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)

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 44, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of guests. Leader of the Official Opposition.

A. Dix: House Leader.

Mr. Speaker: No, the Shuswap.

G. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no aspirations to be Leader of the Opposition, but thank you.

Interjections.

Tributes

NORMAN RUFF

G. Abbott: Yes, I was asked, and I thank you for that. Mr. Speaker, if you can regain control of the House….

I just want to say, first of all, that the legislative press gallery of this place is revered and admired in literally every corner of the legislative press gallery. People often say that if you can't get inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the second-best thing that you can do is win an honorary life membership in the legislative press gallery of British Columbia.

Earlier today a thinly disguised member of the legislative press gallery — he had on a fake moustache — slipped me a plain brown envelope, no return address, advising me that in fact, today the gallery is going to award an honorary life membership. The honour is going to a man who some of us have known as students at the University of Victoria and all of us know as a media commentator. That is UVic emeritus professor Norman Ruff.

[1335]

Talk about a quote machine. A Google search will provide you with over 2,000 provocative quotes from Norman. I often have to call Norman and say: "Just because we're old friends, it doesn't mean you have to be nice to me and nice to the B.C. Liberals all the time." But over 2,000.

Norm is currently fighting his way through a significant health battle, so I want to say, on behalf of four decades of students at the University of Victoria and on behalf of a generation of political journalists: Get well soon, Norm. We look forward to seeing you back.

J. Horgan: It's always difficult to follow the member for Shuswap, but I, too, want to speak on behalf of the entire opposition. Our warmest gratitude to that great instructor of politics, Norman Ruff.

Norman has been a teacher and an instructor of some of the members of this House: the member for Vancouver-Quilchena; the member for Shuswap; and, of course, the former member for Chilliwack, Mr. Hope — Mr. Barry Penner, I should say, who was a very hopeful fellow as well.

As the member for Shuswap said, Norman has been quoted thousands and thousands of times, commenting on this extraordinary of places, the B.C. Legislature, and all of the activities and, some may say, shenanigans that have gone on here over the many, many decades. He is a great British Columbian. He is a pillar of the political community here in British Columbia.

Would my colleagues please join with the government and recognize the newest honorary member of the B.C. press gallery, Norman Ruff.

C. Hansen: I, too, would like to join my colleagues in recognizing Dr. Norman Ruff. He taught me political science many decades ago. At one point in a budget lockup I accused him of teaching me everything I know about B.C. politics today. Certainly, I agree he's a great British Columbian.

Introductions by Members

C. Hansen: I would like the House to join me in welcoming three visitors today who are with the Focus Foundation, who do great work with troubled youth in British Columbia. They are Dr. Robert Kissner, who's the executive director. He is joined by Deb Abma and Buz Knott. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Now we get the Leader of the Official Opposition.

A. Dix: On behalf of the member for Shuswap — no.

It's an honour to introduce, for everyone in the House today, a citizen of the Highlands and a leading environmental voice in Canada, a winner of the Order of Canada. Vicky Husband is with us today, and I'd like the House to make her welcome.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I introduce a very close friend, someone who's a pillar of the business community in the Tri-Cities and someone who is a great supporter of mine, Thomas Spraggs. He's also a member of the bar of British Columbia. As well, he's accompanied by one of his associates, Brad Birt. May the House make them truly welcome.

D. Black: Community newspapers play a very important role in all of our constituencies. They cover the local issues that reflect our community back to ourselves.
[ Page 13502 ]

In New Westminster, the Royal City Record has a long history of serving our community. It's led by the editor, Pat Tracy. It includes many great reporters, like Theresa McManus.

But today I'm pleased to be hosting Alfie Lau, who's worked many years as a reporter for the Record with great distinction. An interesting sideline of Alfie's is that he also writes for a magazine called Inside Golf, and that gives him an opportunity to travel to many of the major tournaments across North America and feeds his passion for golf.

I would like to ask all members of the House to please give Alfie Lau a warm welcome to the B.C. Legislature.

H. Bloy: It's a real pleasure to introduce a friend, who has come today with her mother, Gina Williams, who's an amazing singer-musician. She has just put out her latest hit Ring My Bell. She works at music full time, performing and teaching. I'm hoping the House will give a very warm welcome to Gina and her mother, Johanna.

I'm so fortunate. It's our last week here. I don't know who's counting the hours and days, but there are a couple of days to go. My daughter Katie and her husband, Travis Rawluk, are here. If the House would please make them welcome.

[1340]

L. Popham: Joining us in the House today is Nicholas Scapillati and his partner, Kas Shield. Nicholas is the executive director of FarmFolk CityFolk, a not-for-profit organization aiming to cultivate a local sustainable food system. For over 16 years he has worked with the Musqueam First Nation to protect and restore the local ecosystem. Nicholas also happens to be the B.C. NDP candidate for Vancouver-Quilchena in the upcoming election. Welcome to the House.

L. Reid: I'd ask the House to join me this afternoon in welcoming Grace MacIver and her daughter Cate. Grace and I met not so long ago in the British Columbia Youth Parliament, and over lunch shared some fabulous memories of that organization. I'd ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

N. Macdonald: I see that Anthony Britneff has joined us here — a highly regarded retired member of our Forest Service. John Betts introduced him to me about three years ago, and he has provided Cowichan Valley and me with tremendous advice over that time. So I'd like the House to join me in making him welcome.

R. Howard: I had the pleasure of having lunch today with a distinguished British Columbian and a good friend. Mr. Wayne Duzita is with us. Wayne is a lifetime volunteer, a recipient of the Star of Richmond Community Service Award. Wayne also served as the chair of the Canuck Place Children's Hospice. During his stint as chair, they raised some $40 million for needy children in this province. He's a founder of the YVR Golf for Kids, a Queen's Diamond Jubilee recipient and much more. Would the House please make him welcome.

C. Trevena: In the precincts today were some of my constituents. Debbie and Al Huddlestan from Port Hardy were down here, along with Jim Abram. Mr. Huddlestan, who is the chair of the Mount Washington regional district, and Mr. Abram, who is the vice-chair of the Strathcona regional district, were here to talk with us about ferries and the need to have a proper vision for B.C. Ferries, include them in our highway system and deal with the egregious fare increases. I hope the House would make them very welcome while they are in the precincts.

M. Karagianis: It always helps to look up and see who's in the gallery. I see that two of my very favourite people are here. They used to be constituents of mine. Ian Reid and his daughter Jordan are here. Ian, of course, served as our chief of staff at one point and is a blogger at the moment, and his daughter Jordan is a force to be reckoned with. So please let the House welcome them both here.

R. Fleming: There are three people I would like to introduce to the House today. With us is Jaclyn Moneypenny, Alisma Perry and Jim Harvey. They work for one of the busiest people in Victoria, and now the House of Commons, our new Member of Parliament for Victoria, Murray Rankin. That makes them very busy people. Jaclyn works for Murray Rankin in Ottawa, Alisma works for him here in his office in Victoria, and Jim is a volunteer here in the Victoria office. I would ask the House to make these three very welcome here this afternoon.

J. Kwan: I'd like the House to also welcome our legislative assistant Susan Farmer. She is a dynamo. She keeps us on the straight and narrow — myself, the MLA for Victoria–Swan Lake and the MLA for Nelson-Creston. She gets us to the places where we need to be, arranges our schedule in this crazy, chaotic life that we often live — and I know that all of the MLAs know what I am talking about — and she does so much more. I'd just like the House to please welcome Susan Farmer.

Hon. I. Chong: In the precinct we have a number of visiting Japanese students from Kobe who have been taking in a tour. I don't know if they're going to be able to join us in the gallery to watch the question period, but I know that they are part of the Victoria International Program. There are many of them. There will be two lots of them coming through. So if you hear some noise above at any time in the afternoon, you might know that
[ Page 13503 ]
they are here.

[1345]

There is one group of 40 individuals — 35 grade 9 students, accompanied by five adults — and a group of 40 grade 9 students with ten adults. A total of 90 of these young, interesting Japanese students and their adult accompanying hosts will be going through the buildings. I would ask that the House please make them all very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MENTAL HEALTH CARE AND ASSERTIVE
COMMUNITY TREATMENT PROGRAM

D. Black: In my time as an elected politician, the most painful conversations I've had have been with constituents distressed by issues arising from mental health difficulties of their children, adult children and other close family members. One mother was so upset that she impatiently proclaimed: "Yes, my son has rights. He has rights to sleep under a bridge. He has rights to hurt himself. He has rights to, perhaps, hurt others. But it seems that he doesn't have the right to compassionate treatment and care."

Too often mental health issues default to the justice system. The Fraser Health Authority recently announced the creation of an assertive community treatment — ACT — team for residents living with serious and persistent mental illness in New Westminster and the Tri-Cities.

The team will be mobile, with 75 percent of their services delivered in settings like the individual's home, shelters, drop-in services and even public parks. The ACT team will take mental health support services outside the walls of traditional treatment facilities into community settings to reach out to vulnerable and hard-to-reach clients. The team will be able to support about 80 to 100 patients.

The program offers flexible, community-based support for very vulnerable adults who have not connected with or responded well to traditional out-patient mental health care and rehabilitation. The first ACT team, which has been operating in Surrey for about a year, has made a very positive impact on lives and decreased emergency department visits and lengthy hospital stays.

Mental health problems affect one in five Canadians every year and cost an estimated $50 billion yearly. The human and social costs are significant and sometimes very tragic. I look forward to a renewed emphasis on early intervention and acute care in mental health care after the next election.

NUTRITION MONTH AND
WORK OF DIETITIANS

J. Thornthwaite: My mom was a dietitian, my daughter attends UBC in the pre-dietetics program, and I'm a former dietitian with 22 years of experience specializing in the nutritional, environmental and ethical implications of our food choices.

As someone who is passionate about this field, I'd like to share with the House and all British Columbians that March is Nutrition Month and March 20 is Dietitians Day. This year's campaign aims to encourage British Columbians to make healthier choices when making their trip to the grocery store. The Best Food Forward: Plan, Shop, Cook, Enjoy! shares practical advice of registered dietitians to help people make healthier choices that are convenient and taste great.

Nutrition Month also celebrates dietitians as health care professionals who use specialized knowledge and skills in food and nutrition to promote healthy lifestyles. The 650 members in B.C. can be found in many settings, including health departments, hospitals, health and wellness centres, food stores, industry, universities and, of course, private practice.

Dietitians share a commitment to work with government and other community leaders to improve the health of all British Columbians, including improving access to registered dietitians as part of our healthy families prevention strategy. Call 811 to speak to an RD personally.

This month I encourage everyone to make a commitment to healthier lifestyles and celebrate the work that all dietitians do to keep us healthy.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO
RACISM IN CHILLIWACK

G. O'Mahony: Racism comes in many forms — intentional exclusion, rude comments, discriminatory jokes or acts of violence. Just recently, in my community of Chilliwack, three businesses were the unfortunate target of racism in its most cowardly form: anonymous, hate-filled e-mails.

The writer made it appear that he or she spoke for the majority of residents. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chilliwackians responded swiftly and took to blogging their thoughts on how everyone could support the targeted businesses on our community's Facebook page, Life in the Wack. Mayor Sharon Gaetz responded by inviting organizers Scott McVetty and Dale Johnson to host a cash mob.

[1350]

With limited time to organize, McVeddy and Johnson went to work, their motto being "We each do a little. We all do a lot." And so Cash Mob Friday was created. People who ate at either the Shandhar Hut or the Bay Leaf were given a numbered ticket, which was
[ Page 13504 ]
entered into a draw. Prizes were generously donated by the Chilliwack Chiefs, The Book Man, Unika, the Rendezvous Restaurant, Dickens Sweets, Back at You Thrift Store and the Minuteman Press.

It was truly the most delicious way to fight racism. I had the pleasure of enjoying lunch at the Shandhar Hut — Shandhar meaning "majestic," which is the best way to describe their tandoori chicken. My compliments to the Atti family. I had the most wonderful dinner at the Bay Leaf Restaurant. The owners Lucky and Sonia Gulati were most welcoming. My favourite is their butter chicken.

On Cash Mob Friday I encouraged people to take Chilliwack Taxi, whose drivers I have personally found to be professional and courteous. Hats off to owner Kuldeep Singh.

It is estimated that roughly 1,500 people participated in Cash Mob Friday. Thoughtless acts can tear a community apart or, as in the case of Chilliwack, result in the most delightful of culinary experiences.

Mr. Speaker: Vancouver–False Creek — and a full two minutes.

COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES WORKERS

M. McNeil: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak for two minutes about the great work being done by the 15,000 community social service workers in B.C. The month of March has been proclaimed Community Social Services Awareness Month to recognize the incredible work these people do each and every day.

Community social services workers provide services throughout the province to women, children and families, youth, people with disabilities — including developmental disabilities — and First Nations. We have all met people working in this field. These workers are compassionate, caring and tremendously hard-working, without exception.

I have had the great pleasure of meeting many of these workers in my travels around the province over the last few years. They are an inspiring group of professionals who do great work in their communities. I am also pleased to hear that a tentative agreement under the cooperative gains mandate has been reached between Community Social Services Employers Association and the unions in the Community Social Services Bargaining Association. Thank you to the negotiators on both sides of the table for their hard work in making this agreement happen.

I would like to invite all members to join me and all British Columbians to recognize and thank each and every one of our 15,000 community social services workers in our province for providing services that are so important to each and every one of us.

EDUCATION AND LITERACY

M. Elmore: We know that success in our economy and society today is based on a strong foundation in literacy and educational achievement. We know that 80 percent of the jobs require some type of post-secondary education or certification. To be able to access those post-secondary certificate or college programs requires at least graduation from high school.

To be able to be successful entails not only to graduate high school but also to have the opportunity to transition into post-secondary certificate courses, and there's a need to support students to be successful in high school, to transition to courses and to ensure they have access to upgrading their skills.

We know, in economic terms, the benefits of having a high school diploma and that a post-secondary degree brings a higher salary, raising people out of poverty, and also that they have higher retirement savings. We know that it's important for folks to upgrade their skills not only to strengthen the productivity of our economy but also just for their own feelings of self-worth and accomplishment.

We know that literacy rates in British Columbia are being challenged, and there is a need for improved coordination amongst the different programs that are delivered. There also needs to be improvements in terms of our adult basic education courses.

I spoke with many constituents. Many are new immigrants who have come and don't have their credentials recognized. Either they are youth who come in as new immigrants and need support in the school system or are workers who want to retrain and move on with career changes.

We are seeing now, in Vancouver, a decrease in about a quarter of our adult basic education courses, and teachers are being laid off. We're also seeing gaps in terms of provision of these services. So we need a coordinated response for literacy and adult basic education for the success of our economy and our citizens.

[1355]

JERUSHA WHITE

J. Rustad: Last fall I attended a fundraiser for the B.C. Children's Hospital in Vanderhoof and was pleasantly surprised to hear a young lady perform for us. She has an amazing voice that really drew her audience into her music. Then again at a recent fundraising dinner in Prince George this young lady performed before 1,000 people with Bryant Olender, another incredibly talented musician.

Jerusha White, who is from Fort St. James, has been taking classical voice training since she was 13. She has been playing the violin since she was seven. She also had been taking dance lessons at a young age and, by 13, had
[ Page 13505 ]
become a qualified modern and Latin dance instructor. At 17 years old, she released her first two original Christmas songs. Now 18 years old, she is working on her first CD, which she hopes to release this May.

Jerusha is an incredibly talented young woman. She is very determined and is intent on becoming a professional music performer. Her talent and character have already drawn some top musicians to participate with her in her album.

Her accomplishments are all the more impressive when you consider the challenges she faced to get there. All her formal training required her to travel from Fort St. James to either Vanderhoof or Prince George up to three times a week. It takes a very dedicated person and the support of an amazing mother to keep that up week after week, year after year.

Fort St. James has produced some very talented people, but I know everyone is proud of Jerusha. Her dedication and determination are an inspiration to us all, and I'd like to wish her the best in what is sure to be a long and successful music career.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
DURING PRE-ELECTION PERIOD

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Finance. As he'll recall, last month a leaked Liberal caucus document confirmed the government's plans to spend $17 million to run partisan pre-election advertising paid for by the taxpayers. That plan indicated that was going to ramp up right up to March 31. I'm wondering if the minister can tell this House whether that advertising will continue in the new fiscal year.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, there are certainly components of the budget that we want British Columbians to know about, particularly the education savings initiative that we've launched. I'm also guided in part from, I suppose, a surprising source. The member himself said just a few months ago: "Yes, and I think we should understand that there is a role for government advertising. For example, if the government is offering access to a new program, you would want to inform the public of the program."

So insofar as this represents an important opportunity for families to partner with government and save for their children's future, we'll certainly want families to know about that opportunity.

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

A. Dix: Since we know from the government's own document that the purpose of this, the public purpose of the government's advertising, was to try and fix the government's enormous credibility gap, I think $17 million might not be enough to do that, but it's a lot of public money.

The minister will know that in 2005 — because he was a cabinet minister at that time — the Premier was Mr. Campbell and the Finance Minister was the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. The government established rules that said they couldn't advertise in this pre-election period.

In 2009 the Premier was Mr. Campbell, the Finance Minister, again, was the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, and the government said this shouldn't be allowed.

Is this the difference between the B.C. Liberal Party and the new B.C. Liberal Party? Why is the government allowing this waste of government money now?

[1400]

Hon. M. de Jong: I do want to convey to the hon. member how much pleasure it has given me over these past weeks to learn of what a disciple he has become of former Premier Campbell. I don't recall….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have suspected over the years that it was always so, and I'm sure there is a high commissioner in London celebrating this exchange now.

There are approaches, and there are rules. One of those rules says that public moneys that are provided to MLAs for expenditure in their constituencies should be spent in the constituencies. That, apparently, is a rule that this Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have chosen to ignore.

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

A. Dix: This is about choices, actually. The government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat. Take your seat for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: The government is currently cutting funding to literacy programs in British Columbia — $1 million. The Minister of Education says he's going out to find $1 million. Here's where they can find $1 million. Stop running these ads.
[ Page 13506 ]

My position on pre-election advertising — the Minister of Finance is correct — is the same as the former Premier's. It is the same as what his used to be before they became today's B.C. Liberals.

The government, as we say, has a choice. It can keep running the ads, or it can find $1 million to support literacy programs across British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: What's becoming increasingly clear is that whilst the Leader of the Opposition can talk the talk, he is having far more difficulty walking the walk. When it comes to respecting taxpayers and abiding by the rules that apply to all members, not only do we now have information that would suggest that there was a concerted attempt by the opposition caucus, under the leadership of the member, to subvert those rules, but the member chooses to dismiss it as somehow being inconsequential.

On this side of the House we respect the taxpayers to the extent that we refuse to spend more of their money than they send to government. I understand that that is a concept foreign to members of the NDP. But happily, in just a few weeks, in just a few months, British Columbians will have a choice, if they ever do get to see….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: British Columbians and not members of this opposition will have a chance to choose which of those visions applies to them and appeals to them more.

J. Horgan: Certainly, I think I speak for all British Columbians, and that choice can't come soon enough.

If the Minister of Finance and the Liberal caucus no longer agree with the former Premier, let me tell you someone who does agree with the former Premier. That's the CBC advertising standards department.

[1405]

In an e-mail released to the NDP, it says: "The CBC advertising standards department has rejected the government's budget advertising program in a…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Horgan: On February 27 the senior buyer for Vizeum, the company that purchases all the government's advertising for media, in an e-mail to the office of the Minister of Citizens' Services, says: "Just off the phone with the CBC. Ends up all three spots — budget, education and prescription — have been barred by the internal CBC approval board to air within news programming."

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will he agree with the CBC that these ads have crossed the line?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, one is always extremely hesitant to challenge the authority of the CBC. That pretty much guarantees this exchange won't be on television tonight, I suspect.

But look, I don't have to use my own words. I can use the words of the Leader of the Opposition: "You would want to inform the public of a program so that everyone has a fair chance at it." Now, there is an opportunity for families to learn more about programs — a program, in particular, that will lead them to having $1,200 to begin the process of saving for their children's future.

Now, it's true that we now have a set election date in British Columbia — by the way, a commitment that this party and this government made and followed through on so that the manipulation that characterized the holding of elections under previous governments could no longer take place. We're proud of having followed through on that commitment, and we're proud of the budget and the programs that stand to help families in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I think it's a fairly safe bet to say most British Columbians didn't need the government of B.C. to show them how to play dominoes. I don't think that was the case.

Now, in e-mails the CBC goes on to say that what they are seeing from the government is what they characterize as "advocacy advertising" — advocacy advertising, as we know, to close the credibility gap created by this government.

The minister talks about a fixed election date, but I believe it was the Premier of British Columbia who mused about an election in the spring of 2011, in the fall of 2011, in the spring of 2012, in the fall of 2012. And now she can't avoid it because it's coming to you in 63 days.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. We know that we're starving literacy programs. We know that we're starving Community Living B.C. Why don't you save us all 17 million bucks, cancel the ads and put that money into programs for people? That's what a responsible government would do.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm hesitant to dismiss advice from any member of the NDP on gaming issues, including dominoes.

[1410]

I suppose the best thing I can say in response to the member's question is that, apparently, in 1994, the previous government thought it was necessary to spend $28 million, maybe to help people understand bingo better.

GOVERNMENT JOB PLAN FOCUS GROUPS
AND QUESTIONS ON PREMIER

S. Hammell: The opposition has learned that this Liberal government used approximately $200,000 of public money to conduct job plan focus groups in eight communities in late 2012 and early 2013. Can the Deputy Premier confirm that a portion of the time with these focus groups was used to explore the perceptions the voters have of the Premier?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not familiar with the topic the member opposite raises, and I'll take that question on notice.

ALBERTA RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS
FOR OIL AND GAS COMPANIES

V. Huntington: Only in B.C. can a team of officials audit your office, interrogate your staff and order you to pack up and get out of town — or else. That is exactly what happens to B.C. companies involved in the oil and gas play.

If you work in B.C. and Alberta, as all the players do, and Alberta finds your office is in B.C., your licence to operate is revoked. They call it a residency audit, and the result is that all financial, technical and operational decisions must be made in Alberta, or you are out of business. Alberta is ruthless in enforcing residency, which makes it all but impossible for companies to have head offices in British Columbia.

In spite of the fact that Alberta is in violation of both TILMA and the new west partnership agreement, B.C. still hasn't forced Alberta to resolve this trade dispute. A year ago the minister assured me in this House that B.C. was dealing with the situation. Well, it has been nearly 12 years since B.C. started dealing with the situation. Meanwhile, all the jobs, the taxes, the purchasing power, the insurance business and the payroll are Alberta's. Until it ends, B.C. is little more than an oil and gas colony.

Could the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training tell this House just how many jobs in the oil and gas sector B.C. has lost over the years and how much we have lost in tax revenue, in talent, in spinoff businesses? What is the total cost to B.C. of a decade-plus failure to resolve this travel dispute with Alberta?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. I believe the member opposite knows that we've been in a dispute resolution process under the new west partnership agreement with Alberta for some time. That actually reached conclusion recently, and Alberta has now agreed to comply to the requirements under the new west partnership. In fact, my colleague the minister responsible for petroleum resources has recently advised me that we're starting to see head offices being set up in British Columbia as a result of that partnership.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: Well, maybe the minister has more current information than I do, but as of this morning, we were advised that both governments were continuing to point the finger at each other, waiting for the other to act. So I don't think there is yet an agreement.

My office learned more in a single phone call to Alberta than we did in making numerous fruitless inquiries of the B.C. government. We also learned from Alberta just how many B.C. companies have been snared by recent residency audits: 17 companies in the last four years alone — 17 companies forced to comply with Alberta's residency requirements, 17 B.C. entrepreneurs deserted by their own government. One company was owned by a constituent of mine and was headquartered in Richmond. He moved the company and its jobs, taxes and talent back to Alberta.

This is more than a trade disagreement. This is a regulatory imbalance that is the Achilles heel of B.C.'s oil and gas economy.

I ask the minister: why hasn't he enforced TILMA? When does he think it's appropriate to tell Alberta there will be consequences to a protectionist policy? In five years, in ten years, in 20? When will he decide to protect B.C. businesses and B.C. jobs?

[1415]

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks, again, to the member opposite for the question. I can assure the member opposite that in the new west partnership there is a dispute resolution mechanism to deal with issues where provinces don't adhere to the spirit of the document. In fact, we were in that dispute resolution with Alberta for quite a period of time. Alberta has agreed to comply with all of the rules, especially as it relates to residency requirements, and they are now implementing the changes that will be necessary.

ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE TRUST
IN WOOD INNOVATION CENTRE PROJECT

N. Macdonald: I have a briefing note — in fact, the due diligence report from Janine North, the CEO of Northern Trust to her board regarding an unusual loan to Commonwealth Campus. Condition 1 is that no loan shall be made to Commonwealth for the assembly of land for the wood innovation centre until Treasury Board has approved a capital budget for the project. We know that the loan from the trust to the Commonwealth was exe-
[ Page 13508 ]
cuted November 24, 2009. We also know that Treasury Board still had not given approval as late as June 20, 2010, and likely much later, so a key condition was not met.

The question to the Justice Minister, who was deputy chair of Treasury Board at the time: did she give the trust any assurance that Treasury Board approval would come after the loan was issued to the Commonwealth Campus?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite doesn't seem to understand that the Northern Development Initiative Trust is an independent organization that operates at arm's length from government and makes its own decisions. In fact, in a note that was delivered to the Globe and Mail recently from Janine North, it says very specifically: "Our decision to act as a financier was made independently by our board of directors."

The Treasury Board process that was necessary to be followed in order to move through the procurement for the wood innovation and design centre was followed. It was correct. It met all of the mandates for the process. We're looking forward to a great building being built in Prince George, because at the end of the day, we're going to see something that will make a dynamic shift in the forest industry in British Columbia and will benefit all British Columbians involved in forestry over the long term.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: We've been hearing that for a long time, haven't we? It's a long time coming, and it's still a hole in the ground. The Northern Development Initiative Trust was set up with $185 million in public money; $135 million of that came from the sale of B.C. Rail, a sale that this government promised they would never, never make. They broke that promise. Nevertheless, it is public money. This minister is responsible to the House for that money. The Justice Minister – at the time, the deputy chair of Treasury Board – would have known that Treasury Board had not yet approved capital funding for the projects, and yet the loan went through.

The question to the Justice Minister: can she explain how this public body went ahead with a loan for this project even though a key condition had not yet been met?

Hon. P. Bell: I've answered this question half a dozen or more times over the last few days. I've encouraged the members opposite, on most of those occasions, to walk over to the corner and actually look up the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act. If the member did that, he would know that the question he just asked was fundamentally flawed, that it was based on incorrect information. So at the conclusion of today's question period I will table a copy of that document so that the member opposite can do his homework and actually read it.

M. Karagianis: There seems to be a real pattern to this story. The Premier in September of 2011 went to Prince George to announce that they were building the tallest multipurpose wood building in the world, in the known universe — this in spite of cautions by the then Finance Minister, the member for….

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

There will be no props in the House, please.

Continue, Member.

[1420]

M. Karagianis: This announcement was made in spite of the fact that the Finance Minister, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, said that there was not money in the budget to build such a structure — not money in the budget for this structure. This after Northern Development Initiative Trust approved a loan using public money, a mortgage loan, even though a key condition had not been met. That key condition, of course, was the approval of Treasury Board.

The Justice Minister was deputy chair of Treasury Board at the time. I would like the Justice Minister to please explain how this occurred. How did this mortgage loan get made, despite the fact that the Finance Minister said there was nothing in Treasury Board and she knew that the conditions had not been met? How did this occur?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the pattern that is forming here is that the opposition clearly are lacking question period material, because they're going back to the well of dead issues over and over and over again.

If members of the opposition would take the time to read the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act, they would understand that it is an independent body, that the board does not come to Treasury Board to ask for input or advice or to, in fact, have loans approved. In fact, they operate independently. That's why they were set up in that way. It's clear in the act that that is the mandate of the organization. There is no reason, nor would it have been appropriate for NDIT to have gone to Treasury Board.

What I will say is that the Treasury Board process was followed with rigour — in fact, the entire procurement process around the wood innovation design centre has been followed with rigour — and that very soon we're going to be announcing a brand-new building that will change the face of forestry.

I don't intend to apologize for that. That's good news for British Columbians, and it's good news for our forest industry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: It's a very simple question. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale, then the Finance Minister,
[ Page 13509 ]
clearly indicated that there was no money in Treasury Board for this project. Yet, the Justice Minister and the Jobs Minister proceeded and pushed this through in their community.

I would like them to explain to the taxpayers of British Columbia: how did this occur? They knew there was no money in Treasury Board. The loan was forced through the development trust. Someone needs to explain to the taxpayers of British Columbia how this has occurred.

Hon. P. Bell: I've answered that question.

REPLACEMENT OF COWICHAN
VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEES
AND SCHOOL CLOSINGS

B. Routley: Last year this government fired the democratically elected Cowichan school board and replaced them with a handpicked trustee with no links to the community. That trustee has since put forward a list of ten schools that may face closure, and he has announced he will make his decision on which schools will close May 15, 2013, which is the day after the provincial election. This announcement has created a great deal of stress for children and families in the Cowichan Valley.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Does this government think it is appropriate to threaten communities with school closures when they don't have a democratically elected school board in place?

Hon. D. McRae: Let's talk demographics in British Columbia. In 2001 there were 598,000 students in British Columbia, almost 600,000. Today there are 66,000 fewer. In the Cowichan Valley there have been some changes as well. In 2001 there were approximately 10,000 students, and today there are 7,900 students.

Now, this demographic change has resulted in districts having to make tough decisions. One thing I can say with absolute certainty is that Mr. McKay is a very well-respected educator, educated leader, across the province of British Columbia.

[1425]

Yes, he is doing consultations with the Cowichan district, but the reality is the outcomes of those consultations are not part of this ministry.

I look forward to him bringing educational leadership. I looked forward to the four trustees, who worked hard to get a balanced budget.... However, that did not happen, with the five who were dead set against getting the deficit budget.

Mr. McKay is doing good work for the children of Cowichan Valley. I look forward to hearing his results, because I know that the children of the Cowichan Valley will be better served because of his hard work.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Routley: The entire purpose behind having a locally elected school board is to ensure the decisions that they make are accountable to the community. Having an unelected, unaccountable trustee make these kinds of decisions breaks that bond of trust with the community. My constituents are being disrespected by this process, and that is totally unacceptable. Can the minister please explain why this government is using an unelected trustee to rush through school closures the day after the provincial election?

Hon. D. McRae: Let's not forget that the former board, and again, the majority of the board…. There were members who understood that there were laws about passing a budget that was balanced. The board actually — against the advice of the superintendent, the secretary-treasurer and the four trustees who wanted to balance the budget for their board — worked diligently to actually do good for the province and the students of the Cowichan Valley.

It might serve the member opposite to realize that there are some schools in that district that are operating with less than 50 percent capacity. Now, if you're a young child in a school and there is much empty space, there obviously is an issue that needs to be addressed.

We've seen a 27 percent drop in students in the Cowichan Valley. One of the things that I'm really keen to do and one of the reasons I ran for this party is…. By keeping families in British Columbia, by making sure that they have an opportunity to stay in their communities, it gives us a chance to have another conversation about how we can actually grow the economy.

I've been here four years. I have yet to see any policy about actually solving economic issues in the province from the members opposite. We are working hard to grow the economy of the province. We want Cowichan families to be well served educationally and with jobs. What are the members opposite doing?

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Popham: I rise to present a petition. Mr. Speaker, 5,536 people have signed their names, respectfully requesting that this House take urgent action to halt the commercial introduction of the genetically modified apple tree in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Bell: I rise to table a copy of the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act. For members opposite, if they don't want to take the time to read the entire act, I've highlighted the relevant portions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.
[ Page 13510 ]

Minister, you need leave to table that document.

Hon. P. Bell: I seek leave to table a document.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, on one, all amounts borrowed by government; two, all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2011-12.

[1430]

I also have the honour to present the 36th annual report pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act for the year ended 2012.

In accordance with section 6 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, I am tabling a revised schedule F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013. The revised schedule F reflects the changes to ministerial accountabilities resulting from a minor government reorganization that took place on January 25, 2013.

Finally, I present the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, section 72(8).

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued second reading debate on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 8, to be followed by second reading on Bill 14.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

(continued)

B. Routley: You know, this miscellaneous bill is the kind of example of jiggery-pokery…. It precisely illustrates what I've been talking about. What you need to hear is how this example plays out.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This government had this committee that had to…. Oh, we had important work to do, and we had to get it done by August 15. We had a set timeline, and so we went out to all these different communities — 650 submissions from groups all over British Columbia.

At the end of the day, with all of those submissions and the hard work of the committee, spending hours looking at how we could compromise and come up with a series of recommendations, we come up with all those points of agreement. You would think, for sure, that would count for something. I have to tell you that I understand, as a former member of the Finance Committee who toured the province and listened to recommendations, that a very small amount of those recommendations ever see any action by government. It's an exercise in going out there and listening.

But in this process where you have a unanimous recommendation, and this government has the opportunity to act, what do we get? We get a miscellaneous bill, a hodgepodge of bills, and in that is thrown just a little bit — not even a sliver — of the total package. No proper response to unanimous recommendations of both Liberals and NDPs on a joint committee where we actually agreed.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am. I look back and think…. After all our hard work that summer in getting to a resolve, I was shocked to hear the Premier say that we were some kind of sick culture.

So I went back and looked at all of those recommendations, all of the recommendations that we came up with on the Finance Committee. I came up with a number of 202 points of agreement on both the select standing committee on forests and on the Finance Committee — a long list of recommended points. We were told by the Premier of the province that we were some kind of sick society down here.

How do you think that made me feel, after spending weeks and months touring the province, working together collectively for the goodwill of British Columbians and resource communities? All those points have been ignored. In fact, to make matters worse, they cut the budget. Can you believe this? They cut the budget by 18 percent.

[1435]

This is a government that says they are listening, and yet we go out on a listening exercise with 650 different groups. We come up with a joint set of recommendations, and we can't even get action on some of the minimum things like inventory.

Do you know that all the major groups have said we've got to spend a minimum of $50 million on inventory. We did a lot of work on that file, along with…. I mean, it is the Forest Practices Board. Other groups have said: "How can you manage what you don't know you have?" We're sadly lacking in the whole area of inventory. This government has ignored all of that and actually cut the budget.

Now, I do want to talk about the last sliver of a remaining point. It's not even a real major talking point, but at least it's some movement. That's the issue of marginally economic types — the remnant that's in this package. We went around the province, again, urgently telling communities that we were going to have a reduction of ten
[ Page 13511 ]
million cubic metres affecting communities all over the pine beetle region.

Some say it is between ten mills, maybe even as high as 20. I've heard people, like Russ Taylor, talk about 20 or 25 mills that could be impacted by the problem of overcutting during the pine beetle era and trying to get some value out of the wood. Then what do we do when we hit the mid-term timber supply?

Again, this is an example of where the committee worked together. I give full credit to the chief foresters who were along. One of them said it best. In fact, I think we were out for a walk, and I like this little analogy. He said: "You know, they might have been dining out on pie. If you look at the forest as pie, they've been dining out on finer pie, and now they're going to have to eat a lot more crust." A lot more crust.

Now, what does that mean? Well, the crust is the marginal economic timber base. That means there are still some areas that are marginally economic. That doesn't mean they're not economic at all. It means that in order to improve the timber supply, we have to look at how we partition or set aside the areas that can be harvested.

I just want to explain what those are. Those are stands that otherwise would be available for harvesting but are not merchantable because of a small pea-sized incident of decay, species composition and low stocking. So there's an example of what can be improved.

Again I have to say how disappointed I am at the lack of listening by this government — the fact that even joint committees seem to be absolutely meaningless. They really ripped up all the work that our committee did over the summer in coming to a consensus. It was totally ignored. I think, at election time, people should be taking a look at what this government does with 650 groups making presentations on a joint recommendation to the Legislature. It not only gets ignored, but they cut the forest budget by 18 percent. It's shameful.

B. Simpson: Well, as always, it's a hard act to follow. There will be no jiggery-pokery from me, just for the record. I do want to speak to a few things here. Let me start off by thanking the minister, the Government House Leader, for withdrawing these sections of the miscellaneous amendments act. As the opposition critic indicated, sometimes there are times that this House works the way that it is supposed to, and informed debate is supposed to inform the government's actions.

[1440]

I want to thank a group of people that are not here. Over the weekend thousands of British Columbians engaged in this debate outside of this chamber, sending e-mails to the Government House Leader, sending e-mails to the minister, registering on-line petitions, using a Twitter hashtag to register their concerns about this bill. I really think that engagement, coupled by activities in this chamber, has made something happen here that ought to be regarded as special and appropriate. Again, my thanks to the government for responding the way they did.

But I now need to take my 30 hours which I was planning on doing some work around this bill. I want to talk for about ten or 15 minutes just to give some context. Because there is other work in front of this House, I want to honour and respect the fact that the pieces have been withdrawn. It's hard to talk to a negated section of the bill, but I do think there are some context pieces that are worth putting on the public record.

It has always been a problem when this province has attempted to give private rights over their public forests. Now, 94 percent of the land base is owned by the people of British Columbia. We're a very unique jurisdiction in that regard, and there have always been attempts to figure out how to get the private sector to engage in that public resource in a way that attracts private investment and gives maximum public benefit. That's the tension. It has always been there.

In 1942 an interesting thing happened that really…. Some others — not myself, but others who are more knowledgable about this — point to the circumstances under which tree farm licences were conceived. They were originally called forest management licences, FMLs. They became known as tree farm licences.

What they point to is that the conceptualization of this quasi-private right over the public land base — the drawing of maps and the giving of exclusive rights to the public land base — occurred when C.D. Orchard, who was the chief forester after the chief forester had been killed in a plane crash, was the replacement chief forester.

During the deepest, darkest days of World War II, just shortly after Dieppe when it looked like we weren't going to actually win World War II, C.D. Orchard put a memo in front of then Premier John Hart. That was the beginning of the process of moving towards tree farm licences.

Lots of people have questioned: "Why then, and why moving in that direction?" Because at that time the 30-year-old Forest Service was mostly at war. They had mostly been conscripted or volunteered to the armed services. They weren't around, and their advice wasn't available as we moved in this direction.

The first Sloan commission that went out to talk about changing forest management was actually engineered by Mr. Orchard and Premier Hart to get the outcome that they could move to tree farm licences. So from the very beginning the process of issuing these has been suspect. In fact, in the first two tree farm licences issued, there's a direct link to donations to the then Liberal Party, which was trying to get their war chest brought up in advance of trying to break the coalition government at the time and get their own legitimate mandate.

It has always been thus, and it has always been problematic. It has not been about area-based tenure per se or better forest management. It's about how to attract the private investment. There's always been a connection —
[ Page 13512 ]
and a questionable connection — between the politics of the day and the issuance of these kinds of licences.

In fact, the first MLA ejected from this chamber was Gordon Gibson. Gordon Gibson Sr. was ejected from this chamber for making claims about the Forests Minister of the day — honest Bob Sommers, W.A.C. Bennett's Forests Minister — in which he claimed honest Bob Sommers was given a kickback for issuing a tree farm licence.

Now, Mr. Gibson was ejected. He went up into the gallery and continued the debate from the gallery, creating a bit of a conundrum for the Speaker, who eventually just said: "Oh, why don't you just come back down and continue the debate." He wouldn't apologize for his claims.

It took years. It took the longest debate in this House to that point, the longest trial in the province of British Columbia to that point, before honest Bob Sommers went to jail for abusing his power as a minister of forests in issuing a forest licence.

[1445]

Then you fast-track from that. Ray Williston became Forests Minister and actually stopped issuing these licences the way that they'd been issued on the coast. Predominantly, tree farm licences are on the coast. You fast-track to 1988. Then–Social Credit minister Dave Parker introduced a bill in this Legislature that the Forests critic, Dan Miller, called the biggest privatization scheme British Columbia had ever seen.

It was the same bill, effectively, as was in this miscellaneous amendments act that enabled the Forests Minister to roll over replaceable forest licences to tree farm licences. But the Social Credit government of the day had an explicit policy. They were going to do it whole hog. They were going to actually do a full conversion, and the minister said that he expected 67 percent to 70 percent of the public land base would come under the exclusive control of forest products companies.

They passed the legislation despite the NDP opposition's protest. They passed the legislation, and they went out to consult with the public in 1989. I have the summary of the public input from that.

I won't burden the House with what's in here, but let me tell you that the same justifications the government is using today for advising that we move on this path are the same that were used in 1988 and 1989. The same arguments against doing it are the same arguments that are being made today. The debate hasn't changed. We've just taken it into another century. The same arguments against doing this exist today.

I do want to recognize a couple of people in the House who have been involved in advancing those arguments and who very well remember the 1988-89 situation. That's Vicky Husband and Anthony Britneff, who have remained for this debate and were introduced before question period.

Other people were involved in this. Will Koop from Tap Water Alliance was the one who actually gave me summaries of the '88-89 situation.

In 1989 the first attempt at rollover occurred in the Mackenzie area. Fletcher Challenge, one of those companies that's disappeared in the gobble-up that's occurred since 2003, proposed a tree farm licence in the Mackenzie area that was six million hectares in size — a six-million-hectare tree farm licence.

Almost 1,000 people registered to speak against that. The government cancelled the hearing and cancelled every subsequent hearing to avoid getting the feedback that they wanted, which was: "Don't do this." Eventually a hearing was held in Port Alberni. The government heard that the public did not want this to occur, and eventually that 1988 legislation had to be repealed.

Hence, we have the situation where the minister of today, the minister for some time, has not been able to create tree farm licences. That's what this bill would have enabled — the minister's ability to start the creation of tree farm licences again.

Now, there have been some claims made about my involvement in this debate, about claims I've made publicly that are unfounded or inaccurate. I want to spend just a few minutes going through some of those.

(1) This never came from the Timber Supply Committee — period. One of the questions that I would have asked in the House — and I gave the minister advance notice — is to name the numbered recommendation from the Timber Supply Committee that said you should roll over replaceable forest licences to tree farm licences. It does not exist.

(2) What the Timber Supply Committee said is that if you are going to do more area-based tenure, here are three recommendations that are proviso recommendations, cautionary recommendations, if you're going to take that course of action. They did not recommend rollover.

(3) This is not about area-based management. You can do area-based management of the public forests without issuing any more tenures. You can actually manage timber supply areas as area-based management zones. You can do all of that. In fact, I would argue that in the Interior, up until the mountain pine beetle occurred, that's what we did. They're called operating areas or chart areas.

We actually sat down many years ago with the industry and said: "For efficiency's sake, while you have a replaceable forest licence, we're going to actually draw dotted lines on the map in a timber supply area and allow you to go in and operate in those areas. So you can invest. You can do silviculture in there, because that's your operating area."

[1450]

Everybody around the table winked, nodded, nudged and shook hands, and that became the operating format that we have used in the Interior until two things hap-
[ Page 13513 ]
pened. The mountain pine beetle blew out the mature forests and blew out the good standing crop, making everybody scramble to achieve the volumes that they've got.

Two, this government, year over year, issued one funky forest licence after another, causing non-renewable forest licences to be layered over replaceable forest licences and non-replaceable licences to be layered over a non-replaceable licence. It kind of blew out the operating and charred areas and caused a bit of panic among the existing licensees that had those replaceable licences.

It's not about area-based management. You can do area-based management without rolling over replaceable licences. In fact, this government could quickly ramp us up to the promised 10 percent of area-based management if they fulfilled their promise from 2003 to create more community forests, more woodlots and more First Nations woodland licences to that maximum 10 percent. They could probably actually take it up to 15 percent if they wanted to. They don't have to target replaceable licences that are predominantly held in the hands of five companies in order to move towards area-based management.

This is somehow not privatization. Let me qualify this. It is absolutely quasi privatization. It always has been. What that means is that the government holds the public right…. It is still public forest. But the exclusive rights that they give to a private entity over top of that public forest give that private entity what is known as a held asset. They book it on their corporate books as a held asset. That's a form of privatization.

They also have exclusive rights. That's a form of privatization. Those exclusive rights in some cases cause gates to go up and the public to be restricted access. Ask lots of people on the coast about that. That's what they live with.

It prevents people from going in and getting things like firewood. It prevents, in some cases, activities that the licensee deems as potential wildfire threats. That's a form of privatization, where they can make it exclusionary. And it also means we have to buy back that land from that licensee if we want to do something different with it. If we want to negotiate and settle a treaty, if we want to put a park, if we want to have more caribou habitat, we've got to go in and do that. The valuation of that land base is substantially higher because it's under a tree farm licence than it would be if it were a replaceable licence, because you can just find that volume somewhere else.

So it is a form of privatization. In fact, H.R. MacMillan, B.C.'s first chief forester who went on to be a major player in the forest industry on the coast, warned in the second Sloan commission in the 1950s that continued use of tree farm licences would do this. It would kill the industry on the coast.

It would kill the industry on the coast. It would create bad second-growth forests, and it would not give the community stability that the communities thought they were getting. He warned that; he predicted that. What's the situation on the coast, where the lion's share of tree farm licences is? Bad second-growth forests that we can't commercialize, and the industry has collapsed. MacMillan pinned that right on tree farm licences.

What this rollover legislation would do is take that tragedy into the interior of the province. I guarantee you, if we go down that path…. The government has indicated they're still bent to do this, should they form government. They'll go and educate the public about it, and they would still like to do this.

What we would see — and members of the Council of Forest Industries have said this straight up — is those four remaining companies in the Interior who hold the lion's share of these replaceable forest licences…. If you want to see a domino effect, you would watch the dominoes fall. If Hampton got one, then West Fraser and Dunkley would want one. Then Prince George would have to move, and everybody would have to move. You would have regional monopolies through the Interior on exclusive rights to the public land base. That's what would have been the outcome of this.

I want to talk about the fact that the government is now claiming that the debate around this was misinformed. Again, I'm sure Vicky and Anthony could speak volumes to any member of this House about not only the substance of public policy around forests but the history of it.

[1455]

It's the same with Will Koop, the same with Ken Wu, the same with all of the foresters who weighed in on this. The public is not misinformed about this. What the government did, if you read their press release, is misinformed the public, who was unaware about what the intent of this bill was. That's why it's good that it's pulled. We can go and have an informed debate, but hopefully, that informed debate lifts its head much higher above rollover legislation.

The final area I want to explore is the issue of public interest, because it goes to the heart of what we have to do next. In the proposed rollover legislation, as has always been the problem with tree farm licences, how is the public protected? In what form? A classic of the failure to protect the public interest long term is the release of private lands that occurred under this government from tree farm licences on the coast.

The original social contract for tree farm licences issued on the coast was to get large tracts of land — which had been released from the Crown to private entrepreneurs, for the E&N Railway — back under public Crown management. The social contract was that if you brought your private lands in, you got Crown lands, and they parcelled together to create a tree farm licence.

In 2004 this government made a small change to the Forest Act — a clause. That clause said the minister is enabled to release private lands from tree farm licences. The government of the day said, "We have no policy to
[ Page 13514 ]
release private lands," just like they're saying today: "We have no policy to roll over replaceable licences like the Social Credit did in 1988. We're just going to enable it to happen so that it can happen on a proposal basis."

Same thing in 2004. Between 2004 and 2008, what happened? Virtually all of the major tracts of private lands in tree farm licences were released. There may have been no policy on paper, but it certainly appeared a policy of government to say yes to every proposal that came through.

The question of public interest is important here, because in the proposed legislation the public interest was going to be defined by the private sector proponent, not by the government — by the private sector proponent in their proposal. When the Auditor General looked at the private land releases, he subtitled his report Protecting the Public Interest?

He asked whether that was protected or not, and in his conclusion he said that the removal of the private land from the first three TFLs "was approved without sufficient regard for the public interest."

"The decision was not adequately informed. It was based upon incomplete information that focused primarily on forest and range matters and the interests of the licensee, with too little consideration given to the potential impacts on other key stakeholders.

"Consultation was not effective, and communication with key stakeholders and the public…was not transparent. The impacts of previous land removal decisions were not monitored to help inform future decisions."

All of those points apply to what was proposed in this bill, and so it is absolutely appropriate that this legislation did get removed. It's absolutely appropriate that the government responded to the public.

What I'd like to do, before closing, is say that we now need two things. I challenge both political parties who are vying for power after this next election to commit today to a full public and independent inquiry into the state of B.C.'s forests and our forest policy — to commit in their platforms to that.

We're ten years away from forest revitalization, and there are serious concerns raised about the state of our forest-dependent communities and our forests. We've had the Auditor General, the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals, silviculture experts, foresters and communities all say that they want something done about the state of our forests, and they want to know what it is we need to do. I challenge both parties to rise to that challenge and in their platforms state that they would do a public inquiry.

Second, I renew my call for the establishment of an independent officer of the Legislature who is the chief forester of B.C.'s public forests. We need to delink forestry and the forest asset from the politics of the day, because that has always been the problem with these licences and other licences — always. We need to delink that.

My challenge, again: a full, independent public inquiry and establishment of a chief forester who is an independent officer and who reports and is responsible to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia because it is the 85 people in this chamber who are the representatives of the people, not the minister of the day.

[1500]

The final thing I'll say…. I'll probably get in trouble for referencing this individual. But Karl Marx said….

Interjection.

B. Simpson: Yeah, I knew I was going to get something there. But it works. Wait for it. It works.

Karl Marx said: "History repeats itself — first as tragedy, second as farce." That was about to play out in this case, because the first attempt to roll over legislation by the Socreds was tragedy writ large. We have avoided the farce. Again, I applaud the government for avoiding that.

But I challenge both parties: let's get on with the job of trying to figure out what we need to do to put our public forest asset back on the level that it deserves in this province as our primary renewable resource.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join second reading debate on Bill 8, a lot of which, as we've heard, has to do with forestry issues. I, however, want to address section 17, which has to do with cosmetic pesticides and their use in British Columbia.

The member for Cowichan Valley was talking about some of his frustrations that resulted from the upshot of the committee that he participated in, having to do with forestry, and I have to say the same thing. I have the same feelings, having served on the committee regarding a ban on cosmetic pesticides.

It's been exceedingly mystifying and disappointing that the kind of legislation that we on this side of the House had expected has not materialized, the kind of legislation that many British Columbians…. I think it was one of the largest, if not the largest, number of public responses to a committee of this House, and the vast majority of those were in favour of a ban on cosmetic pesticides. Mysteriously, that simply has not taken place, and one is left to wonder why we went through the whole process, why the government formed the committee.

We started off in the summer of 2011, and it shouldn't have taken us long to come to a conclusion about it and to come out with some positive legislation, but that's not what happened. We went on and on and on. The Chair — not the initial Chair, who is the now Minister of Health, but the now Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development — seemed to have an obsession with trying to garner evidence that cosmetic pesticides were not dangerous to the health of British Columbians, which is a very peculiar stance to take. It's not one that is endorsed by any sense of caution with regard to health measures and the protection of the public — in particular, children.

You know, 40 municipalities in this province already
[ Page 13515 ]
have instituted their own ban on cosmetic pesticides. They are limited, however, insofar as they can't make any regulations to determine the use of those pesticides and who can use them. So there was a need, and there still is, for a ban on cosmetic pesticides, as the province could bring all the various bans that the municipalities have together under one umbrella and could add more teeth to it.

That's not, mysteriously, what they chose to do. So it's with considerable frustration and disappointment that I address the failings of the government to do that. It will be up to them, I guess, in short order, during the campaign upcoming, to answer to British Columbians on why they haven't instituted a ban on cosmetic pesticides.

[1505]

One can only assume that they are indeed all opposed to it, unless we hear something different in this debate, which I haven't heard so far. That opposition, I'm assuming, would include the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. The very municipality, one of them, that he serves in has a ban, and yet it appears that he does not support a ban. That's noteworthy.

Quite frankly, it's disturbing, because we're talking about chemicals that are dangerous, dangerous to the health of human beings. That was clearly laid out, I thought, to the committee. The majority chose not to endorse it. But they're carcinogenic in many cases, the effects, particularly including brain cancer, prostate and kidney cancer, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia and Parkinson's disease. We also heard scientists give evidence about the effect on children and children's autism. There's a link that's been found there as well.

The thing that we seemed to get stuck on during the debate is whether or not these concerns could be proven. That's, quite frankly, a mug's game when it comes to a discussion around a biological issue. We're dealing with disease. Obviously, you can't test human beings.

You can't administer the pesticide to human beings and see what effect it has. That's obviously out of the question. So you do what are called epidemiological studies. This is not junk science. This is the science that is generally employed in the whole range of biological issues.

In this case, you look for what the correlations are between the use of a substance and the result — positive correlations. And that doesn't mean positive in a good way. That means cause…. Well, I can't say cause and effect — but an association, a strong association between these substances and the diseases that I've mentioned and others.

It's rather baffling that the government has put this legislation into a bill. It doesn't change much. You're still able to use the same carcinogenic substances on your lawn and garden. You may have to get a licensed applicator. There may be some changes there, but that doesn't go anywhere near a ban on cosmetic pesticides.

The opposition leader has introduced a private member's bill, the Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act. I'm hopeful that after the next election there will be a chance to act on that to help us to reduce the risk, particularly to children. We know that kids tend to play outside more and get on the ground more and get on the grass more and, therefore, become exposed to these dangerous substances more frequently than adults do.

Given that kind of risk…. No, it can't be proven, cause and effect, but neither could the fact that smoking causes cancer ever be proven exactly cause and effect. It's another epidemiological study — studies; many of them there were. Yet we all recognize now and accept the fact that smoking does cause cancer.

Why would a government want to take that risk, in any event? If there's a risk, why not take the safe solution? Why not try to protect individuals?

[1510]

It has no effect on agricultural use and other commercial applications. We need to be careful about the use of pesticides anywhere. But this ban was strictly about…. Lawns and gardens, essentially, were the subject matter.

Having said my piece on that, I'll allow others to continue. Just, again, to say that I think the government made a big mistake, not only for the health of British Columbians, but politically. It looks to me like a mistake. Why did they bother to stick it to British Columbians further by putting this measure in the bill? But so they did, and the rest is history, as they say.

C. Trevena: I rise to speak on Bill 8, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013. As my colleagues have mentioned, there are a number of aspects within this act, different pieces of legislation that are being amended — whether it's forestry or education or the pesticides issue that my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows just mentioned.

I'm going to focus my comments on two sections of the bill before us: the changes to the Representative for Children and Youth Act and the changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

I'm going to start, first, at the end of this piece of legislation, this bill, with the changes to the Representative for Children and Youth Act. I'm very pleased to see them finally before the House. I say finally because they are long overdue. Some of what is in this section of the legislation is talking about expanding the representative's mandate to be able to advocate for young people who are aging, between the ages of 19 and 24, who are leaving the purview, as it were, of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and are going to be moving into the area looked after by Community Living B.C.

The Premier, more than a year ago, said that there would be changes to the legislation, that the representative would have the opportunity to advocate for this group of people. There aren't that many of them, we don't believe, but the representative did have the goodwill of
[ Page 13516 ]
the Premier at that stage. It's 15 months since that was first raised, and we haven't seen anything.

We then had the very hard work of the Children and Youth Committee, the select standing committee that is chaired by the government side. It has a very good working relationship between government and opposition. It is one of the times when you can actually see the bipartisan nature of this House, sometimes. That committee did a lot of work on looking at the Representative for Children and Youth Act, seeing what amendments needed to be made. It took representation from the representative, from the ministry and from Mr. Ted Hughes, under whose auspices the representative was first appointed, after his report. It examined all this and took information from outside, from other organizations that wanted to submit about the representative's act.

It spent a lot of time working through the representative's act and unanimously came up with a number of recommendations, all of which I'm very pleased to say are included in this amendment, under part 7 of Bill 8. As I say, I'm very pleased to see that it's there.

However, again, I have to ask: why did it take so long? We made these recommendations last spring. We finished meeting last spring on these issues. It is now the middle of March. We could have moved on much more expeditiously if we had had a full session. We were all ready to go. There was a lot of work we could have done.

It's not just being said flippantly; it's not being said politically. The work the representative does…. I think both sides of the House recognize her extremely hard work and the importance of her role for many children and many young people in this province.

[1515]

The fact that we are now looking at being able to expand her role, and expand it not just for young people who are working within the shift between the Ministry of Children and Families and Community Living but for other young people who have been involved with the ministry and who are now really struggling and have nobody to advocate for them….

These are an important group of people. I think it's very important that we do act on it. What is sad is that we have had to wait until now because of the decision not to have a fall session — the decision that what happens here is, according to the Premier, irrelevant. This act will have a significant impact on many young people.

One of the reasons I'm very pleased that our committee…. I note that the Chair of the committee is retiring at the end of this session. She put a lot of work into it. The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky put a lot of work into this. She is retiring. It's nice as maybe a final note in her last two days in this place that this act is going through. However, it would have been much nicer that she could participate in the debate earlier on in the session, if we'd had a fall session, because we do see young people really struggling.

What we hope the changes that this legislation will do, as well as ensuring that we have good transition for the Representative for Children and Youth Act, ensuring that we are monitoring the act, ensuring that there are safeguards in place…. There are safeguards for young people. We see too many young people who come out of care and end up on welfare, end up falling through the cracks and end up being homeless because they can't work the system. Hopefully, by giving the representative an increased mandate here, some of those young people will have somewhere to turn, will have someone to advocate for them, and we will be better served, because there'll be fewer people falling through the cracks.

In a society where we really do strive to have a social safety net, do strive to make sure that everybody is looked after, I think anything we can do to really assist people, particularly young people who are vulnerable, from falling through the cracks is something we should be applauding.

As I say, I'm very pleased that this part is in front of us — the changes to the Representative for Children and Youth Act. I have a couple of questions that I'll be raising when we get to the committee stage, but on the whole, I think it really does seem to adopt everything that the select standing committee tabled. It will be a good move forward.

On the changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, this side of the House does generally support them. They have been introduced in response to a couple of reports that the representative herself wrote: Honouring Christian Lee, about the very, very sad case here in Victoria where a family was killed and a child was killed — a situation of domestic violence; and also as a result of the other very sad case about a year later, when three children were killed by their father, and the problems within the system and how that happened.

The representative put very heartfelt reports forward which I think shook everybody who read them and hopefully shook the government. As a result of that, we have these changes.

These changes really do put the child as central to the legislation. I mean, the child is very central to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. As one reads it, the child is very central. But in cases of domestic violence…. That is highlighted, so much so that I note that in the first section of the amendments the government is replacing the words "family violence" and substituting "domestic violence."

I think the choice of words is not a matter of semantics. That's just the language that was used today. It used to be wife abuse and then family violence and domestic violence. So domestic violence is being chosen. But I say what is central, whatever language we use, is that the child is put centrally.

[1520]

What these changes do is add a couple of sections
[ Page 13517 ]
which underline the fact that if the child is emotionally harmed by the parents' conduct or if the child is living in a situation where there's domestic violence by or towards a person with whom the child resides, there is definitely the possibility of a need for protection.

I think that in many instances, people won't question that. They'll see that, obviously, if the child is going to be emotionally harmed or there's a possibility of violence in the home, we should do everything to protect that child.

In fact, we have a duty to report just by the very fact of being citizens of B.C. If there's any possibility that a child is going to be harmed, we have a duty to report to the ministry. I think this underlines it.

However, as I say, we do have a slight caution on this because of the very sensitive nature of domestic violence. We aren't just talking of a child in isolation. We are talking about the family, and we're usually talking about a mother with her child or children.

We've heard concern from organizations that are trying to combat violence against women and organizations that look after women who have fled violent relationships. They are concerned that this section could backfire. They're very worried that what could happen is that instead of a woman trying to leave an abusive relationship, she becomes much more wary because of this need to report and the possible threat of losing her child.

So a woman goes to a transition house. She isn't quite ready to leave the relationship. It often takes quite a while for a woman to leave. She goes to the transition house; she goes back to the family home. Under the circumstances here, what the transition houses and others are concerned about is that the transition house worker would then have to report that that child is in a potentially dangerous situation — a situation where protection is needed according to this act.

That would undermine the trust which is built up between the woman who is trying to flee the relationship and the worker at the transition house and, therefore, would really restrict the woman from trying to exit the relationship again because you've lost that level of trust. You've lost the level of trust because the child could be removed. I mean, it's a horrible fear that a child is going to be removed.

I'm going to explore this more when we get to committee stage, but I would just like to put into the record what the B.C. Society of Transition Houses is saying. Their concern is…. This is a letter that has gone to the provincial office of domestic violence and has been copied to both the minister and to the representative:

"Our interpretation of this amendment is that it will require transition house workers to report women returning home. If this amendment brings with it a duty to report mothers returning to abusive partners, the relationship between workers and mothers accessing services will fundamentally change. It could also act as a deterrence for mothers considering transition house support…. We are deeply concerned that this will lead to further loss of children's and women's lives."

It's a very strong concern, and I think it's one that we really have to consider deeply when we are discussing this in debate. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say and what members on other side of the House have to say about this, because there is that fear.

The representative, whose reports have generated these amendments, is well aware of that. I think that in discussions with her office, child focus has to be paramount. The awareness that there could be problems for women exiting relationships is secondary to putting the child paramount, bearing in mind we all have a duty to report if necessary.

[1525]

Another transition house puts it this way:

"If we take away the safety of transition houses by requiring such reporting, you'll break the trust we have worked hard to build in our communities. Women will not access services if they think they will risk losing their children. I realize that having MCFD involvement does not mean children being apprehended, but many women do not — especially First Nations women — believe this."

So I think that there is that real concern that it's going to be a deterrent.

I think that that's something that we have to bear in mind. When the legislation is enacted, when the social workers are working through this, it's something they're going to have to really be very, very cognizant of — that we could break that trust, that we could see more women and children staying in very dangerous situations and, therefore, trying to work both with the women and children in their homes and rebuild some sort of trust. I think it's going to be something we're going to have to work on.

One of the areas where I'm sure the minister, when she's talking about this, will come back with is the fact that…. "Don't worry. We're going to be providing social workers with training." I have to say that this is something that when we get to the committee stage of this bill, I'm going to be…. I put it on notice now so the minister can check her files. Just how much training will be available for social workers, particularly, when we are looking at the current fiscal situation where we have effective cuts through the ministry, and how is this change in legislation going to be enacted?

If there is good training, we can maybe mitigate this. If there isn't good training, there really could be very, very serious problems. So we want to know the extent of the training and how intensive it's going to be and, really, the accessibility of that training for the women.

With those caveats, as I say, we are going to be supporting these sections of the miscellaneous bill. We do have, as I say, a number of questions. We have a certain lack of trust of this ministry on this side of the House — the promises of: "Don't worry. It will all be great." We've seen the integrated case management system, which has been a complete disaster for the ministry. The failure of that has been blamed by the ministry on the ability of social workers to access training.

We don't also want to see a failure here — and the
[ Page 13518 ]
horror that we all would not want to see of another child dying, another woman dying — because of this fear and the lack of links they have now with transition houses, coming down to a fact that there wasn't actually any training for social workers.

I think that we're going to really see that there is a good, strong foundation under this. It's all very well to put the words on the paper. It's all very well to say that we are responding to the representative's report. It's all very well saying that we really care and we really want to make sure that children and mothers are safe. But without the training, without the actual strong foundation, I think that we've just been debating a piece of legislation, without which would cause real problems.

As I say, there are other areas of this act that I would like to speak on. However, I am very aware that many other people do want to speak on this. I look forward to going through it in great detail with the minister when we get to committee stage. With that, I'll take my place.

S. Hammell: It gives me pleasure to rise in this House to speak on the second reading of Bill 8. I will focus my comments largely on the section on the first part of the bill around the Child, Family and Community Service Act. In particular, I'm going to focus on section 2.

[1530]

Section 2, in the explanatory notes, says that this provides "that a child needs protection if the child is emotionally harmed by living in a situation where there is domestic violence." The second part of it "provides that the likelihood of physical harm to a child increases when a child is living in a situation where there is domestic violence."

This section has mixed reviews, and it is always concerning when there is not a consensus around changes. It's incumbent on both sides of the House to listen to the concerns and to the proponents of any kind of change.

This act, this section, this amendment, has some very strong proponents. We have the Representative for Children and Youth, who is strongly supporting this section, as well as the Ministry of Children and Family domestic violence unit. Both of those parts of government or reflections of government, as well as government itself, I have to assume, are supporting this change as being positive, because it's moving to consider not only physical harm but emotional harm.

Of course, there are plenty of incidents and examples of why this consideration should be added to the basket of things we worry about when we are protecting our young people.

But there are also very strong opponents. One of them is the B.C. Society of Transition Houses, as well as EVA and the Centre for Response-Based Practice and the School of Social Work at UVic.

Now, the first two organizations make me stop and pause when I am considering the implications of this legislation. Both of these organizations are on the ground in terms of domestic violence. This is not theoretical to them. They are the front-line workers, and particularly in the transition houses, they receive women and their children who are fleeing from abuse.

So if they are concerned that this will have unintended consequences, then I think it's incumbent on the House and all of us here to listen to those concerns and to respond to them. I do know that there has been some response and some sort of need or reaction and some consultation or more of saying that things are fine, that their reading of the act is not accurate and that their concerns will be taken into consideration.

If that is correct and during committee stage that becomes very clear, it will make me feel a lot better in terms of my ability to support the changes that are being suggested. When I consider the notion of emotional harm and the possibility of a child being emotionally harmed by being in a situation where there is domestic violence, even if the child does not actually witness the violence — and actually, even if the child does witness it — I think that has to be laid beside the notion that there will be tremendous emotional harm if a child is removed from parents and from their family and their home.

So it's a bit of a Sophie's choice. It's not easy. One situation could, possibly, lead to emotional harm, while I cannot imagine a circumstance where a child is removed from a home and that doesn't impact on that child emotionally in some way or another. We know these are difficult circumstances. We know that when we are dealing with situations where children are in physical danger and emotional danger, we have to act and we have to consider all the implications.

[1535]

So this is not a slam dunk. We have people who are opposed and people who are proponents of this change.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I have to say that I am concerned, particularly, as I read the letters and the concerns raised by the three opponents that I've named. I won't take a long time. I know there are maybe other people who want to speak on the bill in general. I'm just pleased to have had the opportunity to stand and make clear my concerns in preparation for committee stage.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words this afternoon on Bill 8. I also really appreciate that the section I would have begun my remarks on — regarding forest tenure changes that would have had sweeping implications for British Columbia and for how the industry conducts itself and for how we, as a province, manage our lands — has been withdrawn from the bill.

I think government, for whatever reasons, whatever its motivations were for originally putting in that sec-
[ Page 13519 ]
tion of the bill…. Having now withdrawn it, let's hope it was because they listened to a rather furious and rapid response from those in the forest sector, those environmental NGOs, those communities and regional districts who were taken by absolute surprise when the government originally tabled those amendments and tucked them inside this miscellaneous bill.

Whatever the reasons, I think we have a victory on our hands by the withdrawal of that section of the bill here today in the Legislature.

Let me move my comments to part 4 of this bill, because what that represents, should this legislation pass, is an absolute defeat for British Columbian kids and their families and for all of those in our province who have fought long and hard to have modern, comprehensive legislation on cosmetic pesticides. It represents a defeat because the amendments that are put in here make no sense. They are unworkable. They have failed to respond to what British Columbians have told this government time after time after time.

Whether it was in a consultation this government did three years ago that thousands of British Columbians responded to, which told the government directly they wanted the kind of legislation that provinces like Ontario and Quebec have; whether it was the Special Committee of the Legislature on Cosmetic Pesticides, which toured the province and heard from leading experts across North America, internationally and right here in our own province, people from the Children's Hospital, people from public health policy institutes funded by British Columbia taxpayers at our major universities — the government heard the same thing.

They heard that British Columbia wants to join those progressive provinces in Canada that have legislated a cosmetic pesticide ban. What we have here this afternoon is a tinkering and a maintaining of the status quo. It will not withdraw the harmful chemicals that increasing quantities of research over the last couple of decades have shown pose a human health risk, that bioaccumulate in people's bodies and have a direct link to higher cancer rates for women, in the case of breast cancer, or all kinds of developmental disorders that can occur in children.

The stakes are incredibly high when it comes to exposure to pesticides. We know this from an international body of research, and we know this because we did indeed have a special committee of the Legislature that went out and gathered exactly those opinions.

When I see the rationale for the amendment in Bill 8 being that it "responds to the report that was delivered by the special committee and responds to what this government heard during the conduct of that committee," I cannot think of a better example of absolute doublespeak.

This amendment does exactly the opposite. It ignores what British Columbians told this government. It ignores what the top researchers, many of whom practise here in British Columbia at our public health institutions and our universities, directly told this government.

[1540]

It directly contradicts…. And I think this is important, because we've talked a lot about this in this chamber in recent weeks. It directly affronts the principles of accountable government.

The Premier of British Columbia made the clearest of promises to British Columbians when she ran for the leadership of her party that after she assumed the office of the Premier she was going to bring the kind of legislation forward that British Columbians want. She was going to ban cosmetic pesticides.

Let me read her quote directly into the record. It's out there a lot on listservs and on the Internet now, because people are very upset in British Columbia about her broken promise. But she had it right at the outset, and she seemed to demonstrate some understanding of the importance of this issue when she said:

"These dangerous pesticides are proven to increase the likelihood of childhood cancer and other illnesses and have no place near our homes. I don't want to see my son playing on a lawn with toxic pesticides…. I don't want to see anyone's child playing on a lawn with toxic pesticides."

That's what she said when she made the promise — that, should she become Premier, she would follow the example of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Ontario, Quebec, and now, I'm happy to say, in the exact same spring legislative sitting, in Manitoba. That province as well. Seven provinces.

She promised that British Columbia would be among that group of leading jurisdictions in Canada. Unfortunately, we will be dead last in terms of the human health protections from cosmetic pesticides should this amendment pass in the last three days here. That's where we're at.

That's why, on this section of this bill, the government should follow the action that it took this morning when it had sober second thoughts on the tenure reform in the forest sector and withdrew that section. I think that British Columbians would be absolutely delighted if government were to take its own advice and follow its own example and withdraw this section of the bill, because it will not solve any of the problems that were uncovered by the special committee of the Legislature and that are so well known and so well documented now.

One of the problems with this amendment is that we have in British Columbia right now what would be best described as a patchwork of municipal bylaws. Thirty-nine municipalities in British Columbia have bylaws banning cosmetic pesticides. These municipalities actually represent a majority of citizens in B.C. — 2.8 million people.

The bylaws are roughly the same. Some differ a little bit, but all of them seek to ban the application of cosmetic pesticides on public spaces where kids play and in private spaces as well, where the pesticides can do damage to pets and kids and to human health.
[ Page 13520 ]

These are bylaws that try and imitate the protections that exist in other provinces besides British Columbia. But what local government has said to this government, the provincial government, for years — going on five years now by resolution — is that these bylaws are ineffective in our province. They are ineffective because local government has no jurisdiction over the sale of cosmetic pesticides.

You can have a bylaw, but these products are freely available within the city limits of a municipality that bans their use — these same products that are restricted. That's just not working. Local government doesn't have bylaw officers to be able to enforce this. It makes a mockery of the intent of the bylaw.

What they were looking for was synchronization, provincial cooperation and oversight and the use of its jurisdictional responsibility to restrict sale. That will not happen under this amendment.

In fact, while local government was looking for a clearing up of confusion and a provincewide standard, we are actually going to have even more confusion, because what these amendments hint at is that there will be new licensing restrictions on pesticides. Okay, so what does that mean? Well, it's difficult to know, because most of it will be done by regulation and by the minister. Let's look at the description that was given in this bill.

[1545]

This is a paraphrase. The use of most pesticides on landscaped private land henceforth, should this amendment be passed, will be determined by the minister, who will require a licence, with some exceptions. Well, which exceptions? Will it be by the type of product? Will it be lawn care? Will it be garden pesticides? Will it be by ingredient? Will it be 2,4-D or another type of chemical that will now be under the licensing regime? Will it be glyphosate, for example? We don't know, but we're being asked to sign on to amendments that…. We have no idea what the government actually has in mind.

This legislative amendment also prescribes circumstances in which a licence is not required for a pesticide use. Again, the question is: which ones? Which pesticides are exempted, and in what circumstances will a licence not be required? It could be a very wide exemption, or it could be a very narrow one. We don't know. But in actual fact, that's not the issue. It's not really about the exemptions. It's about the increased confusion that the government, having dropped the ball time and time again on this issue, is now seeking to introduce.

They won't tell us which pesticides are in and out and require a licence, but they have told us that some of them will require a licence. Okay, so where do we find out? Well, one thing that won't be affected is retail sale. So even if you need a licence or not to use these products, anybody can buy them. Anybody can buy them at any hardware store that currently carries them.

Should this amendment shamefully go forward and be adopted by the government, and I hope that's not the case, before and after won't look very much different in the province of British Columbia. Those chemical pesticides will still be available where they're available now. The only difference will be — and it will be up to you to find out — that you may need a licence to use them. But don't worry; you can still buy them.

Well, what's that going to do? Do you think that there's going to be a high state of compliance with this new amendment? Do you think the retail stores are going to understand what this government has in mind? It's hard to say, from the text of this amendment, what they have in mind.

I think I have an idea what this government is trying to do. They're trying to create this illusion that they're actually doing something, that they're making some kind of change that at least hints at what the public is demanding, when in fact the sum total of these changes will do almost nothing in British Columbia to advance the kinds of protections of our kids and human health that people were looking for. Worse, it's probably going to create a situation where homeowners, through no real fault of their own, seeing that daily life for them has not changed, if they're people who use pesticides currently, go in and buy it and then apply it illegally. It will make some people just lawbreakers, because this law is so unclear as to how it will be implemented and what it does.

I think, to say the least, when you're putting a bill forward that has this kind of confusion in it, that is poor, poor legislation. It's our job as an opposition — it's the job of all members in this House — to make sure that bad legislation doesn't pass, particularly when it's tucked into a miscellaneous bill in the dying days of a government that's being snuck through in the final sitting days of this session. So again, I urge the government to think again about this.

Let me go back to the point where the government is trying to claim that it's responding to what it heard. The government was probably drafting these amendments on or about the same time — November 2012 — that the journal Pediatrics produced a comprehensive syllabus as well as new research around the poisoning risks that synthetic lawn and garden chemicals pose to children, which demonstrated new associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers as well as risks of decreased cognitive function and behavioural problems.

[1550]

The time when the minister in his office was drafting these amendments that we're debating here today probably completely overlaps the time when comprehensive new research was being published that built upon earlier findings of countless studies. That's the context that I think makes this even more absurd.

They're hanging the argument for today's amendments on a report that was brought into this House and admitted but never voted on, and that was the special commit-
[ Page 13521 ]
tee's final report. This was a divisive report. There was a majority that was for it, and it went down party lines. Only Liberals voted for this committee report, and there was a minority that objected to the report because of its shortcomings.

Then the committee Chair, when he brought that report into this House, didn't even have the confidence, because it so contradicted his own Premier and what she had committed to British Columbians, to put it to a vote. That would have been interesting. That report lacks legitimacy, but it certainly would have exposed, had there been a standing vote in the House, just how deeply members feel about that. But that didn't happen.

Now they cite this report, which never was put into the House to be voted upon, as if it's some kind of authority to guide today's amendment that we're debating here at second reading.

Now, let's look at the…. The Chair of this committee, by the way, was the member for Kootenay East, and I think it's fair to say that a lot of people in British Columbia who follow this issue thought that was an unusual choice of chair. First of all, he had very distinct views on this issue that were well known before he assumed the duties of a neutral chair to conduct these hearings.

He was skeptical, to say the least, of mayors and councils in his own constituency who have cosmetic pesticide ban bylaws in place and somewhat outspoken in his support of the chemical industry from out east, who were registered in the province of British Columbia to do lobbying to make sure that good, strong laws that exist in other provinces wouldn't come to this province.

That's the background of the Chair. But in fairness to him, he ran the meetings just fine, and I can say that as his Deputy Chair — although I think it's proper and right to examine how he treated the work of the committee and those who came out in large numbers to state their views and took the time and energy to do so after the hearings were over.

He dismissed all of the critics of the report that he signed his name to and that the majority, Liberal members only, endorsed. He dismissed all of his critics who support a cosmetic pesticide ban that 20 million Canadians enjoy in other provinces as being politically motivated by left-wing conspiracy theorists. That's the magnanimity the Chair brought to the conclusion of his committee report.

Well, the left-wing conspiracy that supports the kind of legislation that the opposition has tabled on five different occasions, including the Leader of the Opposition, is the exact same kind of legislation that was introduced and passed by well-known left-wing conspiracists in Canada like Premier Danny Williams in Newfoundland and Labrador; Liberal Premiers, like Dalton McGuinty in Ontario; Liberal Premiers of Quebec, like Jean Charest; as well as Liberals in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. That's who the left-wing conspiracy apparently involves in terms of the dismissal of British Columbians that have been interested in this legislation for a long time.

The conspiracy is even greater. The left-wing conspiracy encompasses organizations — and they'll be surprised to know that they're involved in this — according to the member. The Canadian Cancer Society is part of this conspiracy, the Canadian Pediatric Society. The Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation is part of this conspiracy. The Public Health Association of British Columbia. The Lung Association is a participant in the conspiracy. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment is a participant in this conspiracy. The Parkinson Society Canada is also a participant in this conspiracy.

[1555]

The list of organizations that are involved in research on cosmetic pesticides and their human health impacts which are funded by taxpayers, which are funded by leading research universities right here in British Columbia…. That list goes on and on.

In urging that this section of the bill be defeated because the current status quo is better than the tarted-up status quo that this amendment represents, in speaking for exactly that to happen, I welcome the member for Kootenay East's description of the vast left-wing conspiracy that exists in British Columbia.

To me, that sounds like a very powerful constituency and coalition to make a difference amongst those thousands and tens of thousands of British Columbians who have spoken out in favour of the legislation — which the New Democrats have introduced — who are against the legislation and the trickery that is represented by this amendment from the Liberal side of the House.

That sounds to me like it's not a left-wing conspiracy; it sounds like a pretty powerful political constituency to make a difference on May 14 in British Columbia.

S. Fraser: I'll take my place in the debate on Bill 8. I'd like to begin by referring to part 5, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations amendment. I would note: this has been a very controversial portion of Bill 8. I represent, in part, a forestry-oriented community. The Alberni Valley helped build the economy of this province on forestry.

Certainly, section 24 of Bill 8 did not seem to reflect any public interest. It has been withdrawn. I just want to make that known for the record, because many people are concerned about that. It was essentially creating a monopoly and a further privatization of a public resource, of forests, in this great province.

We have already faced that from the removal of substantial lands, private lands from public control, of TFL 44 in the Alberni Valley. It has been to the detriment of my constituents ever since. That was done in 2003-2004
[ Page 13522 ]
by this government. Having them bring section 24 forward in Bill 8, which would have potentially done the same thing in other parts of the province to the detriment of those regions — I'm very glad they pulled it. It's a throwback to 25 years ago. I think it was a Socred government. It was a bad idea then; it's a bad idea now.

I guess I'll give the government credit at this point, because they did pull this section. I want my constituents to know, who have raised this as an issue, that it is gone now. I thank the people of British Columbia who have raised that as a problem, and also us on the opposition that have pushed this government on that issue.

I, too, was a member of the pesticide committee, a special committee of the Legislature. I sat on that committee for about a year. It's the second special parliamentary committee I've been involved in.

The Sustainable Aquaculture Committee was another committee I was able to take part in for 15 months a number of years ago. Again, this government commissioned a special committee, a bipartisan committee. We came out — after thousands of submissions from the public, from interest groups and from concerned citizens — with 52 recommendations that were delivered to this place, the Legislative Assembly. So a lot of work done there, and the government ignored all of them.

I don't know what that cost the taxpayers, but that was a travesty of justice. Suggesting that a committee would be commissioned, with all the resources of Hansard, travelling all over the province and many thousands of British Columbians taking the time to sit on that committee and then have it all ignored is another problem. For me, it's is like déjà vu all over again, because sitting on the cosmetic pesticide committee, I learned so much.

I had some experience in dealing with pesticides before. Legislatively, this government introduced changes that meant that the E&N Railway on Vancouver Island, a few years ago, would suddenly be receiving pesticide use — Garlon 4, glyphosate; various types of poisons — throughout the different watersheds, to control the weeds along the E&N Railway.

[1600]

I fought that on behalf of my constituents. All of the communities along that line did resolutions against that. The AVICC did resolutions to get that. First Nations had resolutions against introducing these toxic substances to control weeds on a routine basis along the E&N Railway.

This government implemented that policy anyway. They ignored the public. So I guess it shouldn't surprise me, as a member of this bipartisan committee — we took thousands of submissions — that we got a legislative amendment. It's section 4 of Bill 8. I'd say it would be weak-kneed, but that would be an overstatement. This does not address any of the concerns that I heard from the public. Again, the public were roundly ignored.

The Premier made a commitment, certainly when she was running for the leader of the Liberal Party, to take over as Premier, that she would address this issue. I note that she said she was running for the B.C. Liberal Party leadership. She actually said that this issue would be addressed in the Legislature, so she commissioned a bipartisan committee, and we heard from some lobbyists, chemical producers that certainly didn't want to see any restrictions — as exist in most parts of the country for most Canadians and that protect them and the environment in which they live and their children grow up in. They didn't want to see that, but they were a relatively small group.

The member for Victoria–Swan Lake, who co-chaired the committee, I would note, started the list. I just want to finish that list so the public can know who we heard from and who wanted to see a ban on cosmetic pesticides in this province. They weren't a bunch of left-wing conspiracy theorists. This is the group that I listen to, certainly, that we on the opposition side listen to.

Canadian Cancer Society; Canadian Pediatric Society; Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation of B.C. and Yukon; College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta; Public Health Association of B.C.; the Lung Association; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada; Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and Empowerment; Centre for Environmental Health Equity; Prevent Cancer Now; Physicians for Global Survival; Parkinson Society of Canada; West Coast Environmental Law; Greenpeace; Inspire Health; Learning Disabilities Association of British Columbia; Sierra Club of British Columbia; Society Promoting Environmental Conservation.

Society for Organic Urban Land Care; Toxic Free Canada; Union of British Columbia Municipalities — representing all of the communities, mayors and councillors elected to local government in the province; Wilderness Committee; Wildsight; Certified Organic Associations of B.C.; David Suzuki Foundation; Pesticide Free B.C. Over 100 doctors and nurses have signed an open letter to this government.

This was no conspiracy, unless it's a conspiracy of the public of British Columbia to protect the areas that they live in, to protect this province, to ensure that children can grow up and minimizing the risk of getting diseases from contact with these deleterious substances. It has been done all over the country.

We have failed the people of British Columbia, and I would dare say this government has misled the people of British Columbia by creating a committee that was designed to fail from the beginning. It appears there was no intention to listen to almost everybody that addressed this committee, and they were substantial groups, as I just read off.

This is an election issue. The people have something to decide on, based on private members' bills put forward a half dozen times by the opposition party, who happen to
[ Page 13523 ]
represent the vast majority of British Columbians once again. Let's take that to the bank when people go to the polls on May 14.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to take my place in the debate of Bill 8, which is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. For those watching at home, I'll give you a primer on what the heck a miscellaneous statutes amendment act is.

[1605]

The people have been watching the debate. They've heard speaker after speaker talking about a variety of different issues. We just had my colleague from Alberni–Pacific Rim talking about pesticides. Earlier in the day we had members speaking about forestry issues. We will have people that will maybe touch upon liquor distribution and on and on, because that's the essence, the nature, of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act.

The government, through the Attorney General, collects a host of amendments to a variety of acts, clusters it in one place and puts it before the House for debate.

Why I'm rising today to speak to this bill is that my role as opposition Energy critic is to speak to section 10 of the act. If one reads it, it's one simple section that says as follows: "Section 3 (6) (a) of the Clean Energy Act, S.B.C. 2010, c. 22, is amended by striking out '30 months' and substituting '38 months'." That's it. That's the amendment. That's what I'm standing to speak about.

Now, on the surface of it, people would be saying: "Well, what's the problem with that? You've gone from 30 months to 38 months." I have to give a history lesson, hon. Speaker, and if you'll indulge me, I'd like to go back to 2010 when the B.C. Liberal government introduced what they called the Clean Energy Act.

The Clean Energy Act exempted $12 billion — $12 billion — worth of capital projects proposed by B.C. Hydro from oversight at the B.C. Utilities Commission. Among those exemptions was Site C, a very controversial capital project on the Peace River in the northeastern part of British Columbia. It has been controversial for decades and decades in B.C. People have very strongly held views on whether this is a good idea or a bad idea. The B.C. Liberal government chose to exempt that massive project, the largest of its kind in the history of B.C. Hydro, from any oversight from a third party.

The smart meter program, again a very controversial $1 billion expenditure, was exempted from the B.C. Utilities Commission — no oversight for massive amounts of expenditures by our Crown corporation.

At the time, when the act was introduced, the minister responsible at that time — there have been many, many Ministers of Energy in my time as critic — said: "Worry not, opposition members. Worry not. The Utilities Commission will still set rates for B.C. Hydro." Well, we took some comfort in that until last March, when the new B.C. Liberal Energy Minister cancelled the rate hearing weeks before it was about to begin.

So over the past 2½ years — actually, over 30 months now, as is designated in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — over the past 30 months we have not as citizens or as members of the opposition had any insight into what the heck is going on at B.C. Hydro. We know that there have been multiple purchases of very expensive, high-priced private power in what's called a clean call by B.C. Hydro.

I did a press conference just before the session started and outlined what the average cost of that energy would be. The spot market price for energy is running around $35 a megawatt hour. But if you review what's called unfunded liabilities — those contracts that have been signed and not yet been paid for in the years in which that power will come on stream — we've seen an escalation in those unfunded liabilities, contractual obligations, somewhere in the tune of $50 billion, in the time the B.C. Liberals have been in power.

If you take that new energy block, that $50 billion worth of power over 20-, 30-, 40- or 60-year contracts, you find that the average price was about $94 a megawatt hour. Simply doing the math, if you're paying $94 a megawatt hour for energy in a market that's selling at $35, you're going to start to lose money pretty quickly. We did a back-of-the-napkin application of that math, and we found that the B.C. Liberals this year will lose $300 million by having more energy than they need at a price that's much, much higher than the market will bear.

How does that bring us back to this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act? One of the sections in the Clean Energy Act required B.C. Hydro to put together what's called an integrated resource plan. They have to put together what their load needs are now and into the future. How will they be able to provide electricity for the people of British Columbia — for individuals, for industry, for commercial operations? What will the cost of that energy be? Where will it come from?

[1610]

The integrated resource plan. The Clean Energy Act said it must be presented to cabinet by December 30, 2012. For those of you who are living in 2013, you will know that was three months ago.

Now we have a retrospective amendment to the Clean Energy Act saying: "We didn't really mean 30 months. We meant 38 months." So instead of having the cabinet reviewing the integrated resource plan for B.C. Hydro, instead of having the Utilities Commission saying to British Columbians, "This is our need now, this is our expected load in the future, and this is how much it's going to cost you," what the B.C. Liberals have done with this bill and with this amendment is they've pushed the integrated resource plan out beyond the next election.

Why is that? Why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't a government that's been in power for 12 years, that speaks high on the mountaintop…. My friend from Sea to Sky speaks eloquently about what she believes are the posi-
[ Page 13524 ]
tive attributes of the B.C. Liberal energy policy.

They've had 12 years to figure it out, but at the last minute on the last days of their last session as government, they want to push the integrated resource plan off into the future after the next election. So why is that?

As I've said to you, we haven't been able to get a clear understanding of what is going on at B.C. Hydro — do we have more energy than we need, and are we paying more for it than we should? — until we had the Site C application to the Canadian government, ironically.

Site C is a project, as I said, in the northeast — very controversial. They had to make application to the Canadian Environmental Assessment office. In order to do that they had to demonstrate to that federal body — not the Utilities Commission, not the Legislature of British Columbia, not the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro, but the faraway, Ottawa-based Canadian Environmental Assessment office…. They had to give them information.

Well, buried in a massive amount of information was the resource-demand balance. The resource-demand balance for the coming years at B.C. Hydro — a very interesting document, page 5-14 of what was literally a foot-high document…. You can find table 5.8, energy-deficit surplus.

This is what we found. In fiscal year 2013 B.C. Hydro will have 5,200 gigawatt hours more energy than they can use, and that's 447,000 homes that can be powered with the surplus energy that B.C. Hydro has been forced to buy because of the B.C. Liberal energy policy.

It's not just in one year. It's for the next decade. For the next decade, B.C. Hydro will have a surplus of energy that they paid this much for, that they can't sell for this much — a big problem, and no public debate about that, because we're not doing it until now, with a minor amendment to a miscellaneous statute amendment. We're not talking about this at the Utilities Commission. We're not talking to ratepayers about the enormous cost that this surplus will be on their pocketbooks, now and into the future.

Rate shock is coming, brothers and sisters. Rate shock is coming because of misguided B.C. Liberal policies, and this amendment is designed to hide the integrated resource plan from the public until after the next election.

We have a whole host of emerging energy issues that we need to address in British Columbia, but rather than do that here, rather than do that at the Utilities Commission, the B.C. Liberals have said, "Let's push that out beyond the game. Let's put it out after the election," so that they don't have to talk directly to British Columbians about the absolute disaster that's been the B.C. Liberal energy policy.

I very much look forward to talking about this during the election campaign in communities right across British Columbia. I'll be going up to Whistler. I know that the member from Sea to Sky will be welcoming me there, and I'll be happy to talk about this disastrous policy that they're trying to hide in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act.

S. Chandra Herbert: My colleagues have spoken well about a range of the amendments, the changes in this act, so I won't go back and tread the tracks that they've laid. Instead, I'll talk about liquor. I'll talk about liquor and the changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act.

There were some real challenges here in Victoria. The Belfry Theatre is one well-known example, but many other charities were impacted when the liquor control folks decided that charity auctions of wine were not allowed.

[1615]

For many organizations, they'd been doing them for years. However, they decided, no, that was not acceptable, and in the case of the Belfry, I believe, it cost them something like $20,000 in lost revenue, which meant that a new play that they'd been working on could not go ahead.

I am pleased that these amendments have been brought in. I think that it's well past time that we look more wholesomely at the liquor regulations in the province. This is one change, but I think we do need a greater review because there are certainly other examples of things which don't make a lot of sense.

On this change, I think there are a number of questions, and I'm hoping the minister might be able to address these.

There are some questions around the regulations that will come out of these changes; questions around what the government intention is and what effects they're considering in the permitting process; questions around: what is a charitable fundraiser? It's a prescribed class of non-profit organizations, but who will be in that prescribed class? Will political parties, as they are charitable, be included? Will theatres be included? Will sports facilities? Will daycares be included, if they are charities? Or is it a charitable act? Is it a non-profit? What is the definition?

Certainly, there is a lot of interest. Will private wine, wine from somebody's private collection, be allowed to be donated to raise funds for non-profits or charities?

These are questions that I think charities are really interested in finding out, because people do want to lend a hand, and sometimes lend a bottle of wine or two, to raise some funds.

I'm supporting that change. I would also just put on the record that I think the Liquor Control and Licensing Act does need further revisions. I think we do need to do more. I think we need a less piecemeal approach and a wider-ranging review.

I'll go next from liquor, from wine, to salmon. It sounds like a nice meal at home, but of course, no, this salmon is not being discussed to be eaten, necessarily. It's the provincial fish, the provincial salmon. It's something that I brought to the House as a motion back in 2010 to call on the province to recognize Pacific salmon as our
[ Page 13525 ]
provincial fish.

Of course, some question — and we'll see what cabinet decides to do — around what the symbol, what the emblem, actually looks like. Is it a coho? Is it a chum? Is it a sockeye? Is it a chinook? A rainbow trout, potentially, some people have argued should be considered. Some have argued other potential species. We'll see where that goes.

Why did I believe it was important to make this change? Why do I think we all should support this change? Well, I would say there's no fish more iconic in B.C. than the salmon. Similar to how we raised the spirit bear up to the position of official mammal, I think the fish is important because it hopefully focuses our attention as legislators into protecting habitat, into making sure that our salmon runs are healthy.

Certainly, before I got into politics, I worked with a woman, Celia Brauer, on a number of salmon initiatives — False Creek watershed and restoring streams and rivers and those kinds of things. Incredibly important work, and I know many across the province do this every day. Hopefully, this addition of salmon as our provincial fish will aid them in their work and make sure that our salmon species in this province are healthy for years and years and years to come.

We still have a bunch more work to do on that. I don't think that our government has put the focus into fisheries protection and management as much as we could. Certainly, there continues to be a huge controversy around it, whether or not it's salmon farming or other initiatives…. I know this House has considered those issues through a select standing committee some time ago — which I think the report still has much valuable information that we should all consider when we think about salmon.

Anyways, I'd like to thank the government for supporting the work of: whether or not it was a former Lieutenant-Governor, Iona Campagnolo; the Pacific Salmon Foundation; Alexandra Morton; school kids who wrote in to say they supported this initiative; and many, many others who support our salmon — and certainly very important to our First Nations communities in this province as well.

I'll just finish on paddling down the Fraser River on the Paddle for Wild Salmon. I visited the hon. Chair's community of New Westminster, because I know she, too, shares a love for the salmon.

[1620]

I think this, once enacted and once talked about in our schools, will hopefully lead to a lot more protection and a lot more support for salmon. It's a great fish. It's a tasty fish, I must say, but it really is a British Columbia fish.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: It was my pleasure today, and a surprise, to find some friends in the building. Earlier in the afternoon I was in the rotunda of the building and happened to run…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Continue with your introduction, please, Member.

D. Routley: …into three friends. One of those friends is Candace Spilsbury. Candace Spilsbury was a longtime school trustee and educator in the Cowichan Valley, has served the community throughout her life and has been devoted to our schools in the Cowichan Valley. Also, her daughter is joining us, Adriana Solar. She is an early childhood educator and has a great role to play in many of the young lives in Cowichan.

They're in the buildings today because Candace's granddaughter, Adriana's daughter Kyla Solar, is visiting the buildings, studying parliamentary democracy. We were able to tour the buildings and ran into several members, including the Leader of the Official Opposition. So Kyla was able to see and hear from people as to how this place really works.

I was very pleased to have them here, so could the House please help me make them welcome.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: I want to start off by apologizing to the Government House Leader. We had a little bit of a miscommunication on the opposition side. We've got two speakers, speaking for a couple of minutes each, and I guess that information was not relayed to the Government House Leader. So I'd like to apologize to the Government House Leader for that.

Bill 8 here has, actually, seven parts to it. It's the miscellaneous amendments act that was brought in. I just want to get on the record on, first of all, part 2, which are the education amendments. I know that the government states that the amendment will require a board of education to "establish a policy promoting the use of board property by licensed child care providers…between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m." on weekdays. It also provides that the property is not required for K-to-12 educational programs or extracurricular school activities or early learning programs.

I think the amendment actually does very little in the way of changing the situation as it currently stands. I mean, it is ultimately, even right now, up to the school districts to allow a daycare on their premises, and it does, actually, little to maximize the availability of affordable child care in schools, as the amendment summary states,
[ Page 13526 ]
because school districts do not undercut typical lease rates on child care spaces.

This policy is actually great for school districts in one respect — the school districts that have available classrooms. It doesn't help school boards in Surrey as much, for instance, where they actually have a shortage of classroom space.

The other one, as my colleague from Juan de Fuca so eloquently actually talked about on part 3, the "Energy, Mines and Natural Gas Amendments," requires B.C. Hydro to submit an integrated resource plan to the minister and requires plans in response to those objectives. I know the member previously stated that it moves, actually, most of the energy regulatory discussion and oversight in B.C. from the B.C. Utilities Commission hearings to cabinet — the minister's office, and the Treasury Board, in particular — and it allows, instead of the 30-month reporting, up to 38 months.

Obviously, what this has done is that it allows for no public discussion of most electricity-generating projects because the B.C. Utilities Commission may actually review only rates now. However, the nature of the projects will have a direct bearing on some of those rates.

[1625]

Some of the things, according to the Clean Energy Act of 2010, obviously…. It says there will be no public review of nearly $12 billion in projects, including the northwest transmission line, which is $404 million. Mica units 5 and 6 is $1.3 billion. Revelstoke unit 6 is $300 million. Site C — now estimates have gone up to $7.9 billion for that.

The final thing is I know there were some major changes that were contemplated under part 5, "Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Amendments." On March 12 they were removed from the Forest Act changes, actually, in Bill 8, which is a good thing, because the attempt was to try to move further down the road of privatization of our resources and our lands — our forest lands and our Crown lands — and there was a hue and cry from folks in communities, especially in rural British Columbia, where most of the land obviously is, and rightfully so.

I want to commend the government for actually listening to the people and withdrawing. I know there are some areas where they could have done some work. That is the recommendations of the Timber Supply Committee, the bipartisan committee that the government set up, especially on forest health and silviculture and replanting, where the government could have actually brought in some changes to be able to reflect what was in that report, and that wasn't there.

In any case, I only asked to speak for a few minutes, and I'll take my seat. I want to thank you, Speaker, and I also want to thank the Government House Leader for indulging me on this.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General will close debate.

Hon. S. Bond: We are appreciative of the comments that members have made this afternoon. Certainly, some were louder than others, and some were longer than others — but all of them with heartfelt views. We look forward to continuing the discussion in the committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 8.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 8 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 14.

BILL 14 — AUDITOR GENERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. M. de Jong: I move Bill 14, the Auditor General Amendment Act, be read a second time.

The amendments to the Auditor General Act will provide a couple of things — first of all, for the appointment of future Auditors General to a single non-renewable eight-year term. Auditors General will, as a result, I would submit to members, have more time to engage in some of the longer-term projects that I am aware Auditors General have endeavoured to initiate in other jurisdictions and will be able to perform their duties without having been influenced or perceived to be influenced by reappointment matters.

The amendments are expected to allow the relevant legislative committee and the Legislative Assembly to deliberate the appointment of an Auditor General midway between elections and without the complications that can arise when considering an incumbent's application for a second term.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The second thing that the bill before us purports to do would be to authorize the Legislative Assembly or an appointed committee of the Legislative Assembly to appoint an acting Auditor General if it is known in advance that the office will become vacant while the Legislative Assembly is dissolved for an election, the kind of circumstance we are facing presently.

[1630]

This will provide assurance that should this event occur — and we know that it can — there will be a mechanism in place for ensuring that there is an auditor general able to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Auditor General. I will await comments from my friend, the official opposition critic.

B. Ralston: I rise briefly to address the bill before the House. The amendment to section 2, which concerns the appointment of the Auditor General, is one that is supported on this side of the House.

The terms and the way that they were structured in the act up till now has been an anomaly among Canadian provinces, I believe, and certainly at odds with the legislation appointing the Auditor General in the federal parliament. Typically, they are a single term, most generally a ten-year term. The federal Auditor General is appointed for a single ten-year term. So perhaps that anomaly will be removed from the act.

The choice has been made of eight years. Certainly, there was some discretion there, but I don't think that's something that's worth quarrelling about. The principle is a single term for a greater length of time than the six years.

The other amendment that's proposed really fills a gap in the legislation in the sense that there is a provision there to appoint an auditor general when the House is not sitting. But it does not specifically empower the appointment of an acting auditor general when the House is dissolved. This would. That's obviously the circumstance that we're facing in this particular case. So that will enable that to…. We know that Mr. Doyle is leaving, so that is an appropriate amendment to give the House and the appropriate committee the power to do that. I think that amendment is a necessary and a proper one.

I do want to reflect just briefly, if I might. Since Mr. Doyle is leaving, this may be the last public opportunity in the House to offer some comments about him. The Auditor General, the office, is as important to legislative accountability as the question period and the Freedom of Information Act. The Auditor General not only comments on the public accounts of the province but also directs a number of what are called performance audits or sometimes called value-for-money audits.

Mr. Doyle came to his position here from a position as the Deputy Auditor General responsible for all assurance operations within the Office of the Auditor General of Western Australia. He was previously an associate professor and head of the school of accounting and finance at the University of Notre Dame in Australia.

He also held the position of chief financial officer in a number of major organizations in Western Australia — the Lotteries Commission, Edith Cowan University and Eastern Metropolitan health. He's been appointed to be the Auditor General in the Australian state of Victoria and will be taking up those duties shortly.

Having experienced more directly than, perhaps, other members working with him as the Chair of Public Accounts, I would say that he has a number of achievements he can legitimately point to as he leaves British Columbia and heads off to his new post in Australia.

He is a strong leader and created within the office, I think, a very successful career path in terms of being able to recruit young accountants and students and develop a career path for them to take on the opportunities and challenges of accounting in the public sector.

At the entry-level stage, compensation is roughly equal with the private sector. But at the senior levels, it rapidly escalates in the private sector beyond what the public sector could accommodate. But he has drawn in a whole new contingent of young accountants who…. I think at one point he said that a third of the staff had been on either maternity or paternity leave. So that gives you a sense of the relative youth of the office.

[1635]

In the audits that he brought forward, I think he was faithful to his oath and bluntspoken in some respects, as one would expect an auditor general to be. So all in all, I think he distinguished himself by doing a great job here in British Columbia. I'm sure all members of the assembly wish him well in his next post in the state of Victoria as the Auditor General in Australia there.

With that, I would close my comments.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I thank the hon. member for his contribution, as always, to the debate. We'll simply say public service is rendered in a variety of ways, and that which is rendered by an auditor general and this Auditor General is incredibly important and incredibly valuable. I would want to echo the value that the member has referred to that we place in the work of the office and the individual that occupies that office and also repeat the wishes for success in the future.

With those remarks, I would move second reading of Bill 14.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 14, Auditor General Amendment Act, 2013, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Second reading on Bill 10, Seniors Advocate Act.
[ Page 13528 ]

BILL 10 — SENIORS ADVOCATE ACT

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm pleased to move to second reading of the Seniors Advocate Act. This new legislation paves the way for a creation of a seniors advocate. The act will fulfil the commitment that government made in the seniors action plan and the Speech from the Throne to create an office of the seniors advocate.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Once the legislation is enacted, British Columbia will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to create an office of the seniors advocate. Our population in British Columbia is growing and aging. Over the next 20 years the number of seniors in our province will almost double to an estimated 1.3 million people.

This means resources need to be in place now to help the growing number of seniors live safe, healthy, active and independent lives. We want to make sure the voices of B.C. seniors are heard and that their needs and concerns are being addressed in a timely fashion.

In the spring and summer of 2012 government solicited input on the role and mandate of the seniors advocate. The Ministry of Health hosted a series of meetings with a wide range of stakeholder organizations on the role and scope of the seniors advocate.

Seniors and their families were also consulted to hear their ideas for the seniors advocate. Public consultations were held with over 500 people in nine communities around British Columbia between May and July of 2012. During the same time, the ministry received over 100 submissions by mail and e-mail and a dozen electronic survey responses from seniors and families around the province.

The Seniors Advocate Act outlines what a seniors advocate will look like in B.C. The seniors advocate will be a voice for B.C. seniors, appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The advocate will monitor seniors services; promote awareness; work collaboratively with seniors, policy-makers, service providers and others to identify solutions to systemic issues and make independent recommendations to government to improve the welfare of seniors.

The advocate will also monitor and advise on a range of seniors services related to health care, personal care, housing, transportation and income support. These topics reflect what we heard during the consultations held last spring and summer.

The advocate will focus their priorities on issues that affect a large number of seniors rather than on individual advocacy. Where an individual complaint reveals a broader systemic issue, it may become a catalyst for initiating policy review. The advocate will also assist individuals by connecting them with the appropriate body or agency to resolve issues.

Several features have been included in the statute to support the independence of the seniors advocate. The advocate will have the ability to appoint a council of advisers, identify their own work priorities, make independent recommendations to government, require service providers to provide information, and hire employers and outside experts.

[1640]

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading.

K. Conroy: I'm pleased to take my place today to speak to Bill 10, the Seniors Advocate Act, for a number of reasons. The need for a position like this has been discussed in the province for over six years. The numerous situations that were happening to seniors and the inability of any existing services to deal with the issues led the opposition caucus to first introduce a bill for a similar position back in 2007 — by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill.

Again in 2011, as seniors critic I also presented a similar bill. Neither of these two bills, M228 or M203, ever made it to the floor of the House for discussion or were debated in any way. In fact, a number of times the Opposition House Leader called for the bills to be read a second time, and the government always voted against this.

The Ombudsperson's extensive review, Getting It Right for Seniors in British Columbia — part 1 in December 2009 and part 2 in February 2012 — concluded that there was a need for greater oversight and accountability. Stakeholders across the province have been pushing for a seniors advocate since our bills were introduced and even more so since the Ombudsperson's report came out. So on first glance, we should all be very happy that this bill has finally been tabled in the Legislature — a move in the right direction for ensuring that seniors are getting the care they need and deserve.

According to Bill 10, though, the advocate will monitor senior services, promote awareness, work collaboratively with seniors, families, policymakers, service providers and others to identify solutions to systemic issues and make recommendations to government to improve the welfare of seniors. The advocate will be responsible for monitoring the provision of senior services and will address systemic issues — all good responsibilities for the advocate to have. But there is so much missing.

Under the NDP plan, the representative would have been independent and, therefore, in a better position to effect change. Unlike the Auditor General and the Representative for Children and Youth — who have been highly critical of the Liberal government in their reports — Bill 10 proposes the office would not be independent.

I am not sure if those drafting this bill or the minister herself recognize the hypocrisy in having a person report to the very person or ministry or government that the majority of the issues or complaints would be about. It makes it tough to be transparent, up front or critical
[ Page 13529 ]
of issues when the person or group you have to report to could be responsible for those issues and also has the ability to let you go, fire you, end your term, if you were getting a wee bit too critical.

Imagine if the Minister of Children and Families had the ability to let the independent child and youth commissioner, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, go. I think Ms. Turpel-Lafond would have been sent packing in the first year of her mandate. Instead, she has been a powerful voice for the children and youth in this province. Not only does she deal with systemic issues, she takes on individual cases which often lead to the uncovering of systemic issues that need to be addressed.

In Bill 10 the position will be appointed by and accountable to the government and have status equivalent to a deputy minister. We feel that, similar to other independent bodies, the advocate should report to the Legislative Assembly, not to the Minister of Health.

In Bill 10 the advocate must report to the minister once a year. The minister may order the advocate to report on specific topics at any time, and the minister must ensure that all reports are made public.

We believe that the advocate must report to the Legislature once a year or sooner or as issues arise, and that the Speaker on behalf of the Legislative Assembly would be responsible for ensuring that all reports are public. Again, why give a minister the responsibility of releasing reports, or not, that may be critical of his or her ministry?

Bill 10 also does not limit the appointment to a set term or, as I said, require the advocate be appointed on the recommendation of a committee. Our bill provided that the Legislative Assembly shall appoint a seniors representative that has been unanimously recommended by a special committee, that the representative would be an officer of the Legislature, and that the representative would be appointed for a maximum of two five-year terms.

[1645]

Our legislation also provided that the representative could advocate on behalf of an individual senior. A central criticism of the Ombudsperson's review of seniors care was that many services do not have an adequate complaint process in place. Therefore, removing the ability for a seniors advocate to act on behalf of individuals and requiring that they refer the matter directly to an appropriate body or person is not sufficient. In fact, that is what a good constituency assistant in every MLA office does. They listen to issues and refer them to the appropriate body to deal with.

There were numerous times when my constituency assistants — who are very good, by the way — or constituency assistants from other constituencies across the province had nowhere to refer people. Still, to this day, we find ourselves in the same position. Often the comment is: "This is a perfect case for a seniors representative to deal with, if only we had one." Bill 10, however, does not allow this to happen.

In addition to having a subsection for protection of persons, the NDP legislation also provided an enforcement mechanism — that a person who contravenes section 12, protection for persons, commits an offence and is liable to a fine of up to $10,000 or to imprisonment for up to six months — or to both. I think this sends a very clear message that if you harm seniors in this province, you'll be fined or go to jail. If you provide improper care, if you abuse a senior physically or financially, you will pay for it.

Also, the proposed NDP legislation provided personal liability protection for the representative and staff so that no legal proceedings for damages could be commenced or maintained against the representative or a person appointed, employed or retained under the section, so they themselves would do their job without worry of legal ramifications.

I have to ask about the consultation process that the minister referred to. I have to ask: what did they hear? It's interesting. The government said they heard from seniors across the province. In fact, the Liberal government has repeatedly publicized the amount of public consultation that went into creating this position. I believe the former minister of state responsible for seniors and the former Health Minister, now the Minister of Finance, both attended these consultations.

Even the current Minister of State for Seniors has been quoted as saying on his travels around the province that people wanted the government to "get on with the introduction of the advocate," but again, what did they hear during the consultations?

It's obvious by this bill that they might have been listening, but they didn't really hear what people had to say. During the consultations seniors organizations and advocates made it abundantly clear that in order to be effective, this new office needed to be independent.

The overwhelming response to the consultation process was (1) the position needed to be independent like other independent officers of the Legislative Assembly, and (2) it needed to be able to deal with individual issues. Nowhere are these issues represented in Bill 10. I received input from just about every consultation meeting across the province, and from everyone, I got the same message: independence, individual issues. Why didn't the government get that?

And it isn't just the opposition who is profoundly disappointed with this legislation. We, along with the government, have received considerable input expressing concerns about Bill 10. The B.C. Health Coalition has expressed frustration that the seniors advocate legislation tabled will not create an advocate that is independent of government.

An independent seniors advocate would allow for arms-length assessment of seniors issues, similar to the role of the Representative for Children and Youth and the
[ Page 13530 ]
B.C. Ombudsperson. We are pleased that the position is being created, but without a truly independent advocate and in the absence of other comprehensive action on the part of government to improve seniors care, we cannot address the systemic challenges we face.

The Ombudsperson's findings indicate that the Ministry of Health has, in many cases, failed to fulfil its leadership role for seniors care in our province. Given that there is little evidence in the 2013 budget to suggest our government intends to take serious actions on seniors care, we're concerned that one advocate that is tied to government cannot fill the gap.

The B.C. Health Coalition, among many other stakeholders, has called for an independent seniors advocate who reports to the Legislature, since 2009.

The Hospital Employees Union is opposed to an advocate that is part of government rather than independent. HEU secretary and business manager Bonnie Pearson credits the government with finally taking action to establish a seniors advocate but expressed concern that the position has not been given the same status as the Children and Youth Representative or the Ombudsperson.

[1650]

"During community and stakeholder consultations last year, the overwhelming consensus was that a new seniors advocate must be independent of government," said Pearson.

Carol Pickup, the coordinator for the Seniors Entitlement Service Victoria said:

"The stripped-down version of the bill establishing a seniors advocate by the Liberal government is not the position needed to address seniors issues in B.C.

"I recently attended a consultation meeting with the…Minister of Health as the coordinator of seniors advocacy services in greater Victoria along with other community members. The input given at that meeting is not reflected in the government's bill."

From the Voices of Burnaby Seniors, a community-based planning table comprised of seniors and representatives from agencies that serve Burnaby seniors: "We call on the government of B.C. to enact legislation, before proroguing of the House, to establish an independent office of the seniors advocate with the resources necessary to support a broad mandate to improve services and outcomes for seniors in B.C. through advocacy, accountability and review."

We all remember the Province's award-winning "Boomerangst" series, which spoke about the huge concern of families in this province, about the concerns for seniors. The Province actually put in an editorial, and they, too, are extremely concerned about this legislation. In fact, they said that the leash is too tight for B.C.'s new seniors watchdog. They felt, from looking at the legislation, that it couldn't be truly independent and needed to be.

Now, prior to the bill being introduced, the Minister of State for Seniors said he couldn't comment on whether an office with the mandate powers and budgets such as Turpel-Lafond's had been ruled out for the seniors advocate. Previously to that, though, while responding to some criticism from the NDP about the fact that we didn't have an advocate yet, the minister of state said that he expects the seniors advocate to carry some serious heft.

Well, if Bill 10 is some serious heft, I believe they have disappointed the majority of B.C. with not ensuring that there was any serious heft. If this was truly serious heft, the proposed office would have at least had a budget and not be dependent on "proposed savings" in the Ministry of Health, as the minister said, to fund it.

Now, we can be proud of the fact that British Columbia will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to create an office of the seniors advocate once the legislation is enacted. But let's ensure that this legislation has some teeth, that it is something that we can be proud of, that it will genuinely ensure the best interest of seniors is at the forefront in the creation of this position.

We support Bill 10 in principle. We have been asking for this position since 2006. But we will be submitting amendments during committee stage to ensure that this bill is truly a voice for seniors, truly an independent voice that will have the ability to deal with seniors issues — whether they will be individual or systemic issues — as only an independent voice can. Seniors and their families in this province deserve this and deserve to be treated with the dignity and respect they rightfully have earned.

V. Huntington: I am pleased to be able to just offer a few comments on Bill 10, the Seniors Advocate Act. It is a bill which has two parts to it, in my opinion. One is that it is a bill that will be welcomed by seniors in this province but only as a first step in the direction that I feel we need to go and that I know that the seniors community in this province knows we have to go.

As the member for Kootenay West indicated, this is an office which, in my opinion, needs to be an independent one with the powers to investigate, the powers to follow up and the powers of oversight. As it is presently constituted, I believe that it is in conflict before it starts, and the seniors advocate will become nothing much more than a pawn of the ministry itself. How can an advocate report to a deputy minister in the ministry that is funding the office in the first place? It needs to be a function that is independent and has true oversight.

[1655]

Being able to review systemic challenges is something that the government should be doing regardless. Having an advocate set especially to do that is, to me, indicative of a failure of policy development within the government in the first place.

This bill also indicates to me one of the other issues that is so sadly lacking in this House, and it is the graciousness of a government to accept an opposition bill that is
[ Page 13531 ]
worthwhile and worthy of attention by the people of the province and by the members of this House.

The member for Kootenay West should be able to stand and take pride in introducing an act that has been accepted by all of the members of this House as something that is proper and necessary in order to protect the seniors of this province. I'm sorry that the member for Kootenay West has not had the opportunity to see her legislation brought forward instead of a bill that, while a good first step on the road to advocacy, is weak and doesn't do the job that I think most people in the seniors community in this province know that needs to be done.

That is, again, to have an independent jurisdiction that has oversight. There are problems within the seniors community. There are problems in the care facilities that relate to seniors care. To report to the very department that has jurisdiction over those issues in the first place will do nothing to correct those challenges in the long run.

With that, I'll sit down and hope that we can look at the amendments carefully that the opposition is proposing to bring forward and make some changes that will strengthen this bill and give the seniors of this province what they truly do need, and that's oversight with an independent view to their protection.

C. James: I'm pleased to rise to speak to Bill 10, the Seniors Advocate Act. I am a big supporter of a seniors advocate in British Columbia. I want to take a little bit of time to talk about why this bill is so important and what brought us here, because I think it's important that we all remember in this House the challenges that brought about the discussion around a seniors advocate in British Columbia.

I'll get back to the challenges with this bill, because I think it's also important to say that even with something like this — a seniors advocate, supported by both sides of the House, all sides of the House — that even this the government didn't get right.

I'm disappointed by that because I think there have been many opportunities over the last number of years for this to be an issue where the House could have come together and put in place a seniors advocate a number of years ago. This has been a bill that has been introduced for years now. This isn't something new that came up in the last year. This is something that has been tabled at least twice, if not three times, in this Legislature to put in place an independent seniors advocate.

While I'm glad we're seeing a step in that direction, I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that this could have been the opportunity for a united voice on behalf of seniors. You know, let's remember: we're talking about the people who built our province. We're talking about the people who built our country. Surely they deserved to have the people they elect come together, united, to be able to table something that we could have all agreed on.

That could have happened. I'm not a Pollyanna. I don't believe that that's something impossible. We've done that — not often, but we've done that in this Legislature before. We could have done it on the seniors advocate position. I think it's a big disappointment that we didn't get there.

I think it's important to remember what it was like in this province when we didn't have a children's advocate, a children's representative. It was a long fight by community organizations, social workers, caregivers, families, the opposition to put back in place the children's advocate, the children's representative, that was taken away by the B.C. Liberals.

They removed that position in British Columbia, and we saw a huge gap. We saw a huge gap for support for children, a voice for the most vulnerable in our province — someone who could look at cases as they occurred and come up with approaches that could have given government an opportunity to be able to make things better for children.

That was a long fight, and with the help of all of those community organizations and social workers and people who work with the most vulnerable children and the hon. Ted Hughes, we managed to get back in place a children's representative once again in British Columbia.

[1700]

What a difference. What a difference in at least raising awareness — getting action is the next step, but in raising awareness.

My hope is that the seniors advocate, a seniors representative, will have the same kind of influence to be able to make the difference — the same kind of voice for many seniors who feel they have nowhere to turn at this point.

We all know the demographics. We all know the demographics in our province. We know that we are going to see an increasing seniors population. We know that there are seniors that live in different circumstances and need different kinds of advocacy at different kinds of times.

I think it's important to recognize that this bill and the seniors advocate does not speak simply to people in long-term-care homes, for example. There are seniors who face challenges who get home care support. There are seniors who face challenges with their family and the circumstances with their family. There are seniors in all different kinds of experiences, just as with every citizen, and they need a voice on their behalf for those different kinds of times that they're facing.

It's important that we look at how we restore accountability on behalf of seniors. I think that if you look at what happened with the children's representative, it brought back an accountability that was needed in this province on behalf of vulnerable children. We need that same kind of accountability on behalf of seniors in our province. That's critical.

We also have seen some very tragic cases of seniors in this time period. I think it's important for all of us to remember those cases — a number of them have been
[ Page 13532 ]
brought up in the Legislature over this time period — of seniors who were separated from each other and passed on, of seniors who did not receive the kind of dignity and treatment that they should have in care homes. I think those stories are stories that stay close for me because they once again remind us of the work we all have to do in having those voices heard.

We've also in this time period seen an Ombudsperson's report come forward on seniors. That was very clear, with a long list of recommendations about the kinds of things that need to be changed on behalf of seniors. I think a couple of pieces really stood out for me in that Ombudsperson's report, and one of those was the lack of standards in a great deal of care.

I would think most families believe, when they have a relative — a mother, a father, a sister, a brother — who is going into care, that there are a set of standards that they would expect. They would expect most care homes will have a set of standards that will be met and that they would be the same regardless if you live in the north of the province or the south of the province, urban or rural.

In fact, what was shown in that Ombudsperson's report is that there isn't a set of standards. There isn't a consistent set of standards for families to rely on, for seniors to rely on. I think that's pretty shocking. I think that's the lowest expectation people would expect was that there would be a set of standards.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

That report pointed out so clearly how important it was to make sure that we have a voice. So I was really pleased when I saw Bill 10 come forward, thinking that this was going to be something that really met those needs. Instead, what we see is a big missing piece in this bill, and that's independence.

That's a large piece missing. In fact, the most important part of a seniors advocate is to have independence. Independence to be able to report out to the public — not to government but to the public. Independence to report out to seniors and their families. Independence to advocate on behalf of seniors — individual cases or systemic issues — to be able to give that voice to the most vulnerable once again. That's missing. That, as I said, is a big disappointment.

There were some pieces within the legislation that had been previously tabled by ourselves in the opposition that talked about making sure that this would be another officer of the Legislature — someone who would be hired, again, by a committee made up of both sides of the Legislature, independents, and have an independent office and independent support. That's critical to making sure this voice is valid.

Now, I'm not taking away from anyone who may take on this position or the fact that the government at least moved on having a seniors advocate, but to not have that independence takes away the kind of support that you need out in the communities, from seniors and others.

[1705]

The other piece that was mentioned by my colleague was the importance of having teeth in the act so that an independent seniors advocate would not only be able to report out but would be able to take some action if people were not following the direction that was within the law — fines and other action to be able to make sure that this really was a meaningful position.

I think the last thing that seniors need is window dressing. Seniors don't need window dressing. They need real action. They need a real voice.

I think back to those cases that we raised in the Legislature. I think back to the seniors that I've seen in my constituency office who've come in and are fighting, whether it's evictions because they have landlords who are looking for opportunities to be able to take advantage, whether it's families in tears because their loved one has been in a hospital bed for so long and they can't find a quality home and they've been told the only choice they get is somewhere far away from their family and their supports.

Those kinds of stories deserve an independent seniors advocate, someone who will make sure that they're standing up without any kind of fear of government that is controlling their budget and their resources, and working within the ministry that they then have to report out on.

Being an optimist always, there are opportunities here for the government to recognize that they could make this bill even stronger, that it doesn't need to remain as it is. In fact, as we put amendments forward, even though there are only a couple of days left in the session, the government could say: "What a great idea. We went partway. Now we realize that we should go all the way and put in place the independence that's necessary."

I would hope that the other side would recognize the importance, would recognize the support that would be out there, would recognize the value of saying to seniors in this province: "The Legislature, united, supports the direction that we're going, supports an independent seniors advocate, and we'll do everything to make it happen."

As those amendments come forward, I'll be watching on the other side to see whether the government has truly listened — not to the opposition but to seniors and their families who spoke out in the consultation; who raised their voices, presuming the government would listen; who took the time out of their lives to be able to give their input to this government; and who'll be watching to see whether the government truly listened when they said they wanted independence in this office.

B. Simpson: I'd like to join my voice to this debate. I want to recognize a couple of people who worked very hard on this. One is no longer in this House, although he's running in the next election again — Charlie Wyse,
[ Page 13533 ]
from the former riding of Cariboo South, now Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Charlie and I worked with Audrey MacLise, a longtime seniors advocate in Williams Lake, who, unfortunately, is ill right now. I wish her a speedy recovery. She has put a lot of her energy since she retired as an entrepreneur into getting much better care for seniors in that community. And Susan MacNeill, who goes back and forth between Quesnel and Williams Lake, works in the field of seniors advocacy.

I know all three of those individuals would be deeply disappointed with the bill that we have in front of us. It's not what they asked for, it's not what they wanted, and it simply does not go far enough to address the serious concerns that are amassing out there for seniors.

I want to recognize the member for Kootenay West, who took on the role of driving this agenda in her capacity as the seniors critic for the opposition.

Again, I applaud the opposition, as the independent member for Delta South indicated, for their attempts to actually get a real seniors advocate for this province, one that is truly independent, is a function of the Legislative Assembly — not a function of the government of the day — and is actually free to speak to the public through the Legislative Assembly about what the real needs of British Columbians — families and seniors — are.

This bill does none of that. This bill only guarantees that within government there will be someone who will be tapped on the shoulder to champion seniors issues and give advice to government about seniors issues as they emerge.

[1710]

I could actually see this position becoming more of a troubleshooting, PR position if it's not managed appropriately, where somebody's tapped on the shoulder and: "We're getting blowback on X. Go and help us to manage the communications around that." That's how this position, in the way that it is currently structured, could be diminished.

So there are a number of points I want to make:

(1) It is not independent. It is a function of government.

(2) It doesn't come, as has been pointed out, with a separate and distinct budget that has a separate and distinct working plan, although that's an area I would like to canvass in the committee stage of this bill.

(3) This function doesn't deal with complaints. In fact, what I think would actually end up happening is it would be a lot like MLA offices. They would be a clearinghouse for seniors who are struggling to try and figure out how to work their way through the system.

All this individual could do — with their permission, just like we do; we get their permission to act as an advocate on their behalf — is to then direct them to the appropriate agencies. That's all this looks like it would do as well. Given that their main function would be to run interference for government, I see that that complaint function would be greatly diminished.

Yet if you look at the child and youth advocate, it's the complaint nature — the complaints and the total of the complaints and the nature of the complaints and the type of the complaints — that come into the child and youth advocate's office that often cause her to do the special investigations that she does.

While she takes those complaints, her staff are able to help walk those individual clients, if you will, through the system to get resolution. But at the same time, she can roll up, with her staff, the nature and breadth and depth of those complaints, turn those into special investigations and then, through a report to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, give the public the full scope of her investigation and the full scope of her recommendations. I simply don't see that happening under this structure at all.

What will happen is the minister of the day will get the report, that report will be vetted, that report will go to public affairs, and that report will be heavily redacted and scrutinized. Then what will happen is that the seniors advocate will come out and say: "This is how the government is addressing this issue." We wouldn't necessarily know what led up to the government actually deciding to address it. We also wouldn't know, based on the structure of this, what other things were going on that the seniors advocate was or was not addressing. So that complaint issue is a problem.

I want to give an example. We dealt with a longstanding issue. It was an awful situation where a family…. One of the daughters was a constituent of mine, and the other daughter was a constituent of the former Minister of Health, now Minister of Finance. Their mom was in a seniors care facility in the Minister of Finance's riding.

What happened is that the family did not want their mom treated with certain drugs. This is a common occurrence, where family members engage with the caregivers and actually explicitly ask for these antipsychotic drugs, in this case, to not be used as a treatment. They did all the documentation. They became experts in antipsychotics, in what they did and what they weren't supposed to be used for. They had a representation agreement. They had the right to give direction to the health authority to give or not give certain medications under the doctor's care.

In this case, what the government did, through the health authority and through that institution, is they certified the mom. They made her a ward of the state — certified her so they could continue to give her antipsychotics. The mom subsequently died. One of the side effects of antipsychotics when used for treating dementia is early death. It's documented. Doctors all over say the studies indicate that.

So now these two grieving sisters had to figure out how to engage a system that they thought abused their right to care for their mother and abused the right of govern-
[ Page 13534 ]
ment to certify an individual to force a certain degree of care. I tell you, the way that we had to go about that…. We had to engage the College of Family Physicians. We had to go to a health review. We had to do all kinds of things. It's still an unresolved issue, because even as an MLA and duly elected in this House, I have limited scope in how I can help an individual make their way through that system.

[1715]

That's one of many cases. I know that the issue of antipsychotics, the issue of representation agreements and the issue of certification are writ large in British Columbia today as we deal with more and more dementia, pre-senile dementia, Alzheimer's issues and the use of these drugs. That's one example of an area that I believe should trigger a full investigation by an independent officer of this Legislature who is acting as a seniors advocate.

I can pretty much guarantee you that under this structure, that would not happen. It wouldn't happen. The families coming to that individual would get no better representation out of the seniors advocate than they would out of their MLA's office, if their MLA's office was engaged.

This doesn't go even halfway to addressing what the Ombudsperson indicated in her report, what seniors advocates in COSCO, and others, have been indicating that they want by way of a seniors advocate.

Seniors in our province, many of them, in the sort of 85- to 90-plus — the people who, when I talk to them, said they never saved enough to live as long — are struggling because often they're on fixed incomes and have to sell their homes, etc. Many of those seniors are pioneers. They're the pioneers of the area where I live.

We do a disservice to them in the way that we institutionalize them, the way that we treat them, the way that we put them out to pasture, if you will. This is another disservice to them — by not simply, as the member for Delta South said, acting in good faith, taking one of the bills that was put forward by the opposition, which I believe does reflect what the public is demanding and what seniors are demanding, and advancing that bill. Instead, we get this half-baked approach to this very important issue.

What I'll be doing is looking at the committee stage debate on this, asking some questions myself, depending on the nature of the questions from the official opposition. We'll be looking at the amendments that are being offered and proffered by the opposition.

But at the end of the day, I suspect that I will not be able to support a bill that starts a process that should not be allowed to continue, or even start. If, in fact, we get a commitment from the official opposition that they would go the full way, that they would create an independent officer of the Legislature who is the seniors advocate for the province, then I see no point in beginning this process.

I think, really, the government ought to withdraw this bill at this juncture, allow the election to occur, and then, if we get a new government, they can introduce it, if they're government, and say, "No. This is the path. We have a mandate," or the opposition can do what they've promised to do by various bills.

This should become an election platform issue, not law. As a consequence, I would hope that we don't take this to committee stage, that we end the debate at second reading, both parties take it in their platforms to the people of British Columbia, and whoever gets a mandate then would have the right to institute a seniors advocate in accordance with that mandate.

My preference is an independent officer of the Legislature, and that's how I'll vote in accordance with this bill.

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

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, I thank my colleagues in the House today for their contributions to the debate. I appreciate the support that I heard from many of them, albeit that we have a difference of opinion about some aspects of this bill.

As has been mentioned, should this legislation be passed, we would be the first province in Canada to have an advocate for seniors. The intent of this bill is to have a seniors advocate that is a strong voice for seniors, that understands how government works and that can work collaboratively with a wide range of stakeholders.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We have come up with a model that we think will achieve this, a seniors advocate that will be able to identify problems, make recommendations to government and have the flexibility to work with government and across sectors to promote positive change.

I am pleased now to move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Seniors Advocate Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage debate of Bill 11, the Criminal Records Review Amendment Act.

[1720]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 11 — CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

(continued)

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

The committee met at 5:21 p.m.

Hon. S. Bond: Madam Chair, I need to make a motion regarding an amendment that we need to make to section 1.

I'll begin by asking, with leave, I move:

[That the proceedings with respect to section 1 of Bill (No. 11) intituled Criminal Records Review Amendment Act, 2013 be declared null and void and that the Committee reconsider section 1 for the purposes of considering a proposed amendment.]

Leave granted.

On section 1.

Hon. S. Bond: I move:

[to amend as follows:

SECTION 1 (c), in the proposed definition of "post secondary institution", by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

"post secondary institution" means any of the following:

(a) a university under the University Act;

(b) the University of Northern British Columbia;

(c) the Royal Roads University;

(cd) the Thompson Rivers University;

(de) an institution as defined in the College and Institute Act;]

On the amendment.

Hon. S. Bond: I apologize for an inadvertent error in Bill 11. It is concerning the definition of "post secondary institution." It simply means that there is an omission of Royal Roads University from the definition of post-secondary institution. Royal Roads, like the University of Northern British Columbia and Thompson Rivers University, is established under its own separate statutes. So the three universities have been individually identified under the act for purposes of the definition of "post secondary institution," and Royal Roads University must be included in the list.

With that, Madam Chair, I move the amendment to section 1 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

K. Corrigan: That makes sense. It's interesting. I did raise the issue of Royal Roads when we last met. I think it was yesterday that I raised it. I'm glad that that has been fixed, although I didn't understand it was broken. I just asked the question — I wasn't sure. So it sounds fine.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 3 (continued).

K. Corrigan: I'm going to go back to the beginning of section 3, which deals with section 4. We were pretty well finished with a short discussion about the fees, and we do talk about the prescribed fee at the beginning of the section. We talked about that.

The minister said towards the end, I believe, that the estimated amount of the costs — and I assume this is annual costs — of providing free criminal record checks for volunteers who are working with vulnerable adults or with children would be in the range of $1 million. So I just wanted to reiterate or ask again if I got that number right.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I think the question yesterday was whether or not that also included the expanded record checks. So it is both the cost of volunteer records checks being free and the expanded check.

K. Corrigan: The $1 million…. The minister had said yesterday that this is a cost recovery program, so if the volunteers are not going to be covering the costs, then it's going to be employees or their employers, depending on who decides to pay for it.

I'm wondering if the minister has an estimate of how much it's going to cost, how much of an increase there's going to be for either employees or employers on a per-application basis, as a result of this change.

[1725]

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct. In fact, the fee would be for a person being offered a job. So they are going to have employment. They don't get asked to do a criminal record check until they are being offered a job. The fees have not increased since 2004, and the additional cost would be $1.60 a year over a five-year period. So the total increase would be $8.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to get on the record that I got an e-mail from somebody who is watching the proceedings. What their question was…. I'll just read it out. I won't say the name, because I haven't got authorization to use that. "What was not identified was: will employed individuals renewing their record check be required to pay the higher cost to compensate for the free volunteer's check? If this is so, then I, who work alongside those with developmental disabilities, will be required to pay later."

If somebody is renewing their record check, will they be required to pay the higher cost?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the answer to that is yes. As I said to the member opposite, fees have not increased for the checks since 2004 when it was introduced. It adds up
[ Page 13536 ]
to $1.60 a year. It is a cost recovery program. It will also allow for portability for that individual, as well, once they have the check done on the five-year anniversary. So they will also inherit the right to portability.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that. I wanted to ask a question about subsection (c), which repeals subsections (4) and (5) of section 4. It's complicated. The new 4.2.

I'm wondering if it could be explained what changes this new notification represents that the deputy minister has to make.

Hon. S. Bond: It is the deputy registrar. Because of the introduction of portability, if there were to be a finding of risk, the deputy registrar would be required, after determining whether or not the person was still involved with another organization or a separate entity…. It would be incumbent upon him or her to notify the additional organization of the finding of risk.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just curious. Would the free criminal record checks also apply in the case of, say, a foster family or an adopting family? They have to go through criminal record checks as well. I'm just curious. It may not be this section, but it's an inquiry that I've had from a number of families.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm advised no, because they're not members of non-profit societies or organizations, and this is directly related to volunteers in those agencies or organizations.

K. Corrigan: Going back to what would be the new 4.2, which we were just discussing. It says that the deputy registrar must "determine if another person or entity, within 5 years of the date of the criminal record check authorization…." Then the second part is "received a notification from the registrar or deputy registrar under this Part or Part 2.1…."

That notification could be a negative notification. That would be my reading of this section. In the previous act, notification was a notification of a finding that there was a risk. But under this act, under the amendments, there's notification both if there is a risk and if there isn't a risk.

[1730]

If there was determined that there wasn't a risk, it looks like there'd have to be notification given. I'm wondering if that was the intention.

Hon. S. Bond: That process has not changed. The notification would still be required if there's a finding of risk or not.

K. Corrigan: I have one more question. Subsection (5) provides that "the deputy registrar must provide written reasons for the determination under subsection (2) (a) to the individual who is the subject of the determination, if the individual so requests…." My question is: is there any requirement that individuals who can make those requests be informed of their right for reasons, or is it simply that they have to do it on their own without knowing that they can?

Hon. S. Bond: No, the individual is informed. In fact, they are also informed of the fact that they have the opportunity to request another review of that, and they also have the ability to request written reasons.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

K. Corrigan: My understanding of section 4 is that it imposes an obligation on the registrar to refer a criminal record check to the deputy registrar in certain circumstances. This is if there is a determination by either the organization — well, if it deregisters — or the registrar is requested not to proceed with the criminal record check. Then the deputy registrar essentially has to go ahead and complete the criminal record check, even if they've had that request not to go forward.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain the operation of this section and if that is, in fact, what this is about.

Hon. S. Bond: This gives the deputy registrar the ability, if a process has been started and even if the person requests or opts out — that the process continue. Our concern here is portability. We want to be sure, if they're involved in any other organizations or any other entities, that the process continues and that we would be able to prevent that risk, that person who may have been identified with a risk, in terms of their involvement in other organizations.

K. Corrigan: The area that I have a concern with is if somebody requests a criminal record check and then they decide that they don't want that criminal record check. Then what could happen is that the deputy registrar will continue on with that criminal record check, and even if there has been a notification that there isn't risk, that information is going to then be passed on to whoever is applicable in that list of people that need to be notified.

[1735]

Is there any concern at all that what's going to happen is that somebody who may not be working with children or vulnerable adults and may have been determined not to have been a risk — although they may have been convicted of a criminal offence but have been determined not to be a risk — could end up having that information sent to other organizations that they worked for in the past, are not working for now or volunteering for? It could go to those organizations despite the fact that they've asked to be removed from the process.
[ Page 13537 ]

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, it would still require the deputy registrar to take reasonable steps to determine whether there's an ongoing relationship with that person. If there is not, they would not share that information.

K. Corrigan: Well, the section says that the deputy registrar has to determine whether or not a person or entity received a notification from the registrar. If they've received a notification, that could be a notification that there was no risk. I may be overreading this or misreading this. But if that person, the individual, has been found to not be a risk and is no longer in any way associated with the other entity, then that notification will not be sent to that organization. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: Correct.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain this verification process.

Hon. S. Bond: There are three possibilities here. The first one is if they have a portable check, and that would be shared immediately. Secondly, if there isn't a check, they would then ask for authorization, and that check would be done. The third element would be if there had been a risk identified in the past. Obviously, that would be shared.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

K. Corrigan: This is a section that "authorizes an employer to a require criminal record check even if the individual could undergo a criminal record check verification." But it also provides that…. There's a change in the old act regarding applicants for employment and what is here.

The old one says: "When an individual is offered employment that involves working with children or working with vulnerable adults, the individual must provide a criminal record check authorization to the employer." And then: "An employer must not employ an applicant in a job that involves working with children or working with vulnerable adults unless the applicant has provided the criminal record check authorization in accordance with subsection (1)."

Is there a difference here in the new section with timing or onus? What are the changes that are associated? It is worded slightly differently.

[1740]

Hon. S. Bond: Again, the changes are made particularly to address the issue of portability. What this does is acknowledge the independence of employers. Ultimately, they would have the discretion to request that an individual undergo a criminal record check even if that individual has the ability to provide a portable record check.

So it provides some additional latitude and independence for employers. Our thought is, certainly, that it would be in those areas where there is a more vulnerable population. It leaves employers the independence to make that request.

K. Corrigan: The earlier section of the present section says that when an individual is offered employment that involves working with children, the individual must provide a criminal check authorization. Then the new one says that "an employer must ensure that every individual who is hired…." Does this in any way change the timing, and could the minister explain at what point the criminal record check would take place? I'll just ask that question first.

Hon. S. Bond: When the person has been given an offer of employment.

K. Corrigan: Is that any different from the way the act is operating now?

Hon. S. Bond: No.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to check…. I notice that in this section, and I think there was the same change in the last one…. Anyway, it says: "in subsection (2) by striking out 'provided the criminal record check authorization in accordance' and substituting 'complied.'" Is that just better and more concise wording?

Hon. S. Bond: I apologize. Could the member repeat the question for us, please?

K. Corrigan: That's subsection (b). Section 9 is amended. Subsection (b) is changing the wording from "provided the criminal record check authorization in accordance" and substituting it with the word "complied." I'm assuming that it's just seen to be a more concise use of words. It doesn't change the meaning?

Hon. S. Bond: That would be correct.

K. Corrigan: In the same section, subsection (a), it looks like all this does is add the criminal record check verification authorization to be consistent with the rest of the act. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's also correct.
[ Page 13538 ]

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

On section 12.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could explain this section.

Hon. S. Bond: What it does is ensure that the vulnerable sector is protected by prohibiting an applicant or employee to work with the vulnerable sector if you don't have a criminal record check. So if you don't have a portable one, you need to make sure that they actually get a criminal record check.

K. Corrigan: In addition, it also ensures that criminal record checks that are more than five years old are not valid, essentially.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct, and it's in the definition as well.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

[1745]

K. Corrigan: I have to keep flipping to the sections of the old act. So this essentially adds, under "New convictions or outstanding charges," a few words. I'd like it if I could get an explanation of what this means. The act says presently: "If an employee who works with children or works with vulnerable adults is charged with or convicted of a relevant offence subsequent to a criminal record check, the employee must promptly report the charge or conviction to the employee's employer…."

This adds that if the employee who works with children or works with vulnerable adults is charged with or convicted of a relevant offence "or specified offence subsequent to a criminal record check…." So is this providing for the ability to add new offences at a later time? Is that what that does?

Hon. S. Bond: No, this is actually correcting an error. There are two lists, one for working with children and one for working with vulnerable adults. One of them was left out, and this corrects that situation.

K. Corrigan: Where are those specified offences?

Hon. S. Bond: In schedule 2.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

K. Corrigan: My understanding of this section is that it simply authorizes a governing body to require a criminal record check, even if the individual could undergo a criminal record check verification. The reason for this section?

Hon. S. Bond: I think in my opening comments, or perhaps in second reading, I talked about the bill being repetitive and that it actually has sections that repeat. This is the beginning of the first. We call them the "ditto" sections.

What you are seeing here is that now we are talking about governing bodies. That would be like the college of nurses. All of the sections that follow, follow the same pattern as the first sections, 1 to 15, that we talked about. So "governing body" would be just that. It would be the college of nurses or a variety of other governing bodies.

K. Corrigan: I recognize that, and I know there are some sections that relate to students and teachers and so on. I guess the general question…. Is the process similar, then, as we go through the bills, with the exception that it appears — in some of the acts like the Health Professions Act and the Social Workers Act and Emergency and Health Services Act and so on — that there are specific ways that some of the matters that would be relevant here are dealt with in those acts so that there'll be some leaving it to the processes under those acts in some cases?

Hon. S. Bond: In this case, where we're talking about governing bodies…. For example, if you were talking about the College of Physicians and Surgeons, we would simply identify the risk and, in fact, then recommend that they actually begin their own investigation under their own process.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

[1750]

K. Corrigan: When we're talking about a registered member…. I know I've seen that in the past. I was looking at it. That refers to, does it not…? Well, maybe the minister can tell me who it refers to when we're talking about registered members.

Hon. S. Bond: It would be a doctor, for example, in the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

K. Corrigan: So this is requiring that doctors or registered members in various governing bodies are required to have criminal record checks. I want to be clear that we're talking about criminal record checks, whether or not those individuals work with vulnerable adults or children. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, they are all required to, as a
[ Page 13539 ]
member of a governing body.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

K. Corrigan: This is again dealing with when there is no portable criminal record check. Could the minister confirm or not that this is similar to the provisions that we dealt with earlier, when it dealt with the process, when we're dealing with volunteers and vulnerable adults and children?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, that's correct.

Sections 19 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could explain this section as well, please.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, this cluster of sections would be repetitive, but the group that this is intended to deal with is allowing…. An education institution must ensure that every registered student who works with children or vulnerable adults undergoes a criminal record check or, obviously, that a portable record check is received. A good example of that would be a student taking a practicum.

Sections 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

K. Corrigan: This is a new area, I believe, and I'm wondering if the minister could explain this section and what is coming up in this area.

Hon. S. Bond: This actually captures a group of teachers that had been previously overlooked in the act, and it would include people now who are teaching on letters of permission.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could explain who those teachers are.

[1755]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, harkening back to my days as the Minister of Education and also being an MLA in a rural community…. Well, a rural region — Prince George wouldn't be happy about that.

For example, if you are unable to hire a shop teacher in a rural community or in a school district, and you can't hire a teacher permanently, you may have a person teach on a letter of permission. I'm hoping that's accurate in terms of the Education Ministry. Generally, it's that you can't hire a teacher permanently, and so a person is able to teach a particular subject area on a letter of permission.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

K. Corrigan: It looks to me, having read through these sections, that once again we have sections that modernize the process to be consistent with the rest of the act. With regard to teachers, I'm wondering if the minister could explain what section 29 is about.

Hon. S. Bond: It just means that individuals who apply for a letter of permission to teach undergo a criminal record check. This allows for the portability aspect of the act to be utilized in the same way.

K. Corrigan: The director of certification. Who is the director of certification?

Hon. S. Bond: That's an individual in the Ministry of Education who deals with certification.

K. Corrigan: This section and the following sections, then, will require the director of certification, essentially, to make sure of the process of "(a) a criminal record check, or (b) the criminal record check verification," and then continuing of the process — whether or not that person wants to have it go on. All those kinds of provisions will apply, and the person responsible for that will be the director of certification. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

On section 31.

K. Corrigan: Could the minister explain what the change is in this section?

Hon. S. Bond: This, once again, adds the specified offences that were not included previously, and also portability.

K. Corrigan: I had actually intended — but we were going through so quickly — to ask a question under 30. I didn't get up quickly enough. Do I need to ask leave to go back to section 30? There were some important sections in there.

The Chair: Yes, Member.

K. Corrigan: May I have leave?

Leave granted.
[ Page 13540 ]

On section 30.

K. Corrigan: I did want to go back — and I thank the members for granting leave — because this deals with criminal record checks with regard to teachers.

I wonder if the minister could explain these sections, because under this one section there are several provisions that deal with certificates and letters of permission. So maybe a bit of an explanation from the minister.

Hon. S. Bond: This will allow for a portable criminal record check to be recognized at each step in the process. Perhaps most importantly, if an individual is determined to have risk, the director of certification must then take action under the Teachers Act.

[1800]

K. Corrigan: Maybe a little bit more explanation about what that action would be and how action under the Teachers Act would be different from the operation of these sections with regard to other sectors.

Hon. S. Bond: It would be no different other than that they're not a governing body. So if a risk was identified — our job is to identify the risk — the governing body or, in this case, the director of certification, through the Teachers Act, would go through the appropriate process, as each of those entities does now.

K. Corrigan: Does this mean any change to the process with regard to teachers other than the fact that we're adding the verification process and the portability process? Is there any other change?

Hon. S. Bond: No, other than portability.

Sections 30 and 31 approved.

On section 32.

K. Corrigan: Now, we're talking about administrators and, I believe, child care providers. I wonder if the minister could explain this section and, I guess, the following sections, if that's possible. I think it's to do with child care.

Hon. S. Bond: This is how funding is provided to unlicensed daycares. Again, we're in a repetitive section, so in essence the same provisions apply, only it's a different organization.

K. Corrigan: So it'll be the same provisions — portability, verification, and so on? Nothing is different in this section, then?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Sections 32 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

K. Corrigan: Could the minister please explain this section?

Hon. S. Bond: If the person does not have a portable record check, they would, under this section, be required to have a criminal record check done.

Sections 35 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

K. Corrigan: Section 38 is another one that is fairly lengthy and contains several sections. This is about registration of specified organizations and deregistration, and setting out "requirements for criminal record checks and criminal record check verifications for applicants for volunteering, volunteers and registered specified organizations." I'm wondering if the minister could give me a bit of an overview of this new part 5.1.

Hon. S. Bond: The section basically replicates all of the other sections, only this would be for volunteers. Obviously, it's a very large section because it's new, as we include volunteers. The issue with registration is that organizations have the option of opting into a program. They would have that opportunity. Organizations may choose to continue criminal record checks — for example, through the police, if that's what they choose to do. So this simply replicates the other clusters of sections and refers directly to volunteers.

[1805]

K. Corrigan: Some organizations are large, and I think of volunteer organizations. I think of some in my community like South Burnaby Neighbourhood House or SUCCESS, which has several branches, and so on. Do they have the ability to be registered but, at the same time, do their own criminal record checks if they thought that was better? They can mix it, I assume. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: The new section 24.2 provides for deregistration of specified organizations. I'm wondering if the minister can explain what this is.

Hon. S. Bond: If you've had a change of heart and would like to opt out.

K. Corrigan: And section 24.3. I'm wondering if the minister would explain 24.3 and its various subsections.
[ Page 13541 ]

Hon. S. Bond: This just means that volunteer organizations have to ensure that anyone who volunteers with them must have a criminal record check. It can be portable in nature, or if they don't have a portable one, they need to go and get a criminal record check done. Like the other sections, it just gives the responsibility or the general duties of that organization.

K. Corrigan: I'm trying to understand how the specified organizations of the volunteers fit in with the general scheme. It doesn't seem like it's just like the other areas where we are talking about, say, teachers or members of professions, and so on. This is a new scheme where you have organizations that are registered, and essentially, by being registered, you're ensuring that everybody who is volunteering with you has complied. I'm trying to figure out what the actual impact of being a specified organization is.

Hon. S. Bond: They would have the same responsibilities as, for example, the other sections that we've looked at. The organization would have the responsibility to ensure that their volunteers have criminal record checks, not unlike…. We talk about employers have the responsibility for employees, and educational institutions for students and who are working with children or vulnerable adults. Registered specified organizations — so non-profits, for example, or other organizations that register — have the same responsibilities as the other entities that we have captured in the front end of the bill.

K. Corrigan: Perhaps the minister could explain what would be the difference if an organization decided it didn't want to be registered. What would be the difference between the organization that was a specified organization that was registered and one that isn't, in terms of its obligations in terms of record checks with their volunteers?

Hon. S. Bond: If they're not registered, there is no obligation. If they're registered, then obviously, the obligations that are noted here take effect.

K. Corrigan: But there would be some. If somebody was a volunteer organization and they have people volunteering with them, they have no obligations whatsoever in terms of ensuring that those volunteers have proper record checks.

[1810]

Hon. S. Bond: That would be correct. However, in practice, liability issues and all of the things that would accrue to the organization would likely not see that happen. But yes, that is technically correct.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain how the new section 24.5, which deals with existing volunteers, will operate.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, this is basically a transition-type clause. The organization, if they registered with us…. For example, if they had 30 volunteers, this gives them a year to actually get those free record checks through this process.

K. Corrigan: The new section 24.6 — if the minister could explain that section.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, repetitive. It is if they don't have a portable record check, then they have to go and get a criminal record check.

K. Corrigan: Section 24.7. I wonder if the minister could explain that one.

Hon. S. Bond: Basically, if there is a risk determined, this means that they cannot volunteer. This section deals with working with children, but there will be a subsequent section that does exactly the same thing: you cannot volunteer with vulnerable adults if there is a risk identified.

K. Corrigan: Does this part of the bill impose on the volunteer organizations the same kinds of requirements that it does in the earlier sections? So it's essentially identical as the requirements with other organizations under other parts of the act.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: Section 24.8 is the effect of finding of risk. Can the minister please explain this section?

Hon. S. Bond: This would be the section that I referenced was going to be subsequent. This means if there is a risk identified, that person is not permitted to volunteer with vulnerable adults.

K. Corrigan: And the new section 24.9.

Hon. S. Bond: This is the same section where basically, if a volunteer is charged with or convicted of a relevant or specific offence, they have to self-identify and report that. If an employer finds out, they then need to report that.

Sections 38 and 39 approved.

On section 40.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could explain section 40.

[1815]

Hon. S. Bond: This form already exists on the criminal record verification side. This makes it consistent on the portability side.

Sections 40 to 43 inclusive approved.

On section 44.

K. Corrigan: Subsection (c) includes the following paragraphs, and I see "prescribing the fee payable for a criminal record check verification." There are a variety of provisions here. I'm wondering if the minister could explain that little list there, what they actually do.

Hon. S. Bond: This is about creating reg-making power. What it does is create the same reg-making power with portability and for volunteers that exists currently with the criminal record check process.

K. Corrigan: So some of it is also just harmonizing the fact that we are now having not just record checks but verifications. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: And subsection (e) — what is the effect of that?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, it's harmonizing reg-making related to fees with the current provision on the criminal record check side.

Section 44 approved.

On section 45.

K. Corrigan: This deals with the Emergency and Health Services Act. It requires that the board "take the failure or the determination into account when deciding whether to register the applicant or whether to set limits or conditions on the practice of the profession by the emergency medical assistant." Does this represent any change in what the process and practice would be by the board?

Hon. S. Bond: What this is adding is a group of people, emergency medical assistants. They are not currently included, so they will now be included with every other health care professional.

[1820]

K. Corrigan: Included under the provisions of the act. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Sections 45 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

K. Corrigan: Could the minister explain the working of this section?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact it's a duplicate section, because it depends on which act is in force when this act is brought into force. We had to cover off both of those with a duplicate section.

Sections 49 to 60 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 11 — CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Bill 11, Criminal Records Review Amendment Act, 2013, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. S. Bond: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Bill 11, Criminal Records Review Amendment Act, 2013, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:24 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