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)

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 44, Number 5

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

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: It was my honour today, along with members of both sides of the House, to host His Excellency, retired admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma, who is High Commissioner of India to Canada, recently appointed from India. He is attending with his wife.

Also, we have the consul general from India, Mr. Ravi Shankar Aisola, and Consul Chandramouli, who is also at the consulate general in Vancouver. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Fraser: I'm not sure if they're here yet, but there's a great school group coming in from the Alberni Valley, the Haahuupayak School in the Tseshaht traditional territories. They'll be visiting with the Minister of Education later today. I'm going to join them for that, and hopefully, we'll get a tour. I'd like the House to make them feel very, very welcome.

As we continue with our deliberations, doing the people's work here today…. Well, this is going to seem really self-serving. Will you please help me celebrate a birthday from afar — my beautiful wife, Dolores.

Have a very, very happy birthday.

Hon. M. Polak: I had the pleasure of joining some very important people for lunch today. They are joining us here in the gallery for question period: my deputy minister, Grant Main, along with his wife, Denise, and son Rhys; as well as my assistant deputy minister, Doug Caul, his wife, Heather, and sons Spencer and Nicholas. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Simons: Today we have some guests from the University of Victoria and, as well, from Camosun College. I'm pleased to be able to say that I'll be giving them a tour later. And folks on the other side will be pleased that the tour I give is based on facts.

The folks joining us today are Chase, Jacob, Layton, Miriam, Marina, Emily, Steven, Jeremy, Julie, Elsa, Ray, Charlotte, Logan, Megan, Madeline, Jordan, Daphne, and two from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, Benedict Pierre and also Sam Cameron. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. S. Cadieux: In the gallery today I have someone to introduce, someone many members of the House will know well and many members on this side will wish especially to say hello to today — my first ministerial assistant in a string of ministerial assistants over the last couple of years but someone I respect very, very much. Ian MacLean is here, along with his wife.

B. Routley: With us today is Bob Rogers and his wife, Karen. Bob is a 46-year veteran as a coastal faller and as a logger. Bob and I go back. We spent four years together.

[1340]

Bob reminded me of a very funny story about elections, which I think is kind of appropriate. Right after a fallers strike there was an election. Fernie Vialla, who is a forklift driver from a mill, got elected by an overwhelming number, but almost all of the loggers voted against him. He went up to the Northwest Bay logging camp. He stood on the back of a pickup truck, and he thought he'd warm up the crowd. About 200 loggers had gathered around.

He thought he'd warm up the crowd, and he said: "I want to thank the one logger who voted for me in this camp." Somebody at the back of the crowd yelled: "He don't work here no more."

Anyway, we had a wonderful time enjoying the memories of bygone days. He's a faller's faller, and I would call him a gentleman faller. He found a beautiful gal, Karen, who worked with the police. I think that probably tells some of the story about what Bob needs most. But anyway, please join me in making them feel welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: First, I'd like to join my colleagues in welcoming His Excellency Nirmal Kumar Verma and his delegation here from India, our Indian High Commissioner to Canada. Welcome to our Legislature. Thank you.

I'd also like to welcome and introduce 40 grade 11 students from University Hill Secondary School in the beautiful community of Vancouver–Point Grey. They're joined by Mr. John Yetman and one other adult for a tour of the Legislature today.

During the official opening of UHill Secondary in February, I was pleased to visit the learning commons for a robotics demonstration then with grade 11 and grade 12 students. I also joined them for an open town hall, which was filled with many intelligent, foresighted questions from all of the students there.

I'm delighted to have them join us today to see firsthand how the people's House works. I hope the whole House will join me in making these young students, all of whom have such a bright future, very, very welcome here.

M. Sather: Joining us in the gallery today is Sheryl Seale. She's my former constituency assistant, who was so ungraciously stolen from me by the member for Delta North, whom I can never forgive. She's here with her
[ Page 13544 ]
father this afternoon. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

B. Lekstrom: A little over a year ago I had the honour of introducing our first grandchild to this Legislature, whose name is Sawyer and who was born to our oldest daughter, Lindsey, and her husband, Blaine.

Today I have the honour of making a unique introduction of our second grandchild. It's unique because our second grandchild is due in the latter part of April, but as we won't be sitting here, I thought it would be important that I took the opportunity to, certainly, ask this House to offer our congratulations to our youngest daughter, Taiya, and her boyfriend, Todd, who live and work in Chetwynd and are expecting a baby girl in the latter part of April who they have named Cadence Young. Will the House please join me in giving Cadence an early welcome.

Statements

ELECTION OF POPE FRANCIS

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we all know that in accordance with their centuries-old tradition, the College of Cardinals today elected a new pope. For almost 700,000 Catholics in our province, Pope Francis is their spiritual leader and successor to a direct line going all the way back to St. Peter.

For those who adhere to a different faith, the Pope is still a world leader of truly global significance. The Holy Father's choice of the name Francis is wonderful. St. Francis of Assisi worked tirelessly to broaden the church's horizons beyond Europe — a fitting choice for the first Pope from the Americas.

On behalf of all British Columbians, I want to extend my most sincere congratulations to the Holy Father on his ascension and to Catholics on this most joyous occasion.

[1345]

M. Farnworth: We in the opposition want to join in, as well, in recognizing this most auspicious day for Catholics, not just here in British Columbia but right across the country and right around the world. As someone who represents a riding where almost 40 percent of my constituents self-identify as Catholics, I know that this is an occasion of momentous importance to them. This side of the House wishes to join with the government and celebrate with Catholics around the world the choosing of a new pope, Pope Francis I.

Introductions by Members

M. Dalton: Joining us in the Legislature today is Dr. Bruce Guenther from Abbotsford and Dale Wall from Victoria. Many members might know Dale. He was well known here as an ADM and a deputy minister for many years, beginning under the Social Credit, under NDP and under the Liberals. Dr. Guenther is the dean of the Mennonite Brethren Seminary at Trinity Western University. It's one of a consortium of five seminaries at the university.

They're here for the passage of a bill today that restores to them degree-granting status, and I know they both appreciate the bipartisan support that they've received in the Legislature to move this forward.

There are 25,000 Mennonite Brethren in British Columbia in 105 multi-ethnic churches spread across the province. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Mungall: I had the good fortune today of meeting with a group of students. They are the Alliance of British Columbian Students, and they are composed of several student associations from across British Columbia.

Today in the gallery, we have UVic Students Society — Lucia Orser, Lewis Rhodes, Emily Rogers and Darcy Lindberg. From the Northern Undergraduate Student Society we have Alden Chow. From Kwantlen Student Association we have Arzo Ansary; Imam — and I apologize in advance if I do not pronounce your last name correctly — Ghahremani; and Richard Hosein; from UBC Alma Mater Society, Tanner Bokor and Kyle Warwick; and from University of the Fraser Valley Student Union Society, Daniel Van Der Kroon.

It was my greater pleasure to join them as well as several colleagues and talk about post-secondary education and students' issues today. May the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: I know that Dale Wall has been introduced already, but the member for Shuswap and myself have…. I expect members from both sides of the House who have had the pleasure of working with Dale Wall over the years have fond memories of his service to government, his service to the people of the province. He's one of the smartest guys I have ever been around, and I really enjoyed my association with him. So maybe we can give Dale another round of applause. [Applause.]

Statements

APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS
ON OPPOSITION MEMBERS

Hon. B. Bennett: I also, hon. Speaker — and this will probably surprise the heck out of the opposition….

I think that I need to say to the opposition members that I do respect what you do in opposition, and I respect you individually. I am sorry about the choice of words last night, because I really don't feel that way about you. Let's have a good question period.
[ Page 13545 ]

Introductions by Members

G. Gentner: I'm here to introduce the father of my CA, Sheryl Seale. But before I do that, I want to just correct the record regarding the statements made by the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. My current CA, Sheryl Seale, left him due to better working conditions offered by the member in Delta North.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce her father, Dusty Miller, an old friend and former bowling partner with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations. And he is a constituent of the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads. I know there are some decisions to be made shortly.

Dusty spent over 25 years serving his country as a diver and weapons officer in the recently renamed Royal Canadian Navy here in Esquimalt, and he continues to serve in the Corps of Commissionaires at locations such as the oceans and science institute, Royal Roads and Butchart Gardens. Would the House please welcome him into the House.

R. Howard: I've had the privilege of acknowledging many special people in this House, and today it's a special pleasure to acknowledge the specialest of all people. She is my hero, and she joined me for lunch today.

[1350]

I speak, of course, of my wife, Trudy. Would the House please make her welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I just want to acknowledge the presence of Robin Toczak, who is a teacher and new friend that I've met in my time here in Victoria. Please make her very welcome.

R. Hawes: I've waited 12 years to introduce my wife to the Legislature. We've been married 43 years. This is my last opportunity. She's not here, but in case she's watching on TV — just in case — would the House please send her a great hello.

L. Popham: It's my pleasure to introduce my dad today and my stepmom, Lee-Ann McKintuck. I was able to have a quick bite of lunch with them. They're here to watch question period.

Welcome to the House.

D. Hayer: I would also like to join our Premier, the Minister of Jobs and also opposition MLAs to welcome His Excellency Nirmal Kumar Verma, the new High Commissioner of India to Canada, and his wife, Madhulika Verma; Mr. Ravi Shankar Aisola, consul general of India in Vancouver; and Mr. Chandramouli, consul of the consul general of India in Vancouver.

India is very important to British Columbia and Canada. We have an excellent relationship in trade, tourism, education and cultural trade with India, and we'd like to expand on that. I had the privilege of visiting India with the past Premier, Gordon Campbell. Also, our current Premier went there.

We're trying to improve our trade relationship. Everybody I talk to says that India is very important, and we believe India is very important. So I would like to add my congratulations and welcome message to our guests here.

D. Routley: I met a teacher in the hallway on the way in here. That teacher is from the Premier's riding. He is Mr. John Yetman. We had an interesting conversation about what happens here. He has a class of students here.

As usual with students or teachers, I remind them of former Clerk Mr. MacMinn's message. To explain the behaviour in this place, he said that, in fact, there is passion and heat in this chamber so that there isn't blood on the streets and that the problems of society get discussed and contained here. So I hope they'll remember that during question period. I'd like to thank him for that conversation and welcome him to the House.

Hon. D. McRae: First of all, let me say I'm glad the member for Saanich South has some family members in the audience today. I know I can speak for all members on this side that we're looking forward to seeing the Minister of Agriculture actually having a chance to answer a question. That would mean perhaps we'll have a question from the member opposite. But we can only hope.

More importantly, I'm here to introduce two visitors to the Legislature. From the Comox Valley we have Robert Mulroney here today visiting us, and from Vancouver we have Rudy Chung. Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. N. Letnick: Well, to follow up on that, there's one person in the gallery today who hasn't been introduced yet, and that's a person who helped the Minister of Health and this House, on both sides, bring in a new piece of legislation that protects firefighters and paramedics and other first responders. That's Bronwyn Barter, the president of the B.C. paramedics association. Please make her feel welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 12, 2012-2013, Audit of the Legislative Assembly's Financial Records: Update.
[ Page 13546 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M210 — REPRESENTATIVE FOR
SENIORS ACT, 2013

K. Conroy presented a bill intituled Representative for Seniors Act, 2013.

K. Conroy: I move that a bill intituled Representative for Seniors Act, 2013, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

K. Conroy: The Representative for Seniors Act will establish an independent office of investigation to improve systems of care and support for seniors and their families in British Columbia. Seniors and their advocates from across the province have been calling for this independent position to be legislated.

Since this bill was first introduced in 2007, and again in 2011, we have seen a groundswell of support for a position such as this, particularly in light of the Ombudsperson's report on seniors care in B.C., which made 176 recommendations and showed the alarming state of seniors care in B.C.

[1355]

Seniors, advocates and other stakeholders have been clear that the most important component for this position is for the representative to be independent in order to fully exercise their powers while investigating issues involving seniors, which continue to arise. The representative will monitor the performance of various programs and services to seniors while ensuring the services are integrated, coordinated, non-discriminatory and accountable.

The position will be a voice for seniors in this province, an independent voice that will speak out for real change. The families who fear retribution for speaking out will now have a place to express their concerns — a safe place where their issues can be expressed in a confidential, respectful manner.

Working on behalf of seniors and their families, the representative will recommend policy reform for better services and programs for seniors, providing support to seniors and their families and providing information to the public on seniors issues.

In light of the Ombudsperson's report and the aging population in B.C., the time for this bill has come. Seniors and their families should no longer have to face the neglect and abuse we continue to hear about in this province. Seniors have built this province, and when they need it, they should be cared for with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Just like British Columbia needed an independent representative for vulnerable children and youth, we need one for vulnerable seniors living in our communities. This bill will be a necessary commitment to seniors in this province, and I urge all the members to join with me in supporting this much-needed legislation.

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

Bill M210, Representative for Seniors Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

EPILEPSY AWARENESS

R. Hawes: Cassidy Megan has epilepsy. In 2008 she started Purple Day for epilepsy because she wanted everyone to know that she and the other 50 million people with epilepsy around the world are not contagious. They're not freaks to be feared or shunned. They're normal people who happen to share the same disorder. Above all, she wanted people with epilepsy to know they are not alone.

Unfortunately, for many there's still a stigma about epilepsy. The disorder is widely misunderstood, although thanks to Cassidy and Purple Day, knowledge is spreading.

When there's a sudden discharge of electrical energy in the brain, a seizure may result. Epilepsy is a condition defined as multiple seizures. Its onset is generally during childhood or in later life, but happily, the good news is that for most people, epilepsy can be controlled with medication.

There is excellent work being done around the country to dispel the stigma of epilepsy. In Abbotsford, for example, the Centre for Epilepsy and Seizure Education in British Columbia performs a great service by providing knowledge and support to those with epilepsy. Their work helps ensure Cassidy's Purple Day legacy grows, including the Mardi Gras Gala on March 22 at the Rancho in Abbotsford. Tickets are available.

You might remember some of the ads the centre ran on TV. The hiring committee is sitting around the board table, and the boss holds up an application. "This one looks promising," he says. "But he has epilepsy," a woman at the table says. The boss replies: "I have epilepsy." That is a very telling commercial.

On March 22 Purple Day for epilepsy will be held around the globe. Let's all get behind Cassidy Megan's drive. Let's wear purple to promote epilepsy awareness and knowledge.
[ Page 13547 ]

POCOMO YOUTH SERVICES SOCIETY

J. Trasolini: PoCoMo Youth Services Society is an award-winning, independent, community-based registered charity established in 1992. PoCoMo relies solely on grants, fundraising and donations to provide support and service to over 2,000 young people each year. Their mandate is to develop and deliver innovative programs and services to disadvantaged, marginalized youth, and it is the only youth-specific service agency serving Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Port Moody.

What is it that PoCoMo does? They specialize in providing after-hours outreach service to street-involved youth 12 to 18 years of age. PoCoMo provides this outreach with their multipurpose mobile drop-in centre right where those young people are — on the streets, in parking lots and other gathering places. The mobile help centre is a unique, recognizable, welcoming converted bus. This bus is out connecting with youth from 7 p.m. to midnight, Friday to Saturday, creating trust and safety.

[1400]

The mobile drop-in centre provides both support and services, such as early crisis intervention, basic-needs items like clothes and food, referrals to PoCoMo caseworkers and community resources. This Project Reach Out has connected with over 20,000 youth since 2005. The colourful bus is often the first point of contact for youth who are street-involved.

In 2008 PoCoMo received the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Award from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General's office. Also, in 2009 PoCoMo received the Creating a Safer Community award from the Tri-City REACH Awards. Would the House please join me in thanking PoCoMo for their service to the community.

FRENCH INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
OF VANCOUVER AND
LEGACY OF JACQUES COUSTEAU

J. Thornthwaite: I'm proud to talk today about a very special school in my constituency of North Vancouver–Seymour, a school I was happy to visit this past November. The French International School of Vancouver, one of Canada's leading French international schools, is going bleu and is renaming itself the French International School Cousteau in honour of Jacques Cousteau.

Cousteau was a French oceanographer, photographer, explorer, environmentalist, film-maker and author who championed marine ecology. His passion for aquatic life was shared with the world through his works, which included documentaries, books and the famous television show the Jacques Cousteau Odyssey.

Protecting marine life and raising global environmental awareness were at the core of Cousteau's principles, and now these same principles can be applied to the French International School Cousteau. This is something I strongly support as someone who is fascinated by vertebrate and invertebrate zoology. In fact, my first degree was in zoology.

Alongside the Cousteau Society and the Vancouver Aquarium, the school is adding marine ecology to its day-to-day curriculum. The new curriculum will feature regular visits to the aquarium, involvement in the cleaning of B.C.'s beaches, educational projects on the subject of the environment and much, much more. It's important that we are all aware of the ecosystems around us and try to protect them for future generations. I congratulate the French International School Cousteau for their brand-new vision et pour voir la vie en bleu.

WORKPLACE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
AND FREE REIN ASSOCIATES

G. O'Mahony: The skills needed to be successful in the workplace have changed over time, as our society has become more knowledge-based and technologically advanced. These essential skills, which encompass everything from literacy to problem-solving, are rated on a scale from 1 to 5 — 5 referring to the highest skill level and 3 representing the minimum skill requirement to find employment or enter post-secondary studies.

It is estimated that around 40 percent of our population is between levels 1 and 2. This presents an enormous challenge in terms of addressing issues such as inequality and imminent skills shortage.

Today I would like to talk about Free Rein, an organization that has been delivering front-line, essential skills-training services for over 20 years in the community of Hope. I've had the pleasure of meeting with directors Peter Bailey and Christine Proulx on numerous occasions. Their passion and commitment to building a healthier, more inclusive and fair community is admirable.

That is why it is not surprising that Free Rein was awarded the B.C. Career Development Association Best Organization of the Year Award in 2011, the Association of Service Providers for Employability and Career Training Leadership Award in 2012 and nominated for the 2012 provincial Nesika Award for the Hope Inclusion Project.

It is nearly impossible to sum up the work of Free Rein in two minutes, as they have been true leaders in collaboratively providing rural employment and training services. The creation of Socia — a social health centre which houses addiction services, homelessness outreach, youth services, a last-chance school, women's support services and the Work B.C. project — is just one example of the many accomplishments of Free Rein.

The impact of Free Rein's work is best summed up in the words of Mayor Susan Johnston: "Free Rein is an organization that has a very positive impact on the district
[ Page 13548 ]
of Hope. Free Rein is truly a multifaceted organization, and they are indeed very good corporate citizens."

SOUTH CARIBOO CITIZEN OF THE YEAR
AWARDS AND VOLUNTEERISM

D. Barnett: This past Saturday, March 9, I attended the South Cariboo Chamber of Commerce annual Business Excellence and Citizen of the Year Awards. What a great event. I have had the honour of chairing the Citizen of the Year event for years. This year eight nominees were nominated by their peers.

[1405]

What is the criteria for Citizen of the Year? Someone who serves their community as a volunteer, who makes lives more plentiful. This year, the winners were nominated as a team: Gary and Elsie Babcock, and Tom and Maryann Rutledge.

These four dedicated citizens have spent years — Gary and Elsie since 1975, and Tom and Maryann since 1996, as president, vice-president, secretary-treasurer, janitor and fundraiser of the 108 heritage site — building Cariboo history.

Some accomplishments were a 105 roadhouse in 1979 and the restoration of the Clydesdale barn, the oldest log barn in Canada. Since 1996 they've restored and relocated a blacksmith shop, a schoolhouse, a trapper's cabin, a store and a church and built Ainsworth Lumber Co. museum. On July 1 they organized the July 1 event and many, many citizenship ceremonies.

This site is a registered historical site with federal and provincial governments. The site provides education to students and has over 20,000 visitors a year. Our local communities, the province and Canada benefit from these tireless volunteers. Our 2012 citizens of the year make this all happen.

NORTH ISLAND ROTARY CLUBS

C. Trevena: From literacy projects to trails, breakfast programs to a splash park, our community's infrastructure is stronger thanks to the work of our Rotarians. While Rotary is celebrating its centenary, the clubs in my constituency are a bit younger, but they have accomplished a huge amount and their strengths just grow.

In Campbell River, where Rotary is 67 years old, we have the daybreak and the noonhour clubs. Both have raised millions of dollars for some terrific projects which have been fundamental to the evolution of the community. Thanks to Rotary, we have the magnificent Maritime Heritage Centre, a great attraction and facility for the community; the Seawalk, a trail along many kilometres of Campbell River waterfront and now such an integral part of the city; and soon a splash park and, very likely, a suspension bridge at Elk Falls.

They've also worked with the John Howard Society, the Head Injury Support Society, an infant-toddler centre — and the list goes on. And of course, for fundraising there's the annual Rotary Auction and the Rotary Duck Race. There's the inspiring youth exchange program and Rotary's international work — most recently, the distribution of wheelchairs in Colombia. I could fill the rest of my two minutes by listing those projects, but I should highlight that which is trying to eradicate polio worldwide.

Young people are becoming engaged in the community commitment that Rotary espouses, with Interact clubs in both of the city's high schools, at Carihi and at Timberline. And in the real north Island, there is Rotary in Port McNeill and in Port Hardy.

As you approach Port McNeill, there's a brand-new trail, thanks to Rotary. That group supports seniors housing projects and provides breakfast programs. It's also building a children's play area as part of a waterfront project.

The Port Hardy Rotary is adding play equipment for toddlers in the Rotary playground and helping with a new boat launch, which will have a fish-cleaning station. The kids got the first bite on this. Rotary has built a kids fishing park. The international focus is part of both north Island clubs as well.

Rotary is an institution which brings together people committed to their communities and to service in the world. It deserves our respect, our encouragement and our engagement.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WITH MAXIMUS
FOR MEDICAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

A. Dix: A question to the Premier. We're currently at the eight-year mark in a ten-year contract the government signed with Maximus to administer the MSP and PharmaCare programs. The Premier will know that a recent Auditor General's report raises questions about the conduct of that contract and the government's ability to adequately monitor it. I'm wondering why the government moved early to extend that contract five years, to 2020, at a very significant public cost.

Hon. C. Clark: First, I would like to thank the Auditor General for his comments and his advice. It's been very useful. The Ministry of Health worked very closely with the Auditor General throughout the audit process as it was being prepared.

[1410]

Maximus has delivered better service for British Columbians over the years that we've had this contract. It certainly made sense to renew it, given that it provided better service at better cost. We are all about making sure that we grow the private sector and not grow gov-
[ Page 13549 ]
ernment. This is one way that we're going to make sure that happens.

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

A. Dix: Well, the report was critical. Why was it critical? Because the company failed to even meet the basic requirements of replacing IT infrastructure on time. One system was replaced six years after the original deadline.

Now the government is rewarding Maximus early, just before this election, with a five-year extension of the contract from 2015 to 2020 at a higher cost and at a larger scope. So I think it's reasonable to ask why the government has sought to act early rather than ensuring the best possible deal for British Columbians.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, on this side of the House we don't believe in growing government. We don't believe in growing government spending beyond the rate which taxpayers can afford. In fact, before we go out there and ask taxpayers for another penny, we are going to make sure that government is spending all of its money as efficiently as we possibly can. That's certainly the case with this.

Maximus has modernized the call centre technology, the MSP claims system and PharmaNet. It also plans to replace the registration system in the next two years. This means that unlike in the 1990s when — if you were a family doctor, like the Minister of Health — you couldn't even get through to MSP, now, for seven years straight, calls from the public are answered on average in less than three minutes. That's a big improvement.

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

A. Dix: Well, the Auditor General produced a report in February that's strongly critical of this contract. The government moves forward and renews the contract early, two years early in March, at a cost north of $200 million, extending and increasing the annual cost of the contract. And the Premier celebrates this as an act of government prudence.

Has the Premier reviewed the Auditor General's report? And what confidence can we have…? Given that the Auditor General specifically criticized the government's inability to monitor that report, what answer does the Premier have to those strong criticisms by the Auditor General?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the Ministry of Health worked closely with the Office of the Auditor General throughout the audit process. Certainly, we welcome the report and the guidance that we got from the office.

The reason the government entered into this contract with Maximus is because we want to deliver better service for people. So not only have we taken a system where, in the 1990s, you literally could not get through to MSP and improved it so that now calls from the public are answered on average in less than three minutes…. If you're a health care service provider — if you're a doctor, say, in Rossland, British Columbia — your call will be answered on average in less than one minute. Better value, better service — that's what we believe in.

M. Farnworth: Well, the Auditor General is really very blunt in this report. One of the responsibilities that the government has….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: I see that they're asking questions, clearly preparing for their time when….

The Auditor General was very clear in his criticism of government. One of the responsibilities of government that the public expects is for the government to provide oversight, especially on issues of privacy — privacy that the people of this province take extremely seriously. According to the Auditor General, the government is relying on the company to disclose security breaches, instead of implementing mechanisms to proactively identify and resolve privacy risks — something that this government has neglected.

[1415]

So my question, again, to the Premier is: why is the Minister of Health renewing this contract, given the criticisms by the Auditor General around privacy concerns, which are extremely important to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you to the member for the question. Certainly, we do in the ministry appreciate the Auditor General's report. The ministry worked very closely with the Auditor General as he was doing his audit. The Auditor General was aware that we were considering extending the contract with Maximus as per the original contract. In fact, all of the recommendations the Auditor General has made have been incorporated, and they've been helpful to us as we go forward, renegotiating this contract.

But to the member's concerns about privacy, there is no reason to indicate that data has ever been compromised, and we don't believe there's any likelihood that it could happen. We have confidence in the service provider. But the Auditor General has made some suggestions, which we have brought forward into the renewal.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
[ Page 13550 ]

M. Farnworth: Well, the Auditor General made those criticisms of this government because, clearly, there's a minimus of oversight by this government when it comes to this contract. Given these kinds of criticisms, in the private sector after eight years this contract would not be renewed automatically. So my question, again, to the minister is: given the criticisms in this report, why is this government rushing to renew this contract?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: In fact, the matter of extending the contract has been under review for a number of months now in the ministry, and the Auditor General was aware of that. The ministry did participate actively in the audit, and as I've said, the recommendations made by the Auditor General in his report have all been incorporated.

This is what has happened since November of 2005. Service level requirements have been met or exceeded consistently. In fact, the service that has been provided by Maximus has clearly exceeded what was being provided when these services were being provided within government.

In fact, in 2000 the number one complaint in MLAs' offices was that their constituents could not get through on the telephone, could not even get the telephone answered when they wanted to enrol in MSP. Thankfully, that has completely changed, and service expectations have been met or exceeded consistently.

HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
PROJECT COSTS AND RISK ASSESSMENT

C. James: This government has a disastrous record when it comes to information technology systems. Integrated case management and technology systems in both education and in the Ministry of Justice have all been widely criticized for being implemented improperly by this Liberal government.

In many cases the systems have been identified as not being capable or secure enough to even do the job — hundreds of millions of dollars wasted because this government didn't do their homework. Now we find out that the government is at it again.

This government is rushing a clinical and systems transformation, with an estimated cost of $842 million. That's money that will be taken out of the Provincial Health Services Authority, Vancouver Coastal Health and Providence Health Care. The ministry is proposing to claw back $386 million in operating funds from front-line patient care to pay for this system. They're also demanding that it be signed off by April 16, on or before the election writ.

So to the Health Minister: given this government's record on technology, why is this government rushing to implement this technology system?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I want to reassure the member opposite and all members in this House that there is no rush. There has been no rush with any of these projects. Information technology and information management are absolutely vital to the health care system.

[1420]

We have a health care system today that could be more efficient by having information available to care providers, and we are working very hard and diligently toward having that modernization of the system that will allow for better patient care and more efficient patient care.

With respect to this Maximus contract, there has been no rush. There has been considerable due diligence that has been done. We are satisfied that they have not only met but have exceeded expectations since November of 2005.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: Given the record of mismanagement by this Liberal government when it comes to technology, forgive me, Minister, if I'm not reassured by the comments that you've given this House.

I want to take a minute to look at the risk assessment document for this project that was produced for the Ministry of Health. I quote from the document: "Finances — high risk. Governance — high risk. Technical complexity — high risk. Clinical standardization — high risk. Achievable expectations and timelines — high risk." This list goes on and on. The only area that isn't identified as high risk is "political."

Given all of this and given the government's track record when it comes to technology, what is the minister doing to address these risks today?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The member opposite certainly identifies something that needs to have very careful attention paid to it, and it is. Without question, across Canada jurisdictions have been working very hard with respect to information technology and information management — in every jurisdiction. We understand the power of the tool, and we also understand the privacy implications. We understand the risks that the member opposite has identified.

But what would the member opposite…? What would they do? Is it their suggestion that we should bury our heads in the sand and not proceed forward with these important transformational projects? On this side of the House, that's exactly what we believe we should be doing.

B. Ralston: The overall risk for every area of the clinical and systems transformation project are described as high except the political one. That's apparently good enough for the Liberals to give this project a green light, but for Vancouver Coastal the specific risks are even worse. Finances — extreme risk. Governance — ex-
[ Page 13551 ]
treme risk. Clinical standardization — extreme risk. For Providence Health Care, the technical complexity — extreme risk. Achievable expectations and timelines — extreme risk.

Clearly, given this level of concern by the risk assessment, this project is not ready to go forward. Will the Finance Minister ensure that projects like this are properly vetted, that people are consulted and that these concerns about high or extreme risk be dealt with before tens of millions of public dollars are wasted?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Here is information technology and information management that the health authorities have come forward with, understanding that the situation we have today is a situation where a patient can be in one hospital or one clinic and people who are trying to care for them there have absolutely no access to information.

And so we are moving forward. This is being led by the health authorities. If I'm to understand the members opposite, what they would do is they would micromanage everything under the minister's office. Well, the health authorities have taken leadership on this. This is about patient care. This is about efficiencies. This is about health providers being able to have access to information which they need and require. This is about not having to duplicate testing. This is about transforming our health care system using information technology. On this side of the House, we are in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1425]

B. Ralston: Spending $842 million without proper checks is not micromanagement. We've seen this story before with the Liberal government — projects never tested, no proper consultation, tax dollars in the tens of millions of dollars wasted. We're only nine months from an election, in the dying days of this parliament, and the Liberal government is making major….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: Nine weeks. It seems like it'll be nine months until that election.

My question is addressed to the Finance Minister. Will he step in and stop this rush decision when the risk assessment highlights extreme risk in a number of areas?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: One of the expectations that I certainly have as minister and that we have as government is that when projects like this are going to be undertaken, there will be a risk assessment. That's exactly what has happened. But it is very normal for a core clinical system of this type to have risks involved with it, and the health authorities have significant experience in managing these projects.

I guess what the member opposite is saying is that he actually doesn't have any confidence in the health authorities, and that is deeply unfortunate.

RAVEN COAL MINE PROPOSAL
IN COMOX VALLEY

S. Fraser: The controversial Raven underground coal mine project highlights serious holes in this government's gutted environmental assessment process.

Well, the minister may want to read the four resolutions. That's all of the local governments in the Comox Valley and the water districts and the town of Qualicum Beach and the UVic law clinic slamming this government's failure to provide the means necessary to protect fisheries, aquaculture, aquifers, drinking water.

Will the Minister of Environment explain why he continues to ignore all representation from the Comox Valley and why he refuses to ensure adequate environmental protection and scrutiny for the region?

Hon. T. Lake: The Raven underground coal mine project is currently undergoing a combined and coordinated federal and provincial environmental assessment review, something I know the members opposite disagree with. Their environmental assessment consists of: is it a mine? No. Is it a pipeline? No. Is it a resort? No.

On this side of the House we actually think process is important. The process is underway, the public is very much involved, and we will allow that independent, rigorous environmental process to go ahead. On this side of the House we believe in making decisions based on evidence, and that's what we'll continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Well, the minister believes in being dismissive to all members of local government in the Comox Valley. That's a big problem. All mayors, councillors, regional district directors and waterworks directors in the Comox Valley have raised alarm bells about this proposal.

As the village of Cumberland noted through resolution, the mine "could impact the aquifers used by the surrounding communities for their potable water," and the operations of this mine "could impact finfish, shellfish and other fisheries in Baynes Sound".

Will the Minister of Environment listen to local governments and ensure that a proper environmental assessment process is put in place as requested by all local governments in the Comox Valley?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, in fact, the member opposite is
[ Page 13552 ]
fully aware that local government is very much involved in the independent, rigorous environmental assessment process as members of the working group.

[1430]

It's ironic, I find. Members opposite would like the government to put money into the Morden mine park to celebrate the great contribution that the coal industry has made to Vancouver Island. We've had the member for Juan de Fuca say that our coal is clean coal and there's a benefit to the exports of coal and the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke say: "Coal is currently an incredibly important part of our current economy."

This particular project, as any project in British Columbia of this size, is undergoing a rigorous, robust environmental assessment process. We will allow that to continue, and we will make our decisions based on that assessment.

FARMERS ADVOCACY OFFICE
FOR PEACE RIVER AREA

L. Popham: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The farmers advocate office in Dawson Creek has been an important voice for farmers in the Peace River district. It was established in 2009 as a trusted source of reliable information, advice and advocacy that was seen as independent of both government and the oil and gas industry.

In 2012 the B.C. Liberals changed the terms of reference that would limit both the independent function and the perception of independence. The current terms of reference censor the work that the farmers advocate would do.

Why did the Minister of Agriculture support the changes to the terms of reference for the farmers advocate office?

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Agriculture. [Applause.]

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to both sides of the House for such a warm welcome. It's been four years since I've been sitting in this House waiting for my first question, so indeed, I'd like to thank the members opposite for that.

To do with the question….

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: On this side of the House we're one unified team.

Specifically, to answer the question before I go into all of the great things in agriculture that are happening around B.C., the Farmers Advocacy Office is closed because the contract had expired. Government is working with Peace River regional district to have the office back in full operation very soon. Once a suitable contractor is found, a physical office will be up and running, and we'll continue to support the Farmers Advocacy Office, as evidenced by our commitment of $100,000 in fiscal 2013-2014.

Now, in addition to this $100,000 in fiscal 2013-2014, I'd just like to….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Let's be clear. The FAO didn't reapply for that position because the B.C. Liberals have moved the goalposts. The unfettered independence of the farmers advocate office, described in the 2009 memorandum of understanding, is not merely about renting an office outside of a government building. With growing industrial activity comes conflict in land use. Farmers in the Peace have come to the farmers advocate office for arm's-length, independent advice on how to deal with both industry and government.

Now the B.C. Liberal changes have destroyed any semblance of independence. Why is the Minister of Agriculture muzzling the independent voice for farmers and the landowners in the Peace?

[1435]

Hon. N. Letnick: To continue: $5.6 million a year for a new provincial meat inspection program; carbon tax rebate for our greenhouses — over $20 million; carbon tax rebate on coloured fuels and diesel all around the province; $4 million to the Agricultural Land Commission to do their work; fruit and veggie program; in addition to that, we're adding milk to the program.

We've gone from $8.4 billion in 2001 to $10.9 billion in economic activity in the agricultural sector, and we're going to $14 billion in the next five years.

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CLOSING
OF CANADIAN VISA OFFICES

M. Mungall: Korea is one of the top two largest home countries for international students here in British Columbia. Yet this government remained silent when the federal government shut down the Korean visa office, which of course has made it more difficult for Korean students to come to British Columbia.

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why has this government done nothing to oppose the closure of the Korean visa office?

Mr. Speaker: Minister. [Applause.]

Hon. R. Sultan: Twelve years is a long wait. I must confess, I didn't think it would take me all the way back to Korea, but if my hearing aid battery didn't fail me, I think that was the thrust of the member's question.
[ Page 13553 ]

There is no question that this government is committed to international education. It is the cornerstone of not only the pedagogical process; it's the cornerstone of the economics of the entire enterprise.

In my riding of West Vancouver–Capilano, in the high school system, one-quarter of all revenue comes from international students, including many from Korea. I think the numbers are not that different when we move into the post-secondary category.

If I do hear correctly, which is always open for debate, the question pertained to why the federal government should cut down a visa office affecting the ability of Korean students to…. The Leader of the Opposition is helping me with a nod.

Well, it's not something they consulted me about, for some reason. I will call my Member of Parliament, as I do for all questions in the federal domain.

[Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: It is only fair that we give him two questions, after all.

Last year when the federal government shut down several other visa offices, including the one in Japan, this side of the House urged the government to take action. The minister at that time said: "We will definitely address the concerns that we have with the closure of these offices."

[1440]

Yet instead of halting the closure of the offices in Japan, Germany and elsewhere, we see the federal government closing more offices. I think something more than a call to an MP's office will be needed here, so what will it be?

Hon. R. Sultan: Well, I knew Mr. Mulcair was struggling, but I didn't fully appreciate that he needed the assistance of the member for Nelson-Creston.

These are important issues. They are of concern to us. We will look into it further.

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: Hon. Speaker, I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have a petition signed by over 5,000 residents of the Comox Valley and Vancouver Island trying to get the government's attention on the serious concerns about the Raven coal mine.

S. Hammell: I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, this is a petition requesting…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Hammell: …that the House pass legislation that gets children out of hazardous work environments.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Ministerial Statements

PURPLE DAY FOR EPILEPSY AWARENESS

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Purple Day for epilepsy awareness takes place on March 26 this year. Since the House will not be sitting on that day, I'd like to take the opportunity today to acknowledge this very important awareness day.

Purple Day is a global effort dedicated to promoting epilepsy awareness around the world, and this awareness day has its roots in Canada. It was founded in 2008 by Cassidy Megan, a nine-year-old girl from Nova Scotia who wanted people with epilepsy to know that they're not alone.

Epilepsy is one of the most common types of neurological disorders characterized by seizures. While there's no cure for epilepsy, it can be controlled. It's estimated that one in 100 people are affected by epilepsy, which amounts to about 21,000 people, at least, in British Columbia.

I'd like to recognize that we are joined today by 13 guests in the gallery. The delegation includes representatives from the Centre for Epilepsy in B.C. and the Victoria Epilepsy and Parkinson's Centre. I had a chance to meet all of them. I also had a chance to meet their four-legged guest who is with us, India, who is a specially trained seizure-response dog and making a difference in the life of her owner.

I'd ask all members to make sure on March 26 to wear something purple, spread the word and please help me make our guests feel very welcome.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to respond to the minister's ministerial statement, and I'd like to thank her and her office for providing me an advance copy of that statement.
[ Page 13554 ]

Epilepsy is an important issue — 21,000 British Columbians affected by it. It is one of the most common neurological conditions. As the minister said, it can't be cured, but it can be controlled.

We have come a long way since I was a kid, since most of us in this chamber were children, when epilepsy was something that was feared, when epilepsy was something that was not talked about. In many cases, in many families, it was often viewed with shame.

Thankfully, thanks to the work of groups such as the Epilepsy Society here in British Columbia and across the country, those attitudes have changed. What people are focused on now is better medication and, hopefully, a cure.

That's what's important. So it's my pleasure to join with the minister and everybody else in this chamber in welcoming our guests and recognizing Purple Day.

Reports from Committees

C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

I move that the report on Bill Pr401, The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, and on Bill Pr402, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act, be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

C. Hansen: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to thank the members of the committee and the staff in the Clerk's office for their assistance in getting these bills to this stage today.

[1445]

I will not make comment on the specific content of these bills, as the sponsors of the bills, the member for Abbotsford-Mission and the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, will be speaking more substantively during second reading.

Motion approved.

Bills Pr401, The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013, and Pr402, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act, ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Following on that, I call, first, Bill Pr401, The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL Pr401 — THE HOOPER FAMILY
FOUNDATION (CORPORATE RESTORATION)
ACT, 2013

J. McIntyre: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

As you know, often private bills in a member's name are a result of a society which has over time had their registration revoked or lapsed, sometimes inadvertently, and the intent of private bill 401, The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013, is to remedy just that.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

J. McIntyre: By leave, I now move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL Pr401 — THE HOOPER FAMILY
FOUNDATION (CORPORATE RESTORATION)
ACT, 2013

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill Pr401; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

J. McIntyre: I now move that committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.
[ Page 13555 ]

The committee rose at 2:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL Pr401 — THE HOOPER FAMILY
FOUNDATION (CORPORATE RESTORATION)
ACT, 2013

Bill Pr401, The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

J. McIntyre: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr401, The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill Pr402, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL Pr402 — MENNONITE BRETHREN
BIBLICAL SEMINARY ACT

R. Hawes: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The bill was considered by the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills earlier today, on March 13, 2013. Members had an opportunity to ask questions of the agent to the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary. The bill will provide degree-granting status for the seminary. The seminary provides graduate-level theological training in support of 250 churches and 55,000 members that make up the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches.

Earlier today the member for Maple Ridge–Mission introduced Dr. Guenther, who was in the gallery, and explained that the Mennonite Brethren are part of a five-member consortium that provides theological degrees through Trinity Western University.

I move second reading.

[1450]

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member closes debate and moves second reading.

Motion approved.

R. Hawes: By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL Pr402 — MENNONITE BRETHREN
BIBLICAL SEMINARY ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill Pr402; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Mr. Speaker: I move that the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL Pr402 — MENNONITE BRETHREN
BIBLICAL SEMINARY ACT

Bill Pr402, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

R. Hawes: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill Pr402, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 14, Auditor General Amendment Act, 2013.
[ Page 13556 ]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — AUDITOR GENERAL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 14; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:53 p.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: The proposed new subsection (3) says that the Auditor General will hold office for a single term of eight years. As the minister will know, this would bring British Columbia in line, in some respects, with other provinces where there is typically a single term for an Auditor General. But in every other Canadian province, if I'm not mistaken, the term is ten years, and similarly, in the federal parliament the federal Auditor General sits for a single term of ten years.

Can the minister explain why eight years was selected rather than ten, as every other province and the federal parliament has done.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. He is, firstly, correct about what some other jurisdictions in the country have been doing. First of all, the trend seems to be in the direction of non-renewable terms, although I am told that Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island continue to have renewable terms.

[1455]

At the end of the day I'm not sure there's a lot of magic around this. We were persuaded, and I was persuaded, that the option that Alberta has opted for in having an eight-year term…. Although in this case non-renewable, the eight-year term seemed to make sense.

I should say that we are also, though, hopeful and believe, in light of some of the other steps that are being taken, that the hiring process can be disconnected from the electoral cycle in a way that will allow for that process to take place at a time when parliaments are not dissolving.

B. Ralston: As the minister will know from some of the public statements of the Premier, there was a reference to the previous legislative scheme of two terms — or at least, one term of six years with the possibility of being renewed for up to six years. The public proposal was to offer to the present incumbent a further two years, making a combination of eight, obviously. So was that a factor in settling on the eight years or not?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think one was certainly aware of those terms and those proposals. I don't, though, want to leave the member or the committee with the impression that that was determinative of the issue. But certainly, one was aware of those proposals that had taken place previously.

B. Ralston: We have the bill, clearly, obviously, before us, and we're discussing it. Section 2 is open, and these are amendments to section 2. As the minister will know, there was public discussion about an alleged ambiguity in the subsection (2) as to when the appointment of the Auditor General began. Yet in these proposed amendments there's no apparent effort to resolve that alleged ambiguity. So is the minister confident that there is no ambiguity or simply choosing not to deal with that issue?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I might offer this observation. To the extent that there has been ambiguity about that in the past, I would suggest that the appropriate mechanism for dealing with that ambiguity and ensuring that it does not recur is at the time of appointment between the individual accepting the appointment and the agency making the offer on behalf of this House — because, of course, the Auditor General does not work for government — and generally speaking, that is the Office of the Speaker, who is the representative for this assembly with respect to legislative officers.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister's response. So then, if I might summarize just to make sure that I've understood this, the minister is saying that this is a matter that could be resolved contractually between the Speaker's office and a new incumbent for an eight-year term. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think if there is a lesson to be learned, it is that that ambiguity needs to be avoided, and the mechanism for avoiding it is at the time of appointment and contractually, as the member correctly points out.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have provided to my friend the opposition critic and his colleague the House Leader and have tabled with the House an amendment — I have copies for any others who need one quickly — to section 2, which I'm happy to speak to in due course.

B. Ralston: So then speaking on the proposed amended section 7, the amendment contains an additional term in subsection (3)….

[1500]

The Chair: Member, forgive us.
[ Page 13557 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm sorry for interrupting the hon. member. It is incumbent upon me to move the amendment that I have provided to the member.

[SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

2 Section 7 is amended by adding the following subsections:

(3) If the term of office of the Auditor General is scheduled to expire, or the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly reasonably believes that term of office will otherwise end, after the next dissolution of the Legislative Assembly but before the expiry of the 120-day period following the next general voting day, the Legislative Assembly, on the unanimous recommendation of the committee, may appoint an acting Auditor General to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Auditor General beginning on the date the office is scheduled to becomes vacant and continuing until an appointment is made under section 2.

(4) If

(a) the term of office of the Auditor General is scheduled to expire, or the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly reasonably believes that term of office will otherwise end, after the next dissolution of the Legislative Assembly but before the expiry of the 120-day period following the next general voting day, and

(b) at any time in the 30-day period immediately before that dissolution the Legislative Assembly is not sitting,

    the committee, when the Legislative Assembly is not sitting in that 30-day period, may appoint, by unanimous resolution, an acting Auditor General to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Auditor General beginning on the date the office becomes vacant and continuing until an appointment is made under section 2.]

On the amendment.

B. Ralston: Well, my question is…. Perhaps the Chair can provide some guidance. What section are we dealing with at this point? If we're not dealing with section 7(3), is the proposed amended version now before us?

The Chair: We are dealing with the amendment.

B. Ralston: Okay, so then I'll direct my questions to the amendment.

The proposed amendment that's now before us adds the words: "or the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly reasonably believes that term of office will" — and then it goes on — "otherwise end…." Can the minister explain, given that this was very recently drafted, why this additional element was believed to be necessary?

Hon. M. de Jong: The objective was to create a mechanism, in the unique circumstances that now confront us where there is a belief — and now the House is informed — that there will be a vacancy at a time following the dissolution of the parliament, by which the House or a committee of the House could move prior to dissolution to select and appoint an acting Auditor General to take office at the time that vacancy occurs.

There is presently, under the act, no mechanism by which that can be accomplished, so that is the general purpose of the section. What was discovered between the time of printing of the bill and our discussion here today is that whilst the first part of the section provides this assembly with the authority to do that, it does not extend that right to a committee appointed by this assembly. In the circumstances that we are confronted by, it is likely to be the committee that will require the authority to unanimously select an acting Auditor General.

The missing piece, if you will, was ensuring for the committee, which I am hopeful we will be in a position to appoint shortly, and who will conduct their work and come to a unanimous recommendation around an acting Auditor General — who may not complete that work prior to adjournment of the assembly tomorrow but will, we hope, complete it prior to dissolution of the parliament — that there is a legal mechanism for them to conduct that work.

B. Ralston: Just to further explore the term "reasonably believe." That suggests to me that's to be left to the discretion of the Speaker either by direct communication with the incumbent of the office — the present Auditor General — or if there are other acts that would suggest that he or she is no longer able to carry out duties by reason of death or serious illness. Is that what is contemplated by the term "reasonably believes that term of office will otherwise end..."?

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe that's an accurate assessment and description. It certainly bestows that discretionary authority, if you will, in the hands of the Speaker.

B. Ralston: Looking to proposed subsection (4), that would give the Speaker the authorization to appoint a committee that would meet, and its powers would continue until dissolution of the Legislative Assembly in the 28 days before the general election. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: With one exception. I think the member said that it was the Speaker who had the authority to appoint the committee, and that is not the case. It remains the authority of this assembly to appoint the committee that would conduct that work.

[1505]

B. Ralston: So the sequence would be that the Speaker would form the reasonable belief. Then a committee would be formed by the Legislature, prior to the House rising or adjourning but before dissolution, with the power to continue to meet after the end of the session but prior to dissolution for the general election. Is that what's being addressed here?
[ Page 13558 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct.

B. Ralston: This power is to appoint the acting Auditor General, not the permanent Auditor General, obviously. I think that follows from the scheme here, but for greater clarity, I just want to put that question on the record.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is also correct.

B. Ralston: In the past there has been…. I recall an incident where an acting Auditor General was appointed by the committee outside of the sitting of the House. Other than this mechanism, that practice would be confined by this new legislation and the previous practice that existed in the previous section 7.

In other words, this would be the only avenue for appointing an acting Auditor General. Only in accordance with this proposed amendment would it be possible.

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't think that's correct. This subsection would apply in the unique circumstances that the member and I have been discussing, but the provisions of section 7(1) would remain available for the equally unique circumstances that they are designed to address.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm looking at existing subsection 7(1) and 7(2), and these are proposed amended subsections (3) and (4). So they are additions to the powers that are presently under subsection (1).

Can the minister then explain how section 2 would work when those circumstances would arise and in contradistinction to those in subsections (3) and (4)?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer is the existing sections speak to a situation in which there is a vacancy. The sections that we are purporting to add today, through our discussion, speak to a circumstance where there is an anticipated vacancy.

B. Ralston: The reference in subsection (1) and subsection (2) — the phrase is "the office is vacant." So that would be an accomplished fact. In other words, the existing holder of the office, she or he, would have by some mechanism said that they are not prospectively leaving the office, but they actually have left the office. Is that the distinction? Whereas in this subsection (3), as in the example of Mr. Doyle, he's given…. The Speaker announced that he is leaving office late in May. Is that the legislative gap that this amendment is designed to address?

Hon. M. de Jong: The gap — I think the member in his last statement captured it. The mechanism exists to appoint an acting Auditor General when there is, as a fact, a vacancy. The gap was the absence of legislative authority to appoint an acting Auditor General on an anticipatory basis when it is known that there will be a vacancy in the future.

[1510]

B. Simpson: I just want, for my own clarification on this, because we're speaking on the amendment…. This section that it is amending — I think what it's fixing is that trap that the committee had to refer to the Legislative Assembly. It was a unanimous decision of the committee, but it was referred to the Legislative Assembly.

This is supposed to be addressing a situation in which the Legislative Assembly actually doesn't meet to receive that unanimous recommendation. The intent of the amendment is to deal with that issue, because the clause that was in the original bill doesn't deal with that at all. It still traps you in making a referral to the Legislative Assembly to make the vote.

Just for the record, so that I am clear: is that really the substance of, the intention of the amendment — to fix the fact that the Legislative Assembly isn't meeting, and therefore, the committee must have the power to unanimously make that interim appointment?

Hon. M. de Jong: That is correct.

B. Simpson: I think that's great. That was the question I had for committee stage, because I didn't think that this was fixing anything. I think the amendment does do that.

I just want to be clear, again, on the issue of part (4)(a) that's now being added. There are two circumstances described in here. One, the Auditor General's position is scheduled to expire, and two, there's some circumstance in which the Speaker believes….

As we've already canvassed, something's happened. The particular sitting Auditor General is going to leave his or her position, and it's going to be in this window where the Legislative Assembly would not be able to act on a recommendation of a committee. So there are two circumstances where this may occur: either because of a scheduled expiry or because of some circumstance where the Auditor General's position is vacated in the same kind of window when the Legislative Assembly isn't sitting.

Again from the minister: is it really describing two different and distinct circumstances where this clause would then have to be used and a committee would be given the right to act on behalf of the full Legislative Assembly in that circumstance?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, this helps. In both cases we're talking about an anticipatory vacancy for which there is no authority today to deal with — none whatsoever. In both cases, however, in a situation where that arises and the House is not sitting, in the unique circumstances contemplated here leading up to dissolution, a committee would need to exist. Sometimes it can be the
[ Page 13559 ]
Public Accounts Committee.

I won't be coy with the member. What I am hopeful, if the House sees fit to endorse this, is to convene, after passage, a committee of selection for this specific purpose.

But in the circumstance where the House is not sitting, a committee could do the work authorized by these subsections if they have been charged with that task. Or in the case of Public Accounts, in some cases in the past it has been a standard part of their charging mechanism. But they would need to have the authority…. A committee would need to have the authority to act upon these provisions.

B. Simpson: The minister actually went to the third line of questioning I've got. There's another circumstance here, and it's because we have sessional committees.

[1515]

Because the committees actually have to be struck and charged by the Legislative Assembly, there's actually another potential situation here, where something happens in the window when the Legislative Assembly is not sitting and there isn't a committee struck to do that. The minister is pointing to the possibility of Public Accounts, which exists independent of the sitting of the Legislative Assembly, taking on that function.

Again, I think it may be a policy change or a standing orders change to give that emergent function to that one committee so that if you have a circumstance under…. The Speaker having the discretion.... If something has occurred and the Legislature isn't sitting and can't strike a committee, you still need to backstop the ability of an interim appointment somewhere. But I think that's a standing order change.

My question is on the scheduled to expire. We have fixed-date elections, and we're now switching to an eight-year, one term only. What would the circumstances be, then, if we adhered to fixed-term elections? If you look at it now, we're actually going to appoint an Auditor General for eight years sometime outside of what is the normative election window. Can it be taken into consideration, when the new Auditor General starts, that you actually stagger it so that this clause wouldn't be necessary — that eight years hence it would occur outside the election window? Could that be fixed simply by the next appointment being made at the discretion of the committee with a date that makes sure that those two don't align?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. Yes, I think that is clearly the case. From a practical point of view, one likes to think that that will happen — that an acting Auditor General will be appointed by this mechanism in this unique circumstance we find ourselves in, and thereafter the provision would be largely redundant because the next parliament will take upon itself the responsibility for finding and appointing a permanent Auditor General. I don't want to pretend. This provision is largely here to deal with the unique circumstances that we are confronted by today.

B. Simpson: I do think, as I've indicated, that this rewriting of section 2 addresses the circumstance better than the original bill. But I would make a recommendation to the Government House Leader.... We do have the Parliamentary Reform Committee that is struck and is meeting. There may be some advice to them to give us whatever modification to the standing orders so that, in the circumstance that this occurs and the Legislative Assembly has dissolved and we're into that window, that committee be given the power to address the issue of an interim Auditor General for that period.

With that, I thank the minister for the reasoned amendment. I think it's appropriate and fixes the problem in the bill.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:19 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 14 — AUDITOR GENERAL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Bill 14, Auditor General Amendment Act, 2013, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time, Minister?

Hon. M. de Jong: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — AUDITOR GENERAL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Bill 14, Auditor General Amendment Act, 2013, read a third time and passed.

[1520]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO APPOINT AN ACTING AUDITOR GENERAL

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the following. In this case I am going to read the motion into the record:

[That a Special Committee be appointed to unanimously appoint an Acting Auditor General pursuant to section 7 of the Auditor General Act to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Auditor General. The said Special Committee shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and in addition is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned; and

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

and the Chair shall report to the House as soon as possible, or deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, present the report to the House, or the Speaker may lay the report before the House in a new Parliament, as the case may be.

The said Special Committee shall be composed of the following Members: Douglas Horne (Convener), Colin Hansen, John Rustad, Kathy Corrigan and Bruce Ralston.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 8; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:22 p.m.

Hon. S. Bond: We have ministers arriving with their staff, so we're going to move through each of the groups of sections. We're ready to deal with sections 1 to 8.

On section 1.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to ask the minister why they're changing the language in section 1 of CFCSA — changing the words from "family violence" to "domestic violence"?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Thanks for the question. "Domestic violence" is being used as the language because unlike "family violence," it doesn't imply that the violence must occur between family members but instead more broadly to anyone that might be living with the child — so acknowledging that there could be harm to the child caused by violence between a mother and her boyfriend, for example.

C. Trevena: It seems like we might be niggling a little bit on semantics here, because you've gone from various pieces of language to describe violence in the home: from "wife abuse" now to this, through "family violence" to "domestic violence." The reason I raise it is that we've had concerns from the Society of Transition Houses about the fact that they perceive domestic violence to be a much narrower definition than family violence.

Again, are we talking just because it is now the current term that people are using, domestic violence, or is it a more specific reasoning?

[1525]

Hon. S. Cadieux: The provision has been drafted to capture violence committed by or directed towards a person with whom the child resides: violence between the child's parents, regardless of whether or not they live together; violence between a parent and non-parent, so therefore a girlfriend or a boyfriend of a parent; and violence between people with whom the child might reside but who may not necessarily be his or her parents — for example, the child's grandparents if, perhaps, they live there. So it is to capture a broader definition.

C. Trevena: If I might just read the concerns from the B.C. Society of Transition Houses, who are obviously very well-versed in their concerns about violence within the family home. They say: "The term 'domestic violence' does not capture the variable contexts of violence that occurs within the family." They state that "violence within families often escalates after women and children leave the family home."

Their concern is that you're still going to have violence there, that the children might still be at risk even though you're not actually within the four walls of the home and that "domestic violence" is looking at the place rather than at the greater body of the family.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you're meaning. I thought I just explained that in the last answer.

C. Trevena: I'm reading into the record the concerns from the B.C. Society of Transition Houses, who are concerned that it's not so much about the location, but it's more about the greater family. By using the term "domestic violence," there is the implication that you're talking about a location rather than the greater family. So the decision to shift the language, they fear, will shift the interpretation.
[ Page 13561 ]

Hon. S. Cadieux: For clarification — I wasn't clear before — "domestic violence" is proposed because, unlike "family violence," it does not imply that the violence must occur between the child's family members. Rather, "domestic violence" links the violence to the child's household, thereby acknowledging that potential harm is caused by violence between a mother and her boyfriend, who is not the child's father, as an example.

S. Hammell: I'm just trying to be very clear here. What you have done by moving from "family" to "domestic" is to broaden the examples of what violence can be caught in terms of protecting a child.

[1530]

So it's more than just violence between a nuclear family. You're now suggesting that by changing it to "domestic violence," you're including grandparents and extended family as well as relationships that may not be within a family context, such as someone who has a boyfriend. What you're saying by moving the definition is that you're broadening the violence that could be captured under this definition.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to know, if we could get on the record, why we are repeating subsection (1)(e) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act and replacing it with subsection (e), which adds the phrase "if the child is emotionally harmed by (i) the parent's conduct, or (ii) living in a situation where there is domestic violence by or towards a person with whom the child resides." I wonder if the minister could explain why this is being added.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The amendment here clarifies that harm to a child is likely to increase if the child is living with domestic violence by or towards a person with whom the child resides, even if the violence is not directed at the child. So the amendment responds to the Representative for Children and Youth's recommendation by addressing a situation where a child is exposed to domestic violence that is not necessarily directed at him or her.

Currently the Child, Family and Community Service Act requires that a child protection report be made, for example, if a child has been or is likely to be physically harmed by the parent or someone else and the parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child or is emotionally harmed by the parent's conduct. This is responding to that recommendation.

C. Trevena: If I might ask the minister…. There is already a duty, really, to be aware of and to report when a child is facing violence. I'm wondering: why this specific extension? Is it simply because this is what the representative recommended, or is there some other reason to strengthen this section at the moment?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Currently the director and delegated child protection workers can consider domestic violence when assessing whether or not a child needs protection. That can be for emotional reasons, but this is not necessarily always clear to staff.

This amendment provides greater clarity, and it acts on the Representative for Children and Youth's recommendation by empowering staff to conduct child protection investigations, if necessary, when a child is living in a situation where there might be or there is domestic violence.

C. Trevena: I wonder how it's going to make it any clearer for social workers. One would have thought that social workers could already perceive that there might be a risk to the child if that child is living in a situation where there is violence within the family.

[1535]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Just to clarify…. The amendment clarifies for social workers that a child could be emotionally harmed by the parent's conduct or by living in a situation where there is domestic violence. So it's just a clarification. It just adds clarification to the fact of how emotional harm may be made to the child.

C. Trevena: I was asking the minister, though, how social workers who are interacting with a child are going to recognize any greater harm. Is it going to be just an assumption? How are you going to ensure that the social workers recognize greater harm? I know that there has been talk of some training, but I haven't seen any commitment to that yet. So I'm wanting to know just if the minister is going to ensure, if this is going to be in the legislation, that it is acted upon.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The change in the language in the act clarifies emotional harm to the child or the potential of emotional harm to the child. The policy and training that then flow from that will further clarify for social workers when they need to intervene and how best to intervene with the family.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I'll come back to the question of training momentarily. I know that it's not actually specified here, but if the minister can indulge me and just give me a little bit of explanation on that.

I just wanted to talk about this specific change and the concerns that have been raised, as I mentioned. We have the B.C. Society of Transition Houses. They are specific-
[ Page 13562 ]
ally concerned that this change in legislation will require that when a mother is leaving the family home because of the situation of violence…. The amendment will bring with it the requirement for transition house workers to report on mothers returning to an abusive partner, which will change that relationship between the mothers going to the transition house and the workers there and could also undermine the mothers' willingness to go and basically try and leave the abusive relationship.

So I was wondering if the minister could clarify how this change in legislation will not do that — will strengthen the position, if that is the case. If that's not the case — because we've had concerns from the B.C. Society of Transition Houses and several other organizations — how will the minister mitigate against that risk?

[1540]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify, nothing is changing in terms of the requirements to report. Child safety is paramount. The CFCSA already requires that anyone who has reason to believe that a child has been or is likely to be abused, neglected or harmed, and that a parent is either unwilling or unable to protect that child, must report it. That isn't changing.

The amendment just clarifies that harm to the child is likely to increase when a child is living in a situation where there is domestic violence. What it does is allow for social workers to be aware sooner and be able to assist and provide support to the family sooner.

C. Trevena: If social workers are aware sooner it implies that…. Obviously, we have the duty to report. It does imply, then, that transition house workers will be reporting the situation and the families to the ministry when they leave. We already have that duty to report. What the minister is saying is that this will strengthen that, and therefore put an even stronger onus on the workers in transition houses to report than they already have — essentially, just that they're aware of this. Otherwise, I can't really see the purpose of adding this line.

Hon. S. Cadieux: No. To clarify, the duty to report stays the same. There's no change there. The clarification that's provided by the change in language in relation to "emotionally harmed" in section 13(1) provides additional clarity for social workers who are then required to assist and intervene with the family. It provides additional clarity for them in how to provide supports. It's not a change in a duty to report on behalf of transition houses or others.

C. Trevena: If I might raise the concern again. I've had a letter from the Caring for First Nations Children Society about this specific line. If I might just raise their concerns and read them into the record. What they say about this amendment is that it legislates historic and current practice.

"I'd argue it does little to achieve the intent of the recommendations with the Honouring RCY report — specifically, 13(e). Emotional harm is one of the most difficult sections to prove in court. One needs psychologists willing to testify that domestic violence resulted in emotional harm that is evident through the child's behaviours. It's very difficult to prove.

"Further, section 13(1.2), which is also included in this, is the route that's already taken, which doesn't add any extra protections."

While there may be all the will in the world to create the extra protections, there is really a concern that this extra line is not going to make children any safer. It's not going to make mothers any safer, and it's specifically not going to make children any safer by adding this. It could just add to some of the problems of social workers trying to deal with the issue.

[1545]

Hon. S. Cadieux: To clarify, the amendment is clarifying in what situations a child might be emotionally harmed. They could be harmed by a parent's conduct or living in a situation where there is domestic violence towards the person with whom the child resides. We know that the kinds of emotional abuse that can lead to emotional harm include threats — threats to harm or kill the mother, the children, relatives, parents or pets; threats of suicide or murder-suicide; threats of deportation; threats of removal or exclusion from an aboriginal band — or unpredictable behaviour.

There's a whole range of things that could lead to the emotional harm of a child and that we need to ensure and clarify that social workers understand they need to be aware of and acting on to protect the children.

C. Trevena: I've got one more quick question on this, and then I'll hand over to my colleague from Surrey–Green Timbers, who's got some more questions.

I just wondered if the minister could clarify. If we've got this expanded explanation on the duty to report, bearing in mind that we have the duty to report anyway…. An expanded explanation — so we're going to have, possibly, more reports of domestic violence, more reports where children are potentially at risk or, at least, children have witnessed an abusive relationship.

I wonder if the minister can explain how those reports are going to be dealt with, when we have seen a crisis in the Children Who Witness Abuse program and wait-lists in many communities for service through those programs.

[1550]

Hon. S. Cadieux: While there is certainly a recognition that this could increase the number of reports that need to be investigated or for staff to look into, ministry staff are going to evaluate and monitor the impact of the amendment. We expect that we will see families
[ Page 13563 ]
in need of support earlier in the process, which means we can provide better support services and less intrusive measures.

Ultimately, we want to enhance the children's safety and reduce the need for children to come into care. What we recognize is that we need to align our services and target our budget to our service delivery priorities, one of which is domestic violence.

C. Trevena: To the minister: how are you going to improve services? I mean, we have no money, no increased money in the budget.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Over the past two years we've been doing a lot of work in the ministry to shift our practice. We are shifting it significantly to working more collaboratively both with families and professionals to ensure the safety and well-being of children. The collaborative approach, such as family development response, has at its core joint planning and decision-making, including parents and community professionals, in ensuring the well-being of children.

When it comes to child safety, all measures that are less disruptive than the removal of children are always explored and preferred. Effective ways and services to protect children are made with a goal of developing family and community capacity to safely care for children. There are always demands, and certainly, I understand from the sector the concerns with implementing change. We are working with the sector in terms of ensuring that there is adequate and significant joint training provided to make sure everyone is comfortable.

S. Hammell: I'd like to touch bases around the collaborative or consultative approach, which I think is great. In this circumstance, did you consult with the B.C. Society of Transition Houses before this change was made?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, absolutely. We have committed to working with the anti-violence sector and consulted with the anti-violence sector — victim services, violence-against-women programs and transition house programs. We are continuing to do that to develop and provide the joint training required regarding the amendments and the unique risk factors that are present in domestic violence circumstances when there are children in the home. As well, we did consult, of course, with the Representative for Children and Youth on these amendments.

S. Hammell: So, Minister, you did consult with the B.C. Society of Transition Houses? So could I ask a couple of others? Did you consult with the Ending Violence Association, and did you also consult with the academics in the community, such as academics from social work faculties at UBC or SFU or Victoria?

[1555]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes, we did consult with EVA. We are aware of their ongoing concerns, and we're committed to working with them. As well, there was a cross-Canada interjurisdictional lit review of best practices in relation to this area.

S. Hammell: To the minister, I am asking if you also consulted organizations that are comprised from the aboriginal community.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes. In addition to the women-serving groups already mentioned, we also consulted with the treaty First Nations — Yale and Nisga'a — the Representative for Children and Youth and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

S. Hammell: May I ask if the consensus of those people that you have consulted with is viewed in the same way we view them? In general, there seems to be a great lack of alarm. People are alarmed and concerned about this particular amendment. Have you received that same information?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The treaty First Nations had no concerns with the proposed legislation. I am aware of the concerns raised by the other groups around the language. But certainly, I also understand that they are also very supportive of the intent to protect children and understand the intent of the legislation.

We are committed to working with the groups moving forward. We have a plan in place to do that, to work with them on how we move through with the joint training and involve them in that fully. The amendments regarding the domestic violence will come into force at a later date, once all of that training and consultation has been completed.

S. Hammell: If I am understanding you correctly, you do expect an increase in the number of children that are removed from their homes because of this amendment. Do you see that that further reporting or further work in terms of the consequence of this amendment…? Do you see any of them coming through the Transition House Society workers?

[1600]

Hon. S. Cadieux: There is not an expectation that this will result in more children being taken into care. What we expect is that there may be additional reporting of potential situations where supports need to be provided to families at an earlier time. We hope that will be an improvement, where we can work with the family and provide less intrusive measures to support and enhance children's safety.

When it comes to child safety, as I said before, less disruptive measures than removal for protecting the child
[ Page 13564 ]
are always explored and preferred. Effective ways and services to protect the children are made with the goal of developing that family and community capacity to protect the children.

S. Hammell: For me to be clear, then, are you saying that the discretion for reporting will remain unchanged?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The duty to report has not changed in any way.

S. Hammell: One last question. I have to assume that this is always taken into consideration. I do think there is, obviously, significant emotional harm to a child if the child is removed from their family or from their mother.

[D. Black in the chair.]

What the transition houses have stated, or the concern that they're raising is that they are worried that women will not come to the transition houses if there's a greater possibility of their children being removed. Can you sort of give assurances that that is not the intent or the direction in which this bill is going at all?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I am, as I said, well aware of concerns. I have asked the staff who are with me here today — Doug Hughes, the provincial director of child welfare, and Cory Heavener, the provincial director of domestic violence — to meet with them all in person at the earliest possible date to both discuss their concerns further — we've had discussions prior, but to continue those discussions — and how we address those concerns in planning for the joint training that we intend to do.

I want to confirm that we are committed to working with the sector to develop that joint training regarding the amendments and the unique risk factors that are present in domestic violence circumstances, and to reviewing and revising chapter 3 of the child protection response policies to ensure that they're consistent with best-practice approaches for child protection and violence against women.

The best-practice approaches were developed by government and the anti-violence sector together in an integrated response, and we wish to keep it that way.

C. Trevena: I wanted to pick up very briefly on the question of training. The minister says there will be — I believe she said — "adequate training." Although we've had the two representative's reports about domestic violence published for some time, this section will not come into effect until there has been training.

[1605]

I really wanted to clarify from the minister how this training will be effected, since there are no new funds anywhere for anti-violence training. In fact, I know of some social workers who tried to do anti-violence training and were told that they couldn't do it because there was no money available for them.

I wanted, second, assurances — assuming the money is somewhere in a budget line that has not been identified by anyone, but it is there — that it won't be simply an on-line training course, as the integrated case management, but it will be full and effective training.

Hon. S. Cadieux: MCFD has training in its budget. We are targeting all of our efforts this year to our service delivery priorities. One of those key priorities is our domestic violence training. I'm confident that that joint training can be accomplished by that alignment as well.

We have the provincial office of domestic violence, which has authority to ensure that training in other areas of government where related is also targeted to our priority in this area. We are absolutely committed to the on-line training that exists that was developed in collaboration with the anti-violence sector.

As well, beginning in the fall the MCFD social workers and delegated aboriginal agency child protection workers will receive two days of in-person training to focus on the best-practice approaches when responding to domestic violence and intervening in child welfare circumstances. We are committed to joint in-person training with the anti-violence sector as well — victim services, violence against women, transition house programs and community partners.

N. Simons: I was giving a tour, so I'm a little bit late. I learned a lot about this building.

Would not specifically including…? Wouldn't social workers, because of standards and because of the risk assessments, already conclude that…. If there is family violence or domestic violence, would that already be something considered by social workers? I'm wondering specifically if this is adding a new category or if it's just being more specific about an existing category of emotional harm.

Hon. S. Cadieux: It is indeed just being more specific, creating more clarity.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

C. Trevena: I wondered if the minister could explain for the record what the purpose is of adding the sections outlined in section 16.

[1610]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, currently the director and delegated child protection workers can consider domestic violence when assessing whether or not a child needs
[ Page 13565 ]
protection. This is not always clear, and the amendment will provide greater clarity and act on the representative's recommendation by empowering staff to conduct child protection investigations, if necessary, when a child is living in a situation of domestic violence.

C. Trevena: If I might just ask the minister about "where necessary." I think that the concern is, again from what we were discussing in a previous section, the greater scrutiny that is going to be imposed here. I just wonder if the minister can describe what she means by "where necessary."

Hon. S. Cadieux: The purpose of the amendment is strictly to clarify that the likelihood of physical harm to a child increases if the child is living in a situation where there is domestic violence towards a person with whom that child resides.

N. Simons: Can the minister provide some clarification as to what the possible results of an assessment are under the amendment? I'm just trying to get clarity as to whether or not this really changes anything in the practice of a social worker. Will social workers notice the change in legislation?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This amendment provides the legal authority for the director to conduct assessments of a child's safety and the family's strengths and needs when an investigation isn't required, but it doesn't significantly change the practice.

N. Simons: Previously…. Am I, perhaps, wrong? My understanding was that if a social worker was referred a case, an investigation — at least, in the most recent iteration of child protection practice — automatically commenced. Now it seems like we're going back to an assessment process that will then determine whether to investigate.

What are the differences between doing an assessment — in other words, finding out what the circumstances of the child are, the circumstances of the parent, background checks and collateral checks…? How is an assessment, if it's thorough, different from an investigation that may just conclude early if in fact no further actions are necessary?

[1615]

Hon. S. Cadieux: This amendment cleans up the act to match practice that has evolved over time. It further enhances the ministry's ability to protect children, giving the director authority to conduct an assessment of the safety and the family's strength and needs when an investigation is not required.

It enables the director to continue with a more collaborative approach to child protection, our family development response and our structured process there — which has evolved, again, over years of practice, is supported by research and has resulted in fewer children having to be taken into care.

N. Simons: That premise is probably very insupportable but nicely said. I don't think you could possibly say that because you're going to do a different kind of investigation, all of a sudden your results are going to be different. If you're doing an assessment, you're essentially doing a small investigation, and you would start with an investigation anyway. I don't really understand.

I might be misreading this, but this seems like a fundamental change in the practice of social work in terms of how you record what calls come in, how you record what kind of evidence is presented.

In the old days you could say: "No further action required." You did an assessment, and you said: "No further action required." Now you have a response. It's an immediate response or a delayed response. But I don't quite see how….

Ostensibly, if you are doing an investigation, you still want a strength-based response based on best practice, and you want to be supporting the family. I don't know how you ask the questions, how deep the questions go, how many people you ask. Are we just doing a cursory investigation? Is that what an assessment is?

[1620]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, the changes here support the current practice, which is a structured process to work with the families that results in a safety plan for the family and the child. That then allows us to offer the supports required for that family so that we are not in a situation where a child needs to be brought into care.

N. Simons: That helps. Thank you. I appreciate that response.

I'm just wondering. I'm presuming that a family service file will be opened despite not having conducted an investigation. The services will be provided. Is there any sort of…? You can get to a family case conference coordinator — after a significant wait, I might add — whether or not it's an assessment or an investigation. It could be the conclusion of an assessment, or it could be the conclusion of an investigation — that you send the family on to a family case conference. Am I correct in that?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Okay, so trying to be clear. Yes, you get a report. You'll do an assessment and determine whether or not it should go to an investigation or a further family assessment, at which point you get a safety plan. Either way, you get a safety plan and services.

N. Simons: So even a family that has not had an in-
[ Page 13566 ]
vestigation concluded on their family might be required to have a safety plan. Even if there's no finding of a child in need of protection, they could still have a safety plan and they would still be referred to a family conference coordinator. Am I correct?

Hon. S. Cadieux: No. Sorry if I'm not being clear.

When the initial assessment is done, the decision may be to refer to a community agency and not to refer further. This amendment allows us to then, if further investigation is required, decide whether that is an investigation or a family development practice model.

[1625]

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

C. Trevena: I just wondered, again, if the minister can give a bit of clarity about why this is being put into the act and what the implications of it are going to be.

Hon. S. Cadieux: This amendment is to restore the Information and Privacy Commissioner's authority to review directors' decisions related to information access and disclosure. This was inadvertently removed in 2006, making the director one of the public bodies that is not subject to those reviews, and we are fixing that.

C. Trevena: That's good news, Minister.

Just to speed up the process…. I know we are talking about a miscellaneous bill. The following sections are all referring to that. Sections 6 and 7 put that into effect, then.

The Chair: Member, could you repeat the question for the minister, please?

C. Trevena: Just to speed up the process here, because I know we have a number of other ministries involved…. Sections 6 and 7 are just purely related to the same issue of getting the Privacy Commissioner back.

The Chair: Member, we haven't passed section 5 yet.

C. Trevena: I realize that. If I may beg indulgence here, just so we can speed up the process — that 5, 6 and 7 are all part of the same issue.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Yes.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

C. Trevena: I just wondered, again…. This is on intervention in the Family Law Act proceedings. We just got the Family Law Act very recently. I'm wondering if this was something that was excluded from the Family Law Act, or is it necessarily a change to the CFCSA because of the Family Law Act?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This is because the Family Law Act is new, so this addition is necessary.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

The Chair: We're changing ministers.

Are you ready, Minister?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm always ready.

C. Trevena: My question to the minister on section 9. This is to allow each school board to establish, according to the note, "in accordance with specified requirements, a policy promoting the use by licensed child care providers of board-owned land or improvements in the board's school district that are or have been used…."

The Chair: Member, could you just take your seat for a minute while the minister's staff comes in? Thank you.

[1630]

C. Trevena: The minister is now ready with staff, and eagerness, here.

Section 9, amending the School Act. The explanatory note says that this "requires each school board to establish, in accordance with specified requirements, a policy promoting the use by licensed child care providers of board-owned land or improvements in the board's school district that are or have been used, or are intended for use, for educational activities."

I just wanted to ask the minister why we have this amendment since school boards can already take this action.

Hon. D. McRae: This amendment is not making districts…. We're not forcing child care facilities into districts, but we're asking them to consider. As well, of the 60 school districts in British Columbia, currently six, for various reasons, do not have child care facilities within them.

However, the member opposite is correct. Many districts do promote the idea of having child care facilities inside of them, and because some of our schools actually have spaces available, both inside the actual structures or perhaps some real estate, there's an opportunity here to make sure that families have access to more reasonably priced child care facilities close to home and perhaps close to where other children are already attending.
[ Page 13567 ]

Madam Speaker, if I may, I just recognized a group of students that I see above us in the Legislature. I had the opportunity with the MLA for Alberni–Pacific Rim to visit them earlier.

I just wanted to say welcome, students, to the Legislature. You are very gracious visitors. I'm glad to see you were able to come into the House.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to establish what the limits of this section are. In other words, when the board must establish a policy promoting the use of board property, I just want to ensure that this does not in any way force or in any way preclude. For example, if a district is renting out a school for other purposes, this would not in any way, when that agreement reaches the end of its life, require that board to change its practice and force it to have child care in that facility. Is that correct?

Hon. D. McRae: Correct.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

J. Horgan: Can the minister explain why the Clean Energy Act is being amended to strike out 30 months and substitute 38 months?

Hon. R. Coleman: The amendment to the Clean Energy Act implements the previously announced extension of B.C. Hydro's integrated resource plan to August 3, 2013. Originally in the act, it was 30 months after the implementation of the act in June of 2010, which would have taken it to the end of December 2012.

As we were going through the discussions with liquefied natural gas proponents and looking at that, the request was made, through government and also through Hydro, if we could have an extension to provide a greater degree of certainty of the future of the integrated resource plan. We are in the middle of planning, when we're starting to find now what power sources and what these organizations who are in negotiations with us are going to want and what electricity they think they're going to use. That's going to affect the outcome of the plan, so that's why we gave them an extension.

J. Horgan: When was the last time that there was an integrated resource plan for B.C. Hydro?

[1635]

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't have the people here that can answer that question, so I'll have to get the information for you.

J. Horgan: It's a relevant question, because we had a 30-month window in 2010. As the minister will know, the mandate of a government is four years, and that is over half of the mandate to figure out how we're going to run the most important Crown corporation in British Columbia. In that 2½ years the government wasn't able to put together a coherent plan, and now they've asked for eight more months.

It would be appropriate, I think, for the minister to have some sense of when the last time was over the past 12 years, when his government has been on watch, that B.C. Hydro had a coherent energy resource plan.

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have Hydro staff here for one section of the act. They didn't bring them over from Vancouver today. I will get you the information.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that the minister would be beholden to his staff for an issue like this, but it is a one-line amendment. It involves pushing out significant issues about B.C. Hydro beyond the next election campaign.

In 2010 — two Premiers ago, or 1½ Premiers ago — we had a plan that was supposed to revolutionize energy in British Columbia, particularly electricity, and now here we are on the eve of an election pushing any coherent planning about B.C. Hydro and its resource stack beyond the next election. How does that give any comfort to the public that this government has control of B.C. Hydro?

Hon. R. Coleman: Rather than rise to the rhetoric of the critic opposite, the reality is this. When the Clean Energy Act came into place, there was a 30-month window for an integrated resource plan. At that time we were at the very early cusp of having discussions around liquefied natural gas. As a result of coming through the extensive work that's been done by the ministry on liquefied natural gas — the power sources that may be required there, the five new mines, which it appears are already going to be approved within this last year, and the expansions that we're doing — it seemed prudent to me, in discussions with B.C. Hydro and with my staff, to give them enough time to take a little bit longer look at what their power needs might be, simply because we're in a very movable area at the moment.

We will expect to hear from maybe two or three of the major proponents in the next 60 days what they think their power needs are going to be. They're all in negotiations now with B.C. Hydro and with government. To go right into an integrated resource plan for the end of December, when I knew that was going to be changing over the next few months…. It seemed like a prudent decision to me.

J. Horgan: Did B.C. Hydro request the extension, or did the minister direct the extension?

Hon. R. Coleman: They requested it.
[ Page 13568 ]

J. Horgan: Did they request that in writing, or was it verbal?

Hon. R. Coleman: I attend regular quarterly Hydro meetings. I don't know if it was given to me in writing or the request was made at a board meeting. But the request did come from B.C. Hydro.

J. Horgan: During this 30-month period, B.C. Hydro did put forward a load-demand balance, a series of numbers, to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act with respect to Site C. It demonstrated that currently, in this fiscal, Hydro is projecting a 5,000-gigawatt-hour surplus of energy.

[1640]

Certainly, when you have that much energy around, it strikes me that you would be able to make some significant decisions around planning for the future. It would have been appropriate, with that amount of surplus energy this year, next year and the year after that, for the government of British Columbia and B.C. Hydro to be frank with the people of B.C. and demonstrate to them that they had some understanding of what our needs are today and into the future.

Hon. R. Coleman: This isn't going to be an estimates debate. This is about one section. But I will answer the member's question.

We do know that there's been some demand declining. At the same time, that's why the IRP was looked at, because we know that there's going to be some significant load changes with regards to liquefied natural gas.

I know that the members opposite don't hold out the same optimistic outlook that I do with regards to LNG. However, having more detailed discussions at a much higher level, I do know how real I think this is going to be. I felt it was important to give Hydro, upon request, the opportunity to have an integrated resource plan that made sense. You can't do that if you've got a whole bunch more industrial load coming at you. So why isn't it prudent to take the time to do it right?

J. Horgan: I don't disagree with the minister that we should take the time to do it right, but you've had 12 years to get it right, and clearly, that's not working. We have, in the dying days of the government, an amendment to enact that was supposed to revolutionize the electricity sector here in British Columbia that's pushing out 2½ years beyond what had been expected.

During that period of time we've also had a rate application hearing cancelled. Save and except for a couple of documents in a stack that was sent to Ottawa, the public has no idea what the heck's going on at B.C. Hydro.

I'm quite prepared to allow this section to pass, seeing as December 30 is a couple of months gone already, but it just strikes me as irresponsible to leave this to the 11th hour. We could have been sitting here in the fall. We could have addressed this issue in the fall. It's now March, and the minister is here asking for an eight-month extension, four months into that eight-month extension.

Hon. R. Coleman: When the Clean Energy Act was passed in 2010, there was a 30-month window for an integrated resource plan in legislation. That would have taken us to December 2, 2012.

Coming through the fall and looking at what was coming at us, the decision was made that Hydro needed more time to actually do this integrated resource plan properly. They asked for eight months. I as the minister said yes. This is the legislative thing that allows for that decision to go forward.

I understand that the member wants to get into a debate about power here today, but the fact of the matter is that there are at the minimum five, but actually 11, companies in different areas of B.C., including smaller communities like Campbell River and Squamish on brownfield sites, as well as in Kitimat, Rupert and north in Grassy Point, which are all looking at liquefied natural gas.

Their decision on how they will do their electricity is being done now in negotiations and discussions. I felt that it was important to have as much of that nailed down as you move forward to finish the integrated resource plan. That's what Hydro asked for, and I agreed with them. That's why this is here today.

J. Horgan: My last question would be that if there were board minutes or any correspondence to the minister requesting this eight-month extension, I would like to see that.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have no problem with that. I mean, it could have come through my deputy, it could have come through the chair, or it could have come from the CEO. I will look. But I do know that the request was made, and I granted it.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

[1645]

M. Karagianis: I recognize that the sections here following are directly related to the issue that occurred with the Belfry Theatre and other charitable organizations who found themselves inadvertently running afoul of the law by auctioning off alcoholic beverages that had been donated to them, a practice that they had carried on for many, many years, and suddenly found themselves breaking the law here last fall. I would like to ask a couple of questions, if I may.

Under section 11 it does say here in the definitions
[ Page 13569 ]
that "'charitable fundraiser' means an organization, incorporated or unincorporated, in a prescribed class of non-profit organizations," and then subsequently, "'charitable representative' means an individual in a prescribed relationship to an unincorporated charitable fundraiser."

Can the minister explain — because, of course, this prescribed list is fairly critical — who does government foresee being on that prescribed list, and what consultation was done in order to compile that prescribed list?

Hon. R. Coleman: They're not prescribed yet, because we haven't done the consultation on that yet. When we pass the act and when we're doing the regulations, we will have consultation with the charities with regards to the prescribed list.

Basically, our anticipation would be registered charities that would be able to issue tax receipts, charities that are basically non-profits under the Society Act, non-profits with a charitable purpose but not necessarily under the charities act, and charitable purpose groups and those people that would be associated with them.

This came out of an act that had been existing on the books of government probably for 50 years or more. An inspector who had read all of the rules relative to liquor knew, went into a particular theatre that had been doing charitable auctions for years in Victoria and basically shut it down from the ability to do this. What we did quickly is go to draw the act up, and then the regulations we'll prescribe by consultation.

M. Karagianis: Will political parties qualify under that list?

Hon. R. Coleman: That was considered, and no they will not.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

M. Karagianis: Of course, in any of these changes in legislation and those that are obviously triggered by regulation, those regulations are pretty significant. This particular section establishes the permit scheme for authorizing liquor auctions. The threshold is to be established by regulation. At what stage is a permit required?

Hon. R. Coleman: Believe you me, hon. Member, that has been a very live and interesting discussion. It will be prescribed in consultation, as we do the regs, by the general manager. Basically, we think probably somewhere around the level of a case of wine would probably be exempt in an auction like a silent auction, that sort of thing, and we're going to get to that level.

It was a very interesting debate, because it went back and forth. I said: "Well, we're going to have to get the act done, so we'll figure this out through regulation to get down to what is practical, on the relationship with the charities, to what will work for them." We didn't get into that prescription in the legislation. I know under liquor that the last thing you want to do is to have to go back and keep amending legislation. What you'd like to do is get to where you can get to regulatory processes and policy.

Otherwise, if you sort of miss a tweak here or there, you end up having somebody else having a similar situation as this theatre did. Rather than that, we felt it was important to have the flexibility in the regulations.

We will meet with the organizations, figure out what will work and what their normal fundraising envelopes are, and establish those rules.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

[1650]

M. Karagianis: Much as I asked in the last section, the threshold here is going to be established by regulation — again, very key to this issue. At what stage is a permit required in regard to this section?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's, where I tried to describe earlier, like the case of wine. Anything above that would be…. This is really to catch where we don't really want to be running around permitting gift baskets with wine and cheese and what have you in them, which is what we ran into once. It was because the old law was pretty prescriptive. It didn't allow for any flexibility. This says we can exempt out those smaller quantities and not have to have them involved in a permitting process at all.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

M. Karagianis: Really, capturing the previous two sections, my last question applies, kind of generally, to all of these. Privately donated wine is not explicitly considered in these amendments, although privately donated wine tends to be the most common item that is auctioned by arts organizations or other event providers, especially when it comes to, perhaps, more rare or vintage quality products — not necessarily always something that is stocked currently by the Liquor Distribution Branch.

There, I guess, is a consideration or a promise to the industry that privately donated wines and others would be clarified by regulation. Much as the two previous questions, can the minister tell me exactly when that regulation will be put in place? How is that going to be clarified?

Given the fact that this problem arose for, in particular, the Belfry Theatre some months ago…. Certainly, I would say over the last ensuing months a number of or-
[ Page 13570 ]
ganizations have really been put into a state of suspended animation. No one has been able to continue to take advantage of these kinds of auctions and raise funding at a time when we know arts organizations and other non-profit and charitable organizations are very pinched for funding.

When are the regulations going to be established? What assurance do these organizations have on this? Do you have a timeline for when this clarity will be done?

You've talked in the previous sections about consultation and regulation being done in concert with these organizations, but it seems to me a long stretch of time has occurred where organizations are unable to raise funds. Certainly, I think it's probably put a bit of a quash on donations, especially those very valued kinds of donations from patrons.

Can the minister assure me exactly the timeline on this process? How much assurance can he give us at this point on what's going to occur?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, this took time not because it…. If this was a regulatory process, it would have been done probably within 30 to 45 days after we found out about the problem. This is a legislative problem, so we actually have to come in and get rid of it in the law, because the way that the enforcement is under liquor, if it's prescribed, it's prescribed, and it has to be enforced. This is giving us the flexibility to do it.

We've already started the drafting instructions on most of this, and we've already started to talk to organizations. All the regs, we would expect, would be ready for an order-in-council, probably shortly after the provincial election in May. Obviously, they won't be in the interregnum period during the writ. There won't be any meetings of cabinet in order to do this.

This section that we're on right now actually does a number of things as well, though. It does clarify a number of other issues we had out there before, where a manufacturer had trouble donating liquor to charities. Now we've said they can do that as long as the liquor came through the LDB and we've received our taxes. They would be able to do that. So that makes it clear. They can purchase it as well. Those sorts of things that charities asked us to also look at, at the same time as we did this act. So we fixed all that as well.

M. Karagianis: Can the minister please just address the issue, then, of privately donated wine or vintage or rare products that have not been stocked on the shelf? What are the circumstances going to be for those items?

[1655]

Hon. R. Coleman: Good clarification. This allows for that. It was never allowed before. So a vintage — if somebody wants to donate it to a wine auction, they can do that if it's from their own stock, that sort of thing. This also clarifies that manufacturers or agents of manufacturers can also donate, but they're governed under the manufacturer's licence, and they have to pay the tax on the liquor before they can actually donate it.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:56 p.m. to 5 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

On section 17.

M. Sather: This section is on amendments to the Integrated Pest Management Act and has to do with the regulation and use of pesticides.

The minister will be very aware that there was a committee struck to look at the advisability of having a comprehensive ban on cosmetic pesticides in the province. There were widespread consultations before the committee met, and during the period when the committee met there were over 8,000 responses from the public, which is a record for parliamentary committees in this province. The overwhelming majority of those respondents were in favour of a ban on cosmetic pesticides.

Can the minister explain why his government, receiving all that feedback from the public, failed to implement a ban, such as seven other provinces in Canada have?

Hon. T. Lake: I'd like to thank my staff for being here with me on this section of the bill. I have Jim Standen, who's our assistant deputy minister for the environmental protection division, and Daphne Dolhaine, who's the manager of integrated pest management programs.

We do appreciate the good work of the committee. It was a very involved process, as the member recognizes, a lot of input — in fact, as he mentions, a record number of responses. The committee also did a lot of work looking at the method now to approve pesticides in Canada through the pest management regulation and found that in fact the method used to evaluate pesticides was based on scientific understanding of the effects of the pesticides, both on people and the environment.

Whereas a lot of people had expressed a desire to see a ban on cosmetic pesticides, the committee came to a different conclusion. I think that's the difference between a consultative process and simply asking for a show of hands. This was more than just a show of hands. This was a deep investigation into the systems of approving pesticides in Canada and the way pesticides are used in the province of British Columbia. The conclusion of the committee was that there was in fact a need for more education and more controls on the use of pesticides in British Columbia.

That is why we are here today looking to implement
[ Page 13571 ]
a system whereby pesticides that are used — the vast majority of pesticides that we consider cosmetic use in the homeowner situation — be limited to those who are trained and licensed to use those chemicals.

M. Sather: Was the Ministry of Environment not aware of the regulatory process with Health Canada? And did they decide that there had been substantial differences, I guess, over a short period of time? Wouldn't the ministry have been aware of how Health Canada regulates pesticides?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, of course the ministry is very well aware. But these sorts of consultation exercises are about information-gathering and also disseminating information and increasing awareness among the general public about the way government works. This was a really good tool, I think, to educate many people about the way pesticides are approved and regulated in Canada. But, certainly, our ministry works very closely with Health Canada and with the agencies that are responsible for regulating pesticides.

[1705]

M. Sather: The minister is well aware that the Premier, when she was a leadership hopeful, had expressed very strongly her support for a ban on cosmetic pesticides. I'm wondering, in light of that: did the minister have any direction to the amendments that are made in this bill?

The Chair: Could you repeat the latter part of your question, please?

M. Sather: I asked the minister: given the statements that the Premier has made on this subject of a comprehensive ban on cosmetic pesticides, did she give any direction to the amendments that are made on the bill? Did she have input into it?

Hon. T. Lake: Of course, as a member of the executive council she would have had input into legislative changes, as all members of the executive council do. I think what the member is referring to is a position that was taken at one point in time.

An extensive public consultation was done, including, as the member indicates, a lot of input from the public, but also input from scientists with Health Canada, scientists with the PMRA. The conclusions of that committee were different from the opinions of various people beforehand. I would say, I guess, that it's not unusual for positions to change based on information that occurs subsequently.

M. Sather: Well, I won't belabour the point, but I think it needs to be read into the record at committee stage just what the Premier did say on the subject. This is what 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."

Interjection.

M. Sather: Yeah. Hear, hear. It would have to have been a tremendous conversion on the road, I guess, for the Premier to come from that very strong pro position into the one that was subsequently taken.

I wanted to go on and ask the minister more on the operations of the new regulations, the new legislation. Which pesticides will now require a licensed applicator?

Hon. T. Lake: I suppose conversion is something that happens commonly in this House. As I remember, the job-killing gas tax was going to devastate the B.C. economy in 2009. Turns out, members opposite support the revenue-neutral carbon tax — a wonderful policy held up around the world. I guess I take the member's point, but we'll point out the obvious to him: that positions change based on information.

Currently, under the Integrated Pest Management Act, if you are applying cosmetic or chemical pesticides to a multifamily residence, you need to be a licensed applicator or working under the supervision of a licensed applicator. Essentially, what this regulatory change will do — at least as we envision it at this point; the regulations are still to be developed — is to extend that to the private homeowner, the single-family dwelling and, in fact, tighten it up a little bit so that every person that is applying pesticides would be fully trained and licensed to apply those pesticides.

As for a child playing on a lawn that has pesticides applied to it, by putting the application in the hands of a licensed applicator, there would be, of course, notification of the fact that a pesticide had been applied. That would provide the assurance that children should not be on that particular space right after application.

[1710]

There will be a list developed, similar to Ontario's, where what are considered low-impact pesticides, the naturally occurring pesticides, will be available to the homeowner for use. As I said, that's been developed in provinces like Ontario and Quebec, and we see a similar list being developed here so that there would be some tools available to homeowners without having to be licensed.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for that information. So there's going to be a list developed. Can the minister give any indication of these low-impact pesticides that will still be available for use? I take it that's
[ Page 13572 ]
without a licensed applicator. What sorts of pesticides would those be?

Hon. T. Lake: The list in Ontario includes things like acetic acid, or common vinegar; also corn gluten meal. There are some microbial forms, like Btk, which are considered very low impact and would be considered the natural types of pesticides. That would be a similar type of list, and those would be some examples.

M. Sather: Now, the minister talked about developing a list, so just what parameters or what methodology…? How will the minister go about developing this list? The pest management regulatory agency in Ottawa has their mechanism of their methodology for doing this, and they seem to have, as I understand it, some different classifications than we have. Will the minister and his ministry be working with the pest management regulatory agency, or just how will he go about developing this list?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, there are, as I mentioned, some examples — other provinces that have developed these lists. Those include things like pesticides that may be components of human food — I mentioned acetic acid — pesticides that are bacteria, fungi or their metabolites, like Bacillus thuringiensis, the Btk; pesticides that are familiar and/or naturally occurring products, iron compounds like ferric phosphate, ferric sulphate, ferrous sodium; and insecticides related to natural pyrethrins. These are the components of chrysanthemums that have a pesticide effect.

That's closely related to Ontario and Nova Scotia. As the member indicates, if we were to follow the PRMA, the pest management regulating agency, then we would, of course…. That is the situation today. The member seems to think that that regulatory agency is approving pesticides that are dangerous, so we certainly wouldn't go back to them to create the list. We are creating a list based on what has been done in other provinces that are looking at very low impact. Obviously, if you can consume it yourself, then by extension, you would consider it safe to put on your lawn.

M. Sather: So there are going to be restrictions on some pesticides in terms of their application. Why, then, are there not going to be any restrictions on the sale of these pesticides?

[1715]

Hon. T. Lake: That is certainly always an option under moving this to a regulatory approach. However, at this time the committee did not recommend a ban on the sale. Also, these regulations will be developed insomuch that First Nation communities and local governments can actually opt out, so we're providing flexibility in this regulation. Having a broad-based ban on sale wouldn't give us that same flexibility. We are looking at the use of the pesticide rather than the sale.

M. Sather: So how much is going to change? If a person wants to apply a pesticide in their community to their lawn, they can go down to the store and they can buy it as long as they promise not to use it themselves. Isn't this going to be confusing to consumers and retailers?

Hon. T. Lake: I can go to Canadian Tire right now and buy a firearm and use it, but I'm not allowed to do it unless it's in a safe and legal manner. That's true for the vast majority of the laws and bylaws we have in Canada. The fact is that 85 percent of people or more in Canada are law-abiding. Like many bylaws and laws in our country, they are enforced on a complaint basis. If someone were to be applying pesticides and a neighbour were to complain, then an investigation would occur.

Obviously, we want to educate people first before we use the enforcement tools that would be made available to us. But I think that as the world moves in this direction, we will see that the retailers — in fact, we're seeing it now — are pulling back more and more of these so-called cosmetic pesticides. In fact, the supply that is available is becoming lower and lower.

M. Sather: I don't know if I caught the minister right, saying you don't require any kind of licence to get a firearm, but of course you do. You do have to register your gun. A lot of people don't think that, now that they've changed things federally, but you still do.

Anyway, on the subject at hand. Is it the case, then, that I as a consumer or someone as a consumer…? They go down to their store, and the retailer doesn't have to ask them if they have a licence to use it, but they have to inform the consumer that they are supposed to have a licence if they're going to use it. Is that how it works?

Hon. T. Lake: One of the recommendations coming out of the report of the committee was, in fact, to look to the vendors to help educate consumers on the pesticides and on the use of pesticides. We certainly have the ability through regulation to require vendor licensees selling pesticides to ensure that a certified dispenser advises each purchaser about the municipal bylaws and provincial regulations. We have that ability to require that of retailers.

M. Sather: Well, we heard at the committee from the Ministry of Environment officials who came to give testimony to us that they do very few audits, in fact, of retailers that are dispensing pesticides and that the compliance rate is, in fact, pretty low. In addition to that, many stores don't have the staff that are trained or available to advise shoppers correctly.

If this is the current state of affairs — the minister lay-
[ Page 13573 ]
ering on more complexity for retailers who don't even follow the current requirements — how can the public have much confidence that this methodology that the government is using, that the minister is suggesting, will actually work?

Hon. T. Lake: In fact, we're making it pretty simple for retailers. For any pesticide other than the exempt list that will be created — for any other pesticide — you will need a licence.

[1720]

It's not an obligation to talk to the purchaser and make sure they understand the label directions and go through the whole educational regime with the purchaser. They will have to have a licence and show that they have been trained, educated and licensed to use that pesticide. So we're actually making it simpler for the retailer.

M. Sather: Is the minister going to instruct staff in the ministry? Is he going to ensure that there are more audits done of retailers dispensing pesticides?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, of course resources have to be used strategically. We feel that when these regulations are developed, there will be an outreach plan so that we are talking to retailers ahead of these regulations coming into effect so that they are well aware of the new requirements. Certainly, we will work with the retailers and ensure that they understand the rules before these are implemented.

M. Sather: I think the short answer to my question was no — that apparently the minister is not going to increase audits. So how is the compliance going to improve? I mean, it's not good now. I don't see anything in this legislation that on the ground is going to reduce the use of pesticides, because there's not a great deal of pressure from anyone for compliance.

The Chair: Was there a question?

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, the question is: how can the minister have any confidence that there's actually going to be an improvement in the situation with regard to the use of pesticides, cosmetic pesticides in particular, when he won't commit to any oversight? We know that there's widespread non-compliance. How are things going to improve?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I believe I answered that. In order to purchase these pesticides, you will need to have a licence. For the retailer, it's pretty simple to determine whether or not you are able to sell that product to this particular person.

As for whether this decreases the unnecessary use of pesticides, I believe it will, because only licensed applicators will be applying these pesticides. It will be part of an integrated pest management program, which means that the chemicals are kept for the last tool rather than the first tool.

We know, as homeowners — and we all fall into this, I think, at one time or another — that we think a little bit is good, so a lot must be a lot better. When you look at the label instructions of some of these pesticides, I think it's fair to say that a lot of us will do a quick, cursory read and then apply these products. I think that is where we run into problems with overuse or misuse.

Having trained, certified, licensed people only have the ability to apply these products will decrease the amount that is used, because they only use it when necessary and, certainly, will have them used in a much safer way that protects both people and the environment.

M. Sather: Is the minister, or his ministry, aware of…? Does he know what level of pesticide use is safe?

Hon. T. Lake: I would say that the member well knows, from serving on the committee, that the pest management regulatory agency conducts extensive studies to show that, under label use, the pesticides that they approve are considered safe. So those are the sorts of criteria that are used.

In my opinion, the problem we run into is where people either do not read the label instructions or do not follow the label instructions properly. Then we get overuse or misuse of the product. By having trained, licensed people applying these products, I think we will reduce the incidents of the use of pesticides and the misuse of pesticides.

[1725]

M. Sather: Well, the minister will also know that the committee heard a lot of testimony on the negative effects of pesticides through epidemiological studies. Does the minister dismiss those studies? Does he believe, as the Chair of the committee seemed to do, in my opinion…? Does the minister feel that all those scientific studies that have been done that draw links between pesticides and cancers and other diseases…? Does he think that those have accuracy or does he dismiss them?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm well aware of the information that has been in the media, but I'm also aware of the Environmental Protection Agency's meta-analysis of the correlation that is linked between pesticide and health effects. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, after extensive meta-analysis, failed to draw a causative relationship between these products and health effects.

I'm well aware that pesticides are capable of causing harm to living organisms. That, in fact, is what they're designed to do. But there is no scientific evidence that directly links, in a causative fashion, these products, used
[ Page 13574 ]
under label directions, with health effects.

I'm well aware of the precautionary principle that I think the member is alluding to, and I think that that's exactly why we want to put these products in the hands of people that are well-trained and licensed.

M. Sather: Well, I think the minister knows that it's virtually impossible to establish a causative effect between a pesticide and its effect on human beings or other biological organisms. You can't, for example, apply the pesticide to a human and test the result. You are depending upon correlations.

But correlations are not pseudo-science. Virtually all biological studies depend on correlations. So if you have strong correlations — and there are many, by many studies, that have been drawn — then in my view, there's very strong reason to be concerned and very strong reason to practise the utmost in caution, which this bill simply doesn't do.

I submit to the minister that we are putting children and families at risk by not moving, as other provinces have done, to implement a ban, as 39 municipal governments have instituted in their own jurisdictions.

But back to the issue of the compliance. Has the ministry advised the minister, with these new amendments, what level of compliance they expect that we will get?

Hon. T. Lake: No. That is highly speculative.

M. Sather: Okay. Why does the minister propose new licence-only restrictions — so you have to have a licence to use the pesticide — but his government has rejected adopting the so-called pharmacy model where some pesticides are still on shelves and some moved behind the counter?

Hon. T. Lake: Essentially, that's what will happen. In fact, the pharmacy is a very good comparator, because if you have prescription drugs, they can only be prescribed by a licensed physician. In this case, we are saying that the pesticides can only be applied by a licensed applicator. So it's a very good comparator, actually.

It's very much like taking products that we know can do some good but also, if misused, can do some harm — to put, like prescription drugs in the hands of licensed physicians, these pesticides in the hands of licensed applicators.

M. Sather: Can the minister advise, then: if a consumer goes down to the store to buy one of these products, are they going to be behind a barrier, or are they going to be, as it is now, where they can pick them up themselves?

[1730]

Hon. T. Lake: As explained previously, the retailer would have the requirement to see proof of a licence before selling these products.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank my staff, Laura Feyrer and Sagarika Saha, who are here to help me answer any questions that members might have on this section.

M. Sather: This is a section having to do with recognizing Pacific salmon as the fish emblem of British Columbia, and that is a positive thing that we certainly endorse. It includes all of the salmon — pink, chum, coho, sockeye and chinook — as well as two sea-run trout, the cutthroat and the steelhead.

As I say, that's a positive thing. But it's unfortunately not as good as it could be, given that there has been, as we know, a considerable loss of resources in the Ministry of Environment to actually protect the habitat for these fish.

We had the government move to weaken the streamside protection regulations, which negatively affects fish. We have the whole issue of the government failing to go to the defence of our wild salmon through the whole Cohen Commission process and to face head-on the real reality of the possible negative effects that aquaculture may have, or may be having, on salmon. So it would have felt a lot better if we had that history of protection of our wild salmon.

It certainly is a positive thing to have the designation, and we support that, but it's with feeling a bit bad, I have to say, about the history we've had so far with fisheries protection in our province.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

[1735]

N. Macdonald: Thanks for the opportunity. We're on to the sections to do with the Forest Act. There are a couple of changes here, and then I know the minister has a number of procedural issues he has to deal with.

Section 19 deals with the definition of "bonus bid." There are changes to the definition of bonus bid. I guess a very general question…. It puts the minister on the spot where you break down this very technical language and put it into layman's language, but could the minister explain what these changes accomplish?

Hon. S. Thomson: Before I get started I'd just like to introduce the staff who are here supporting. Beside me is Richard Grieve, who is our director of legislation. Behind me are Adria Fradley, our senior legislative analyst; Doug
[ Page 13575 ]
Stewart, our director of the forest tenures branch; and Blair Pigeon, who's our senior tenures forester. Hopefully, with their assistance, we can deal with all of the technical aspects of these proposed amendments.

In general terms, the bonus bid change that is being proposed here…. It's a reorganization of the section to bring in an additional provision around the bonus bid process. What the change will do is remove an obstacle that's currently preventing the transfer of a volume of timber harvested from one licence to another.

The transfer of the volume can result in efficiencies, particularly for small operators — less administration, better utilization of the annual allowable cut. The Crown receives all the payments, the original stumpage and the bonus bids. Currently, without the provision to be able to have this change, we are not able to collect the bonus bids in the situation where the volume may be harvested by somebody else who doesn't actually do the harvesting, which is the person who bid the bonus bid on the licence. To make sure that we can collect that additional bonus bid, we need to have the change.

N. Macdonald: Okay, thank you. First, I should thank staff and the minister as well for the work that was done ahead of this in terms of providing us with an opportunity to work with staff to try to understand this. What we left that briefing with and what the minister has said is that this is a just a very minor adjustment that only allows the Crown to receive funding that it needs to receive and that there's nothing really substantive other than, basically, housekeeping. That's what the minister is saying with this section, right?

Hon. S. Thomson: That's correct.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

The Chair: On section 20, did the minister want to make a statement?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you, Chair, and may I seek the advice of the Chair a little bit in the process here?

[1740]

As we indicated in second reading, there are a number of sections that are being deferred for consideration here. The process, I understand, is that we need to call the section and vote against those sections.

There is an amendment standing in my name, to delete this section, on the orders of the day. I wondered, just for ease of dealing with all of them, rather than having to do it each time for each of the sections, whether you would entertain the process of calling those sections that we've already indicated that we're going to defer or vote against in terms of deleting them — to do it at once, or whether you want to deal with them as they come up.

I just thought it would be more efficient to deal with all of them in one vote, and then we can consider the sections that we are dealing with — the balance of the sections that are in the proposed amendments.

The Chair: Minister, thank you for the suggestion, but it's been suggested to me, for clarity, that we do it one by one. So I'm going to start with section 20.

Section 20 negatived.

On section 21.

Hon. S. Thomson: There's an amendment standing in my name on the orders of the day for this section. The amendment to section 21 would remove the reference on the final part of this amendment, which was related to the sections that we're standing down.

I move the amendment.

[SECTION 21, by deleting the text shown as struck out:

21 Section 14 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

(b.1) may require that timber harvesting under the licence be restricted to

(i) a portion of a timber supply area, or

(ii) a type of timber or terrain,

but this requirement must not be included in

(iii) a replaceable forest licence entered into before the date this paragraph comes into force, or

(iv) a replacement for a replaceable forest licence referred to in subparagraph (iii) of this paragraph,

    unless the replaceable forest licence or replacement is amended under section 34.1 after the date this paragraph comes into force.]

On the amendment.

B. Simpson: We're on the amendment, which continues to have the substantive nature of this section. The only thing that the amendment does is strike the bottom section off that pertains to section 34.1. So we have to actually continue the debate on the text of this amendment now, which is the partition — enables the chief forester, I would suspect, to do a partition.

I know the opposition critic has a desire to weigh in on this language too. Just let me be clear that in this amended section, the requiring of a timber harvesting licence be restricted to "(i) a portion of timber supply area, or (ii) a type of timber or terrain…."

Who is the effective designated decision-maker who can make the requirement? That must be somewhere else in the act, but I'd like it clarified for the public record who the designated decision-maker is who can constrain a licence to the two constraints — either a portion of the timber supply area or to the type of timber or terrain.

The Chair: The question will be: shall section 21 pass as amended?

[1745]

B. Simpson: I apologize if I am unclear on what is happening, but what I heard the Chair say is: "Shall section 21 pass as amended?" We have questions about section 21 in both the proposed section and as amended. So we want to ask questions on the section. If the question is, "Shall the amendment pass?" and section 21 is still available for debate, that's a different question than what is being asked.

Amendment approved.

On section 21 as amended.

N. Macdonald: The next series of sections, then, deal with recommendations that came out of the Timber Supply Committee, whose work was done in the spring and summer. Basically, the recommendations that we put forward dealt with partition.

We put forward a series of ideas as a committee. The recommendations specifically were to "Continue to pursue the development and implementation of the receiving licence and supplemental forest licence as additional vehicles to improve utilization and maximize jobs per cubic metre of fibre; Examine the potential for a fibre-based AAC pilot, while ensuring the necessary and complementary environmental standards…cut control," and so on.

What the ministry has done is taken that…. Again, in the briefing, it seemed that these sections certainly attempted to do that. Now, I know that the member for Cariboo North has some more specific questions about elements of this, but maybe the minister could put on the record the explanation for what this achieves in terms of the recommendations that came from the Timber Supply Committee.

Then from there, if we have more questions, we can go to it. But with section 21 as amended, if the minister could give that explanation again in layman's terms, maybe that can move us along.

Hon. S. Thomson: This section is designed to allow timber harvesting to be restricted to a portion of a timber supply area or a type of timber or terrain, which will increase the ability of the government to effectively manage the timber-harvesting land base and promote the efficient utilization of wood fibre within the provincial forest.

This would allow us, for example, to issue a non-replaceable forest licence for specific areas of the timber supply area or types of low-grade timber. It is designed to give us the authority to be able to restrict the timber harvesting to a portion of the area or a type of timber or terrain.

B. Simpson: Now that I know what we're doing with the section, I do want to go back to the original question that I asked the minister, because this is putting restrictions on licences. I wonder if the minister can clarify for the record who would be the designated authority that would be able to apply those restrictions.

[1750]

Hon. S. Thomson: These are forest licences. They're advertised. These conditions would be put in the licences when they're advertised, and those are done by the regional executive director.

The Chair: Member.

B. Simpson: Thank you, Madam…. Thank you, Chair. Sorry. It's the end of a five-week session, and my brain is a little fuzzified, so I do apologize.

I guess the minister's answer is not fully satisfactory, because there's a portion of this that says this requirement must not be included in replaceable forest licences entered into before a certain date.

My reading of this — and I look to the minister to disabuse me of this notion — is that there can be the application to NRFLs, or non-replaceable forest licences, of these restrictions if those non-replaceable forest licences are already issued. So it's not just in the advertising, where you advertise a licence with a restriction. You can actually retroactively apply this restriction to NRFLs, as I read this act.

I wonder if the minister can clarify that point.

Hon. S. Thomson: This provision would not apply to a non-replaceable forest licence that had already been issued. Those licences are a contract, so we wouldn't be able to apply these provisions retroactively.

B. Simpson: Back to the opposition critic's question, then, the intent — what the Timber Supply Committee desired and what the chief forester, I understood, was looking for — was the ability to try and restrict harvesting in a hard way, not by way of recommendations from the chief forester but in a physical way, to areas where we still had significant salvage operations that we had to do: mountain pine beetle, pests, disease, whatever the case may be.

As the minister well knows, over the last number of years the issuance of non-replaceable forest licences, an attempt by the government to broaden the timber-harvesting land base, hasn't done that. What happened is that the NRFLs, or non-replaceable licences, kept coming into the same timber-harvesting land base that the replaceable licensees and others were operating in. It didn't extend the commercial capacity of the timber-harvesting land base or the commercial viability of it.

If this is only go-forward, then let me frame it in the way of a question to the minister. My understanding is that the chief forester has a serious issue in the Morice timber supply area, where replaceable licences and non-
[ Page 13577 ]
replaceable licences are being applied in green stands.

What the chief forester would like to be able to do and, I think, what the Timber Supply Committee heard is that we needed to enable the application of licences directly into areas that we wanted to salvage. Most of the NRFLs, the non-replaceable forest licences, were issued to try and get them to stay in the mountain pine beetle zone, not to move into areas of green or commercially viable timber. If this is not applied retroactively, if it's only applied forward, then I think there's a serious problem and a flaw in this legislation.

Could the minister clarify? Is the intent of this to try and make sure that for licensees that were given non-replaceable licences for the purpose of extending the timber-harvesting land base and keeping them in the mountain pine beetle salvage zones…? Does it apply to those going backwards, or is it only going forwards?

I know the minister has sort of answered that, but I want clarification that this is only go-forward on new licensees and cannot be applied retroactively, in no uncertain terms.

[1755]

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to confirm, the proposed amendment here to the act is going forward. It does apply to licences going forward. It doesn't apply retroactively to NRFLs.

What we do currently with provisions…. We do have now the partition provisions in the legislation that the chief forester can utilize, in terms of setting the partitions. If the partitions…. Partitioning — that's monitored. If it's not being complied to, the chief forester can, through that legislation, direct licensees into those areas as part of that partition thing.

We still have the ability to do that. In fact, just recently in the Morice we have done that. But this particular provision is going forward.

B. Simpson: I had a sidebar discussion with the opposition critic. He corrected me, that the Timber Supply Committee was looking for go-forward as well.

Let me just use an example here so that I understand what the intent of government is on this. On the bioeconomy committee, this was raised with us as a problem by the chief forester and the chief forester's staff.

Over the last number of years the government has issued non-replaceable forest licences in order to try and extend the commercial timber-harvesting land base. It never worked because most of those non-replaceable licences came into the same operating areas that the replaceable licensees and other licences were in.

I get that the intent going forward is to try and actually put restrictions on that. But in the case of Quesnel timber supply area, for example, we have a reset annual allowable cut — two years ago, actually — that was reset down from six million cubic metres to four million cubic metres. There exist today licences for 5.8 million cubic metres, so 1.8 million above the annual allowable cut, because the minister, unless he's done it recently, had not reapportioned the cut to the NRFLs and replaceable licences.

Going forward, that timber supply area will actually potentially be below the replaceable forest licences that are in that area, of about 1.4 million cubic metres.

How does this ability, only on a go-forward basis, assist in areas like Quesnel and Lakes, etc., where the reset annual allowable cut is going to be below what the replaceable licensees have in those timber supply areas?

As we see in Quesnel, Lakes, Morice and other places, the replaceable licensees have a volume under licence that exceeds what the long-term cut may be. As a consequence, most of those districts are winding down the non-replaceable licences and don't have any intention to issue any more replaceable licences.

[1800]

Does the minister see that giving the ability to restrict a licence to a specific operating area or a specific terrain and timber type will allow, in those areas, NRFLs to be issued again and people to be able to figure out how to access timber — given the fact that, as it stands right now, most of those districts are not going to be issuing non-replaceable licences?

As long as somebody's willing to bid on and purchase a licence, knowing they're going to be forced into areas that normally they wouldn't operate in, does it fix the problem of many of those districts not being able to issue licences going forward for quite some time?

Hon. S. Thomson: With this legislation…. What it's going to allow us to do with the non-replaceable forest licences is to be able, as pointed out here, to specifically target them into specific areas. This will assist us in being able to do that.

Generally, as I think the member opposite knows, the existing NRFLs, given the pressures on the timber supply in those areas, will expire. What we hope is that by having this ability and to be able to specifically target them, we'll be able to continue to have some NRFLs issued in very, very specific areas, which we think is a tool that will be necessary to have.

Addressing the overall issues of timber supply in those areas, I think, as the member knows, is part of the challenge that we have going forward in terms of working out how we're going to deal with all the apportionment decisions as the annual allowable cut is adjusted and changed.

B. Simpson: One more question. Then we can move on. Just again for clarity, because I think it's important.

The minister knows there are lots of smaller manufacturers out there — not small in stature but small in volume and size, etc.; you know, mills, market loggers and others — that really have a question about what's going to
[ Page 13578 ]
happen as the mountain pine beetle uplift comes down to a long-term sustainable cut. If this is intended to let some of those individuals and companies figure out where they might be able to operate commercially and bid on a licence that meets their needs, then that's fair.

Let me ask specifically about Quesnel, because I know it. C&C Wood Products, for example, in Quesnel, is a longtime company. It operates on the basis of 150,000 cubic metres and employs about as many people as the mill across the street that uses 2.2 million cubic metres. They have built a business model on what we call a problem forest type — small pine.

Does the minister see this as addressing a concern, expressed by C&C Wood Products, that as the cut level comes down, the replaceable licensees have a priority basis for getting access to the cut, legislatively as well as historically? They feel that they may get squeezed out.

Does the fact that you can issue a licence that says, "We want you to stay in problem forest types," for example…? Would that give some comfort to a company like C&C that needs a small-volume non-replaceable forest licence to make sure that they can continue to attract investment and get their mill done? Is that the kind of thinking that is behind this legislation?

[1805]

Hon. S. Thomson: The quick answer to that is: yes, I would hope so. I've met with C&C. I understand the challenges, but this is to be able to direct into marginal stands, problem forest types. Hopefully, it does. That still doesn't mean there aren't lots of challenges sorting all of that out, but this gives us the ability, potentially, to do that.

Section 21 as amended approved.

On section 22.

N. Macdonald: Just in terms of the discussions that we had around the committee, we spent quite a bit of time on this, specifically around trying to deal with some of the Lakes TSA issues, trying to come up with something, and the fibre crunch that's taking place there, hopefully with ideas that could be applied more broadly.

In our discussion, as the member for Cariboo North had mentioned, we were talking about going forward. We were talking about getting into areas that are currently marginally economic to try to utilize those.

Like I say, in the briefing we certainly were given comfort that this was in line with what we had contemplated as a committee. I guess the next question would be, on section 22: would the minister just lay out exactly what's taking place, why the sentence was removed and just give a general description of what's being done here?

Hon. S. Thomson: Section 22. This is a very consequential amendment. It's just removing clause (d) from the legislation, which is now incorporated in the previous section that we just dealt with. It's just a consequential drafting amendment.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

N. Macdonald: Section 23 is sort of the meat of the creation of the supplemental forest licence and the restricted forest licence. Again, certainly coming out of the briefing, we had a sense that this was dealing with the recommendations in a legitimate way.

I guess the best thing for the minister to do would be just to put on the record exactly what this section is attempting to do. Then I think next we will be moving through a series of votes on a number of sections. So just a general explanation of what's contemplated with this language.

Hon. S. Thomson: This section is in response to the mid-term timber supply committee recommendations around creating a new type of forest licence — a supplemental forest licence. This is one that would authorize timber harvesting only if the licence holder is unable to obtain wood residue for the holder's processing facility.

It would be competitively awarded to owners of specified wood-processing facilities — for example, pellet plants — and provides for a short-term supply of fibre where their traditional supplies could not meet the requirements of the mill. There would be needs tests, but it's designed to have that situation where something happens for a mill. The normal supplies for that operation aren't available.

This would allow us to have a competitively awarded supplemental licence where they could undertake harvesting in order to meet their needs. I think the committee heard that recommendation through a number of submissions, and this responds specifically to that recommendation.

[1810]

B. Simpson: This section does cause me some concerns, and I think it begs some clarification on the public record as to how this would be used.

One of the possible outcomes of this…. I get the concern expressed by the pellet industry — or even the pulp industry at times or whatever — that because they are supposed to be residuals-based industries, and that's what their business model works best on, they actually need sawmills operating or other primary breakdown to be operating in order to get their most inexpensive supply of materials. Or they need harvesting to occur in the bush, and they get, if you will, bycatch of the waste materials.

This seems to me to be establishing a situation in which,
[ Page 13579 ]
if we have the lumber industry go down, sawmills go down and residuals are not available, we're going to potentially float what should be a residuals industry on sawlog. I think that's a big trap. I think that has some serious implications to it.

We already know what that looks like on the coast, where the coast eventually started to log what ought to have been sawlogged, what ought to have been logs that got us better value, to specifically just chip them and run them through pulp mills. That's a long history and a long debate on the coast.

Could the minister explain a couple of things that he has indicated in reference to this bill? No. 1, he stated that it would be short term, to address a short-term supply issue and that the licence would be specified as short term. So could he explain how the licence would be issued as a short-term temporary licence — what the form of that licence might be?

Secondly, could the minister confirm or deny that what we would end up doing is allowing for sawlogs to be harvested, to be chipped or pelletized for the pellet industry or for the pulp industry. So we'd actually go out, in some circumstances, and log logs that ought to be manufactured into solid wood products for pellets or for pulp. Does this enable that?

Hon. S. Thomson: These are non-replaceable licences. The maximum term on a non-replaceable licence is 20 years, but these are not meant to be that length of term. These were meant to be short-term licences, which would be advertised as such.

We've just discussed the section where we talk about how we can restrict where they would go and where they harvest. So it would not be the intention to authorize these licences into sawlog areas. We would direct these licences into very marginal areas, low-fibre-value areas. That would be the intention.

[1815]

B. Simpson: I guess, again, as the minister is indicating, part of the struggle that I've always had in this place is the latitude that we give to government. The legislation may have a certain intention. But the way the legislation is written…. The minister has already spoken to that in the sense that these are potentially 20-year licences. The intent isn't to issue 20-year licences, but the law enables the issuance of long-term non-replaceable licences — right?

Would the minister be comfortable in actually committing to the House…? I don't get how a pellet plant, for example, could go out and commercially, on their own business model, go into non-commercial stands and bring all of those costs into their business and still be able to actually run their business. The minister knows this. The pellet industry really works, on a business case basis, on residuals, not on harvesting the land base.

Could the minister feel comfortable saying on the record that he doesn't ever see these licences being issued for more than a year or two and that he doesn't see these licences ever being issued that would involve sawlogs being harvested and chipped for pellets?

Would the minister be comfortable making those two commitments in the House? No licence would ever be issued for more than, say, 18 months to two years, and there would never be a case in which a sawlog would be turned into residual — or chipped — to make pellets out of it.

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of the term, what I've said is that they would be short term. I am not prepared to commit to say what that term specifically would be.

I think that we need to have the flexibility to be able to look at the situation and the needs and to provide the business certainty there that that may be longer than, as the member opposite suggested, the 18 months or two years. But again, it would be based on need and the business case.

Also, I think we can say very clearly that this is not intended to direct that harvesting into sawlog areas. When you look at something like an OSB plant or something like that, as opposed to a pellet plant, you may look at a little bit different profile in terms of where you may direct those than you would for a pellet plant in these circumstances. But clearly, the intent is not to direct these licences into areas where there would be sawlog value.

B. Simpson: I'm conscious that some deals have been made between the House Leaders for what's going to happen this afternoon, so I won't belabour this point. I'll ask one more question, and I'd like the minister to answer it in a straight-up fashion.

[1820]

The minister knows that that OSB licence in the 100 Mile House area has given grief to the sawmill operators in that area. He must know that. They're not happy with what's going on there and a constrained fibre supply. Their fibre supply for their sawmills is being encroached on by what is a business enterprise that was predicated on residual materials or what should be constituted as waste materials. The minister must be aware that that is already a problem.

Let me ask the question this way, in terms of what this enables. At the outside edge, I get the minister's intention. I want to know what it enables. Does this enable an entity on behalf of government to issue a licence for an extended period of time? The minister has already indicated up to 20 years. What is the maximum time it would enable? And would it allow someone to issue a licence unconstrained?

Does this enable, regardless of intent, issuing a licence up to 20 years that could go into an area that involves significant volumes of sawlogs — yes or no?
[ Page 13580 ]

Hon. S. Thomson: The very theoretical answer to that question is yes. But clearly, that's not the case here. We have the other tools available for those situations — NRFLs, restricted licences. This one, this supplemental licence, is meant to be a backstop licence that would be put in place based on a needs test. As I said, it's short term and clearly directed at non-sawlog value areas. It gives us an additional tool to be able to address those situations.

That's not the intent of having a supplemental licence in place, which was one of the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply committee.

Section 23 approved on division.

On section 24.

The Chair: The minister has asked for the following sections to be deleted, so I'd recommend that you vote against sections 24, 25 and 26.

Sections 24 to 26 inclusive negatived.

On section 27.

N. Macdonald: Section 27 — what's it intended to do?

Hon. S. Thomson: The intent of this section is to mirror the transfer provisions that are already established for restricted forest licences to make sure that those same provisions apply to a supplemental forest licence. They would only be allowed to transfer a licence to another similar mill owner but not, for example, to a market logger.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

[1825]

The Chair: On section 28, it's recommended by the minister to vote against.

Section 28 negatived.

On section 29.

N. Macdonald: Again, it's just an explanation for the changes here made in cut-control provisions.

Hon. S. Thomson: This section, again, follows up on the recommendations of the special committee. The special committee recommended proceeding with a receiving licence in which the holders would be allocated volume but no harvesting rights.

Working with the industry, it was determined that the outcome of supplying timber to secondary and other non-lumber producers could be achieved through changes to cut-control administration rather than a new tenure.

This amendment is viewed by industry as better than a receiving licence, as all eligible mill owners can participate in the process without requiring a licence. That's the intent of this section. It's to address improving utilization by dealing with it through the changes to the cut-control regulation process as opposed to setting up a specific new receiving licence tenure.

B. Simpson: Again, it's one of the reasons that I indicated that I wasn't supportive of the previous section. Receiving licences were supposed to solve the problem that that previous section is now supposed to solve as well, and the receiving licences didn't work.

I think part of the problem that we've got is that we keep doing these ad hoc policy changes without thinking about what the implications are, without consulting broadly enough.

I guess it's my own denseness. I would like the minister to explain how this section addresses the issues around the receiving licence, when the explanatory note that we've got is that it makes "regulations authorizing the minister to make orders limiting, for the area specified in the order, the volume of timber that can be adjusted downward under authority."

The whole section talks about adjusting aggregate volume downward, adjusting licences downward, etc. How does the authority to make regulations to adjust volumes downward relate to receiving licences and relate to what the minister indicated is a fix to receiving licences?

[1830]

Hon. S. Thomson: Currently we have this provision in place where the low-quality fibre can be transferred. A credit is applied. It allows the licensee to harvest. It's not applied against his cut control.

What these changes do is allow us to put a cap on that where we have concerns around sustainability issues. It would allow us to make this provision ongoing and permanent. It was put in place to primarily address getting at the low-quality fibre in the mountain pine beetle areas. By doing this, what it will do is allow us to continue to have that process to make sure that we can get the folks continuing to get full utilization by going after the low-quality fibre, but it allows us to put a cap in place where we have sustainability issues.

Section 29 approved.

The Chair: Again, it's recommended that you vote against the following sections.

Sections 30 and 31 negatived.
[ Page 13581 ]

Section 32 approved.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, shall section 33 pass?

On section 33.

M. Farnworth: First off, we're on section 33. Section 32 is in the previous piece of legislation. We're on section 33 of the health amendments. The Chair said section 32.

The Chair: I did not.

M. Farnworth: I won't argue. The Chair is always right.

The Chair: That would be wise.

M. Farnworth: Anyway, I have a number of questions around this particular section. Section (1). The amendment to section 33(7) of the Forensic Psychiatry Act removes staff working at the Forensic Psychiatric Institute from the Public Service Act.

Is the intention of this act to place the Forensic Psychiatric Institute under the management of a health authority?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, I would like to introduce the staff of the ministry who are here with me. Jodi Jensen, to my left, is the director of labour relations and special initiatives. Corrie Campbell, behind me, is the director of legislation, and Graham Whitmarsh, to my right, is the Deputy Minister of Health.

It has been under the PHSA since the early part of the 2000s.

M. Farnworth: It will stay under the PHSA? It will not, for example, go under Vancouver Coastal or Fraser Health?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It is intended to stay with its current health authority.

M. Farnworth: So another health authority will not have the ability to decide that its budget can be reallocated or parts of its budget could be reallocated to other areas and other services, then?

[1835]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: There's no impact on the budget.

M. Farnworth: So just to make sure, on the record, that the existing authority that deals with the Forensic would continue to deal with the Forensic. It would not be any other health authority in the province that it would be under in any way, shape or form.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That is correct.

M. Farnworth: The Forensic Psychiatric Institute is a hospital, but at the same time it's more than a hospital in that it's also a secure facility for those who have been committed because of crimes they have done. But because they have a mental illness or other mental health condition is why they have been there. There are a number of different levels of security: medium, low and high.

So I guess the question that comes to mind is: has that been taken into account in that decision — that while it is a hospital facility, it is different from other hospitals in the sense that it has a criminal component to it and, therefore, it has a unique status of its own? One could argue that this change is not necessary, that if any change were to take place, it would actually make more sense to have it under the Ministry of Justice.

So what options did the ministry consider when making these particular changes?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This amendment simply enables the transfer of employees from the public service to the health sector. It doesn't change what anyone does, and no other changes were contemplated or are contemplated.

M. Farnworth: I think one of the real concerns that the employees at the forensic institute have with this particular change is assurance that, in essence, nothing — in terms of how the conduct of their job is done or their duties are done at this particular time — can be either undermined or overridden by a health authority that's not familiar with the kind of work that's taking place at the forensic facility, given the nature. They are dealing with individuals who, while yes, are sick, are also there because of a criminal nature.

I think there's a real concern around that, around the ability to change practices, bringing them into compliance on a more standard-wide basis across the province as to what other health authorities are doing. I think some assurance around that — that this is not the case — would be really appreciated.

[1840]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: To reassure the member, the jurisdiction will still be the PHSA, as it has been for over a decade. That will not change. What will change is that the employees will no longer be in the public service. They will be in the health sector. Their job descriptions won't change, and the health authority that has jurisdiction will be exactly the same health authority that has been for over a decade.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell me if consulta-
[ Page 13582 ]
tion took place with the union responsible for these employees about this change and when that consultation took place?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The B.C. Public Service Agency has informally advised the BCGEU on multiple occasions since 2009 that government was considering transferring the forensic hospital to the health sector. There were discussions with both the BCNU and the UPN.

M. Farnworth: As well as the BCGEU?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, there were informal discussions going back as far as 2009 and notification going back as far as 2009 that government was considering this.

M. Farnworth: Informal discussions mean one thing. Was there any sort of formal consultation with the affected unions on this particular matter?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: No.

M. Farnworth: Has the minister considered the implications of the federal changes to the Criminal Code in terms of dealing with forensics and people committed to a forensic institute and the changes in how they can be dealt with and how they can be released? Has the ministry looked at the impact of those changes on the forensic facility out in the Port Coquitlam area in terms of whether there's a need for additional resources and what impact it will have on the delivery of service at the facility?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect, I'm not sure how that pertains to what we're talking about here, which is the amendment to the Forensic Psychiatry Act.

M. Farnworth: The question's being asked in the context that there's a change taking place, and that change impacts on the individuals who work there. I have asked the minister whether consultation has taken place. Informal consultation has taken place, but not formal consultation. I think that's a concern.

There are some significant changes coming down. The point I'm trying to make is…. Look, there are changes taking place. You have people concerned about it — a feeling of not being consulted. So one of the things I'm asking is: have those additional changes that we're looking at from Ottawa…? Has the minister looked at those? That's all I'm asking in that regard.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We are aware that the federal government is proposing changes. We've not seen anything. PHSA is aware of the changes that may come our way, but we haven't seen anything about them.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for the answer to those questions. We can now move on to the next sections.

Section 33 approved on division.

Sections 34 to 37 inclusive approved.

On section 38.

[1845]

C. Trevena: I'll be very brief. This section covers the changes that were recommended by the Committee on Children and Youth after much deliberation. I'm very pleased to see them.

I just wanted to ask the minister why this section is going to be implemented by regulation rather than by legislation.

The Chair: Member for North Island, would you mind repeating the question?

C. Trevena: Of course, Madam Chair. I'd like to ask the minister just one question on this section.

I'm very pleased to see it. It's the changes to the representative's act as a result of the review by the standing committee. In 38 we have section 6 amended, but it's only going to be implemented by regulation, and I wanted to ask the minister why that is.

Hon. S. Bond: I think regulation is a fairly consistent answer. It gives more flexibility. It means that the changes can be made more expeditiously. Obviously, if it's in statute, we have to come back into the House to do that, so the choice is to do it by regulation.

Sections 38 to 50 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 6:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 8 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, reported complete with amendment.
[ Page 13583 ]

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

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

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Polak: I call committee stage on the Emergency and Health Services Amendment Act, Bill 7.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — EMERGENCY AND HEALTH
SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 7; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 6:50 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Farnworth: In section 2: "The Emergency and Health Services Commission is continued as a corporation, under the name British Columbia Emergency Health Services, consisting of a board of directors made up of one or more members appointed by order of the minister."

There's a change taking place here. In essence, BCEHS is not going to be a Crown corporation, and it's not a private corporation, so what model is it? How will it be accountable to government, and how will it be accountable to the broader public?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I wonder if the member opposite would do me the favour of asking the question again.

M. Farnworth: In section 2, "British Columbia emergency health services," it's outlining the structure of the new body. It states that it will be a board of directors appointed by the minister. There will be a chair. The question becomes: in this new structure, is the best way to describe it…? Is it like a Crown corporation? Will it be subject to the same kind of rules and regulations as a Crown corporation? If not, then under what structure is it like? How will it be accountable to government, and how will it be accountable to the public?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The BCEHS will not become a Crown corporation. It will be most like a health authority. It'll be on the same legal and accountability footing as a regional health authority under the Health Authorities Act, which has been in place, as you know, for a number of years.

There will be substantial accountability mechanisms in place. Financial records must be open at all times for inspection by the Ministry of Health. They have to have an annual audit. They'll have to report out annually and submit financial statements to the minister, subject to ministerial directives regarding the exercise of the powers and duties. Cabinet will have the power to appoint a public administrator to take over, in the unlikely event that it was necessary, in the public interest.

So most like the health authorities.

[1855]

M. Farnworth: The next sections, I think, are going to be more complex to deal with. I would suggest at this particular time that we probably rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Yes, we can pass section 2. Some of the others are going to be much…. Let's put it this way: we won't get much done in four minutes.

Section 2 approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Noting the hour, Madam Chair, I move that the committee rises, reports progress and asks leave to meet again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:57 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