge would probably write a letter to the Attorney and say: "I need more judges." We would have a conversation about that. We would certainly receive…. I'd ask some questions, in this case. Any Attorney would. You hopefully come to some agreement about whether you add more or not.

What this does is it actually provides some consistency. It's certainly about transparency, and it's about stability. It is basically about saying that we need to measure our outcomes. To do that, we need data. We need information.

I think that British Columbians would welcome the fact that when you are adding a new judge to the system, it would be good for us to explain why that's needed. That's what this is about. It's saying that we want a stable judicial complement, that we need to have a process in place that allows us to get to that place and that we need information on which to base that decision.

L. Krog: I would appreciate the Attorney General's comments on this. Is it fair to say that the chief judge and the judiciary — the provincial judiciary in particular, obviously — in this province are generally…? Notwithstanding that they have no political positions, of course, does there seem to be peace in the land with respect to this particular section? In other words, is there a general sense that the judiciary will be pleased, if I may phrase it that way, by the passage of this section?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, we certainly expect that they will be happy. I think that it's a two-way street here. It does mean that there needs to be a more vigorous discussion about the rationale and the need and a demonstrated case, in essence, to look at how we determine a stable judicial complement. I think it would be fair to say that it also requires that the Attorney General will be held accountable for the decision as to whether or not to increase the judicial complement and have to explain either decision.

I think there is an opportunity for both the judiciary and the Attorney General to complete a process in a more transparent way and to be held more accountable for the outcomes.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can advise: is there similar legislation in any other jurisdictions in Canada? If so, has it faced a constitutional challenge in any way, shape or form? And is the Attorney General satisfied that this in fact will pass constitutional muster and that this is not, in fact, an interference with judicial independence?

[1750]

Hon. S. Bond: We certainly don't expect that this will have any constitutional impediments. In fact, we do this currently in legislation with the Supreme Court. I think what's important is that this is done together. It is certainly not government imposing. I think that it actually creates broader transparency, as people are able to better understand why the ask has been made, why the case has been presented and why the Attorney General has either agreed or disagreed.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can advise. The chief judge appointment for seven years now — is that consistent with other provinces, or is this something unique to British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: It is consistent with other provinces. Ontario comes to mind.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

L. Krog: I apologize to the Attorney General, but I haven't had time to look as closely as I would have liked to at section 11. What's the substantive difference, if any, between the new section 11 versus the existing section?

Hon. S. Bond: The current section 11 has very minimal legislative direction on the powers, authorities and duties of the chief judge. What this does is, basically, once again, gives the chief judge the ability to better manage judicial administration of the courts. Currently there is a lack of statutory specification with regard to judicial administrative functions. So this will give the chief judge greater authority to implement administrative changes within the court.

The chief judge will also be provided with the authority
[ Page 13479 ]
to exercise his or her supervisory powers in the absence of a complaint — and that was an important change. And the investigative provisions will be moved to a separate section to improve clarity of authority. So in essence, this adds much more significant authority to manage judicial administration.

L. Krog: Again, is it consistent with other provinces now? Or is it, in fact, again, something that British Columbia is leading the edge?

Hon. S. Bond: Other provinces have legislated specific administrative powers and duties that we have in this proposed legislation. While it's different from province to province, B.C.'s statutory description of the chief judge's powers is somewhat less than you would see in Saskatchewan and Ontario, so the proposed amendments to this act do address those shortcomings.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General could just explain the reason for this section.

[1755]

Hon. S. Bond: This isn't a new section. It was previously part of section 11, "Powers and duties of chief judge," but one of the amendments is an important one. It does allow the chief judge to take corrective action and-or…. Before, you weren't able to do both, and in this you could either do an inquiry or a corrective action. So in this case, it does make an amendment that they could do both.

L. Krog: Again, is that more consistent with the practice in other provinces?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm happy to provide that answer to the member opposite at a later date. We don't have that answer here, which is sad because I normally ask this question, just as the member opposite has today, on every single…. But I don't have that answer. If it is sent in to us, I'll be happy to share it just as soon as we get it.

Sections 24 to 31 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I just once again want to thank the staff for their excellent work and for the heart and soul that has been put into creating the Justice Reform and Transparency Act.

With that, Madam Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:57 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — JUSTICE REFORM AND
TRANSPARENCY ACT

Bill 15, Justice Reform and Transparency Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. I. Chong: I call committee stage of Bill 11, Criminal Records Review Amendment Act, 2013.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 11; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 5:59 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. S. Bond: Before we start, Madam Chair, if I would be permitted just the opportunity to once again introduce my staff. They have worked tirelessly on this bill, and I want to recognize them.

Fraser Marshall is the director of security services, policing and security branch; and Betty Graf is the senior policy and legislative analyst, policing and security branch. They have done an exceptional job. They do that every day in the ministry, and I just wanted to be sure that they were recognized for their work before we start.

[1800]

K. Corrigan: This is the definitions section of Bill 11, the Criminal Records Review Amendment Act.

I do have a couple of questions. I won't start with some of the definitions like the "criminal record check verification" and so on, because we will be dealing with those in later sections. Maybe I'll start, first of all, with the definition of "portable criminal record check." I'm wondering if the minister could just take me through what a portable criminal record check is.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate starting there. Actually, it's one of the very important elements of this bill and something we've heard consistently — concerns expressed by
[ Page 13480 ]
volunteers. A portable check means that once a person has had a clean criminal record check, they would have the ability to request that that information, that verification, be shared with another organization. It would reduce the need for more than one criminal record check if you are volunteering for one or more organizations.

K. Corrigan: In subsection (a) under that definition of portable criminal record check, it says: "the authorization for the criminal record check was signed by the individual within 5 years of the date of a criminal record check verification authorization." I'm assuming that means the original authorization, when it was first done. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: The important part to note here is that this is about the protection of privacy, obviously, so within a five-year window…. The criminal record check is good for five years. Within that five-year period, if an individual requests that their verification be shared with another organization, they must sign an authorization to permit the transfer of that information.

K. Corrigan: I notice that there are some definitions here that were in the previous act — in the act itself, the Criminal Records Review Act. Just for clarification, the reason that we have definitions of "municipality"and "post secondary institution" and some of the other definitions is not because there's been a change to the definition but simply because they've been moved from part 3 to the definitions section at the beginning of the act. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: In those definitions, one of them is "post secondary institution." In other words, this scheme for having portability of criminal record checks will apply to various organizations, including municipality, post-secondary institutions and all sorts of other things.

Now, I notice in the existing act that the definition of post-secondary institution is slightly different. It says: "(a) a university under the University Act, (b) the University of Northern British Columbia…(b.3) the Thompson Rivers University…(d) an institution as defined in the College and Institute Act."

I notice that in the original act Royal Roads University is specifically included. And I believe that I saw a reference earlier — maybe it was in a previous iteration — to BCIT.

[1805]

Is it simply that Royal Roads University is now included in that definition under the University Act so that we don't need to have it specifically included — or BCIT, which was an earlier inclusion?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the changes are in this section.

Hon. S. Bond: What this does is that if it adds the phrase "if any" after the phrase "prescribed fee," it allows the government to set different fees for different people or circumstances. So the fee we're about to set is free. In order to allow volunteers to have these record checks free, we have to add the phrase "if any."

K. Corrigan: Well, that clarifies something, because I noticed in the media that was associated with this bill, that was one of the highlights that was made, and I didn't find anything in the bill other than that phrase that talked about the fact that there would be no charge. There is a section much later that talks about the waiver of fees in the act itself, I believe, but nothing that says it's going to be free. So in other words, there will be a regulation that will prescribe, but that regulation could be changed, correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct.

K. Corrigan: The second part of this section is part (b), and I'm wondering if the minister could explain what the changes are here.

Hon. S. Bond: The significance of this amendment is that it clarifies that if an individual has an outstanding relevant charge or conviction, the registrar must notify the person or entity for whom the individual authorized the criminal record check. So it clarifies that.

There are also a number of organizations — for example, registered specific organizations…. It expands who receives the notification — or it clarifies it, is the best way to describe that. Only the entity which has received authorization to receive check results will be notified at this stage. Any other organizations will be notified later only if there is a finding of risk. So it's to add more clarity, and it does add to the list of those who receive notification.

K. Corrigan: I went and took a look at the original act — I have it here with me — because I was interested in what types of offences would be included, would be caught under that definition of "relevant offence" that required notification.

[1810]

I noticed that the list, which is rather lengthy, includes section 179, which is vagrancy. Many, many of the
[ Page 13481 ]
Criminal Code sections — "Invitation to Sexual Touching," child pornography, "Luring a Child," "Abandoning a Child," "Causing Death by Criminal Negligence…." All of those things made eminent good sense and should be Criminal Code offences which would require notice being given if somebody has been found guilty of those offences or if there is a pending charge.

But I'm wondering if the minister considered at all whether that particular section of the Criminal Code should be removed as a relevant offence. It seems odd to me that somebody who had been convicted of vagrancy might fail a criminal records check and would therefore not be allowed to either work or volunteer because of a past offence.

Hon. S. Bond: We did not contemplate removing it. I am advised that there may be circumstances around that particular situation which may cause a reason for that to be considered as part of the risk assessment.

K. Corrigan: In section (b)…. This is again on the same section, so we're talking about section 3(b)(v). It mentions "the director of certification, if the individual is an individual referred to in section 17.5 (1)." Now, that refers to teachers. Is that independent school teachers only, or is that all teachers? And if it is, is that a new provision?

Hon. S. Bond: It is not a new provision, and it is all teachers.

K. Corrigan: Subsection (4) says:

"(4) The deputy registrar must promptly provide notification (a) to the individual who authorized the criminal record check, and (b) to the persons or entities that were provided with a notification under subsection (2) (b) of a determination under subsection (2) (a) that the individual does not present a risk of physical or sexual abuse to children or a risk of physical, sexual or financial abuse to vulnerable adults."

Is there a slight change in terms of the onus that is placed on the deputy registrar compared to the previous subsection (4)?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. In fact, what this does is recognize the new portability provisions. So it's important that the deputy registrar determines whether or not a person or entity has received the individual's criminal record check in the last five years and notifies them if a subsequent check has determined that the individual presents a risk to the vulnerable sector. However, we need to be clear here that before notification the registrar must preserve a person's privacy by taking reasonable steps to determine if that individual continues to work for these persons or entities.

[1815]

K. Corrigan: So there's no difference between the way it was before, under the present act, and this act in terms of the obligation to notify — in either case, either whether the individual does or does not present a risk of physical or sexual abuse to children or a risk of physical, sexual or financial abuse to vulnerable adults.

Hon. S. Bond: The requirement to notify still exists, if there is an issue. What has changed is the fact that we are making the check portable. This now brings an additional requirement for the deputy registrar to be cognizant of other organizations that the individual may well be serving. It's important that we recognize that portability changes and broadens that responsibility.

K. Corrigan: It just seemed to me that this new section — and it's a bit of a reorg as well, I guess — requires that the deputy registrar has to give notification in both cases, whether the individual does not present a risk and then, in this subsection (4.1), the individual does present a risk. That's what I was talking about more.

Under the present act, it says that they notify the individual and the employer in the case that there is an outstanding charge or there has been a conviction. But it doesn't say anything about the fact that if there isn't, they need to notify. I just wondered if there's any change there.

Hon. S. Bond: There is no change. There is still a requirement to do both.

K. Corrigan: It's a very long section, so I have a few questions.

Subsection (4.2) — this is a new section. I'm wondering if the minister could explain that one.

Hon. S. Bond: That's the section that I described previously about recognizing portability. If there is a negative criminal record check, it now requires that the deputy registrar actually notify any other organizations that that person may be involved with, but that is only after taking reasonable steps to determine whether or not they're still at that organization.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that answer. There are greater notification requirements to reach out in this act, and I think that they're certainly good amendments. But what it does is it puts a greater onus on the deputy registrar to reach out to other organizations that a volunteer or a worker might be involved with.

I'm wondering if the minister or the staff has considered what kind of financial impact these greater responsibilities are going to entail. I mean, has there been an assessment of what this is going to cost?

[1820]

Hon. S. Bond: Two factors would minimize the cost, in fact. All of the organizations are already in the data-
[ Page 13482 ]
base. Secondly, findings that are negative are quite infrequent. The deputy registrar has informed me that it should be well manageable.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify. When you say "findings are negative…." In other words, you're saying that somebody is determined either to have committed a crime or has been charged. Is that what the minister means?

Hon. S. Bond: The proper terminology that I should have used would be "a finding of risk."

K. Corrigan: In addition to that, under the changes in the act, there will be, I would assume, more extensive record checks. My understanding, from speaking to some very large umbrella volunteer organizations, is that the ministry has agreed that it's going to do a more extensive record check that's going to include more consultation or using federal databases as well.

I'm wondering if there are costs for the province associated with that and if the province has estimated what those costs are and what that estimation of costs is.

Hon. S. Bond: Those criminal record check additions will be undertaken, and they will be accommodated within the costs for this particular process.

K. Corrigan: I'm not sure quite what that means: "They'll be accommodated within the costs." The minister has said that these record checks for volunteers will be free, and that's why we've added this section that says that there may or may not be a cost. There's certainly a cost there, and the check is going to be more extensive.

I'm wondering how that could be accommodated within the existing budget. Surely, the ministry must have estimated how much more it is going to cost in order to do these more extensive record checks and to waive the fee. What would be the estimate?

Hon. S. Bond: This is a cost recovery program. The volunteer sector will be free, and the additional costs will be accommodated through the cost recovery process.

K. Corrigan: Well, I wonder if the minister could explain who the cost is going to be recovered from. If there's an extra cost and the volunteers aren't going to be paying for it, who will be paying more?

Hon. S. Bond: There will be a minor cost increase on the fee side for those people who are being offered paid employment. There will be a minimal increase over the period of five years. It's a cost recovery program, and that will allow us to do the volunteer check free. Those increases would be minimal over a five-year period, and they would be to those people being offered employment.

K. Corrigan: Has the minister costed out what the actual costs are going to be? I understand that the minister is now saying that this is going to be minimal for each individual, but I'm wondering what the total cost is.

[1825]

The Chair: Minister, and noting the hour in your response.

Hon. S. Bond: Noting the hour. I can make my response first?

The Chair: Yes.

Hon. S. Bond: Oh, perfect. I'll do just that.

The additional cost for both the enhanced record checks and the volunteer program will be $1 million. As I said to the member opposite, this is a cost recovery program, and there will be a minor increase to those people being offered employment.

Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:26 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. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:27 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