2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 7, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2014

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call in the main chamber here, the big House, continued reading of Bill 6 and, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continued estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — PROVINCIAL CAPITAL
COMMISSION DISSOLUTION ACT

(continued)

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to finish my remarks that were interrupted by our adjournment earlier. I know I only have a few minutes left.

[1335]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I think I gave some reasons as to why this side of the House is going to oppose the dissolution of a Crown corporation that has had an illustrious history — one, indeed, that the minister praised in her introduction of the bill that would destroy the commission and wind it down for all time.

I think the thrust of my remarks, though, in the remaining time I have is to focus on what comes next. I know that government will have its way. It has the majority of seats in this chamber. This bill will pass. Maybe at committee stage we'll have a chance to make this bill more palatable through amendments. Maybe the minister will be able to answer some of the unanswered questions that surround introduction of this legislation. We'll see what happens.

But I think what loses the confidence of the opposition party on this bill is that there is no plan surrounding the dissolution of the PCC. There's no indication of what comes next.

I mentioned in my earlier remarks that what we are losing is an organization that has shown incredible capacity to deliver, in an entrepreneurial way, stewardship of Crown assets that have been bought for strategic purposes over many decades and to do great things with them. I mentioned the example of St. Ann's Academy. Government has, by happenstance and through no particular initiative of its own, also seen something good come together that was just announced last week with regards to the Point Hope shipyard.

One of the outstanding things that remains in the portfolio of the PCC, over which there's now no direction given in this bill, is around the Belleville international ferry terminal. This is important for two reasons. One, it's an economic development opportunity for the province that will support tourism, will support international visitation in particular. It will help this region. It will help other parts of the province when those tourists and business services can enter and do business here.

It's also critically important, going back to the original mandate of the Provincial Capital Commission. This inner city harbour on the shores of the legislative precinct is exactly what W.A.C. Bennett, his son Bill Bennett after that and Premiers from the New Democratic Party and others supported in terms of beautification.

Having a body that is in charge of planning — whether it's at the National Capital Commission here or in Washington, D.C., or state capitals in the U.S. or most of the provincial capitals in Canadian provinces — is a unique responsibility that requires a unique focus.

In this case, in British Columbia what we are losing is a small Crown corporation that supported itself, didn't cost the taxpayers anything. It had a portfolio of properties that they managed in a businesslike way and that made money that supported all of the festivals and initiatives, education programs and the operations and the administration of the Capital Commission. That's going to be gone.

I think government is already hearing — I look forward to speaking to the Minister of Transportation; his ministry will become the new owner of the Belleville terminal property and what was formerly the responsibility of the PCC — the longstanding wishes about what might happen and occur there in the future.

It's been held for a strategic reason. Little has happened in the last decade during this government, and I think the greatest fear in this community, amongst business people and others who have an economic interest in what happens on that property, is that government will continue to neglect it and that perhaps they will even privatize it, take the proceeds and put it towards the deficit of the government.

I mentioned earlier that this bill is completely premature. They've dissolved the PCC without deciding what comes after. But it's intentional. The government is doing this for a reason.

I suggest the reason they're doing it is that there is an imperative by government to support the budget, and that is based on selling as much land as quickly as possible with as little community and public input as possible. We've seen it done already. They've got a target to meet — $450 million worth of land sales in this fiscal year, $200 million worth of land sales in the next fiscal year. That's two-thirds of a billion dollars. And it's a shame that the Provincial Capital Commission is being part of this liquidation in B.C. without the right consideration for it to happen.
[ Page 1802 ]

Thank you for the opportunity to make remarks this afternoon.

[1340]

C. James: I rise to speak to Bill 6, the Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act. I, as well, rise, as the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, to speak against this bill.

I want to talk a little bit about the concerns and the questions that this bill brings forward. I want to start — because I think it's important to start — at the beginning, which was around the establishment of the Provincial Capital Commission. As has been said by my colleague, the Provincial Capital Commission was actually put in place in 1956 by W.A.C. Bennett, the Premier at the time, who decided that the capital city of our thriving province, as he described it, deserved to become the focus of beautification and enhancement.

I think it's interesting to take a look at the irony of the forming of the Provincial Capital Commission by a Premier who understood the importance of a capital city to our entire province — that Victoria isn't important simply as a city. It's important to all the people of British Columbia, not simply the residents of Victoria but in fact all the people of British Columbia as the capital city.

Given the current Premier's comments about Victoria and the sick culture that she sees here and her lack of interest in attending here in Victoria, I think it is, as I said, not without irony that we're sitting here today after a Premier in the '50s saw the vision of having a Capital Commission to today where we have a Premier who is getting rid of the Provincial Capital Commission.

It started off with the four core municipalities in our area, which are Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Saanich and Victoria, and then was expanded to include the Saanich Peninsula and all the Western Communities. I also think it's important to mention — and it's interesting as someone who has grown up in Victoria, who has lived here in James Bay in this community since I was five years old — that the very first project that the Provincial Capital Commission ever took on was in 1957, the year I was born. It was to improve the Dallas Road walkways.

I'm sure that, yes, the member is doing his math across the way. When you are a provincial politician, there are no secrets about your age, and I'm quite proud to be in my 50s.

But I think it's interesting that their first project was the Dallas Road walkways. I think members on both sides of this House, when they're staying here in Victoria while the Legislature is sitting, have probably walked along Dallas Road. It is one of those icons in our community. It is one of those areas that anyone who lives in the neighbourhood or comes to visit Victoria talks about — the opportunity to walk along the waterfront on Dallas Road.

It's interesting to note that the Provincial Capital Commission did that work as their very first project in 1957. I also think it's interesting to look at the fact that it cost $65,000 to do all of the walkway. Since then the Provincial Capital Commission now, more than 50 years later, has put over $19 million into beautifying the capital city — into projects for various improvements, for heritage, for history — and protected those.

I think it's important, as we look at getting rid of something, that we take a look at why it was put in place and why it was there in the first place. When we look at the historical significance of buildings, when we take a look at our heritage, when we take a look at natural significance, that really was the reason the Provincial Capital Commission was in place. It was to acknowledge that your capital city doesn't belong simply to the residents of Victoria; your capital city belongs to the entire province and to the people of British Columbia. Just as this building belongs to the people of British Columbia, so do all of the things and the assets that belong in the capital city. That really was the role that the Provincial Capital Commission played so well.

My colleague before me mentioned St. Ann's Academy. I think probably for many of us, that's one of the icons of the Provincial Capital Commission — beautiful grounds, a beautiful heritage building that was protected by the Provincial Capital Commission at the time. None of us can imagine that not being there as part of our history of, as I said earlier, not simply the capital region but all of British Columbia.

Also, part of the vision of the Provincial Capital Commission was to make sure that it celebrated British Columbia and provided supports for the capital celebrating British Columbia.

[1345]

I just find it interesting that when you take a look at that history and when you take a look at the 1950s and a Premier who felt it was valuable and important to have a Capital Commission in place, why we would see the government of today taking a look at dissolving something so important and so valuable, and something that's also there across the country.

Provincial capital commissions are not something unique to British Columbia. Provincial capital commissions are there in almost every province across our country, again, because there is a recognition that there is something special about a capital city that needs to be shared with all of British Columbia.

When I first heard of the Provincial Capital Commission being dissolved and had people in my community raising their issues and raising their concerns, one of the first things I asked — and certainly I know that some of the city councillors in Victoria had asked — was: where was the business plan?

You'd imagine that if you're looking at dissolving a Crown corporation, you're looking at dissolving something that has been in place for such a long period of time, your first step would be a business plan that would give
[ Page 1803 ]
the rationale, give the explanation and talk about why that was the direction being taken.

Well, it's interesting that there is no business plan. There is no business plan that talks about why the Provincial Capital Commission is being dissolved and why…. I heard the minister in her remarks, when she brought this bill in, saying that the government knows it can take on the Provincial Capital Commission duties.

Well, that may be true. But we don't know that, because there is no business plan that shows that or points out the rationale and the argument and the facts around why this is going to make a difference and why the duties can continue to be done within government.

That's another very important point that I just want to take a minute to speak to, which is all of the activities of the Provincial Capital Commission and what's going to happen to those activities. The Provincial Capital Commission was self-sustaining. Government says that they're going to save $1 million — that this is part of the core review.

As we all know, the core review is looking for efficiencies across government. The government's rationale is that $1 million will be saved by moving the Provincial Capital Commission within government. Well, if that's accurate, I'm curious where the money is for the programs and services that are being provided now for the Provincial Capital Commission.

If $1 million is going to be saved and the Provincial Capital Commission was self-sustaining, where are the dollars to provide the programs and services and the maintenance of the heritage buildings and the looking after of the land that is already there?

I reviewed the provincial budget, and I certainly didn't see anything in the budget that said "providing programs and services that were formerly with the Provincial Capital Commission." I think that's a big outstanding question from my perspective. What exactly is going to happen to those programs and services? What exactly is going to happen?

I think the other piece that is worrisome is the issue of local voice and local control. I think the strength of the Provincial Capital Commission was that it had provincial representation, recognizing, as I was saying earlier, that the capital belongs to the province, not simply the people of Victoria.

It also acknowledged that the capital city is Victoria. So it also had representatives from city council, local representatives sitting on the Provincial Capital Commission. That really provided a very valuable voice to be able to assist with decision-making, to be able to build partnerships.

We've seen — my colleague who spoke before me talked about it — some of the land swaps that have been made. There's been some real value in those land swaps. There's been some good work done, where they've been able to stay in public hands, where you've been able to benefit the community and benefit the Provincial Capital Commission. There's been some very good work done, but that kind of work doesn't occur without building those relationships.

That kind of work certainly doesn't occur if you shut out local voice, if you don't assist the opportunity for those voices to be heard. If you're looking at doing planning in the capital city, the people involved in that planning often are mayor and council. Those are often the individuals who are involved in assisting. The local First Nations — involved in assisting, looking at their own projects and sitting around the Provincial Capital Commission and saying: "How can we maximize the local projects and the local work that we're doing?"

[1350]

I'm very concerned that in eliminating the Provincial Capital Commission, we lose an opportunity. We lose an opportunity to be able to make sure that we're getting the best use out of those public lands that we have — lands that are valuable, lands that you don't get back once they're gone, lands that belong to the people of this province and are held in the capital city. I think it's very tough to lose that local control and that local voice and still build that relationship and still build those decisions and make the right decisions for the land.

I want to take just a minute to talk about the Belleville terminal, because it is a critical economic driver in the city of Victoria, a critical driver for tourism for not only the city of Victoria but for all of Vancouver Island and, in fact, for bringing people here to British Columbia. It is an investment and an area that needs work and that has not received any attention over the last number of years.

The Belleville terminal, through this bill and through this act, will be moved into the Ministry of Transportation. I certainly hope — and I'm always an optimist — this means that the Belleville terminal will go to a priority list in the Ministry of Transportation and won't sit idle and not get paid attention to. There is an understandable concern.

There are very few cities across this country, in fact across North America, where you have ferries coming in to your capital city right into the downtown. In most cities, when you are looking at ferry terminals and even if you look at the provincial ferries here, they're out of town, and they bring visitors in. We have a jewel in Victoria where we have two ferries, the Coho and the Clipper, that bring people from the United States here right into downtown.

They come into that beautiful harbour and have people delivered right to downtown, where they bring their resources, where they spend money, where they support our local businesses, where they provide economic activity for the city of Victoria — again, both great businesses who have provided huge support to the city of Victoria and who work in great partnership with the city of Victoria to provide that.
[ Page 1804 ]

I'm not sure if anybody on the other side of the House has taken either of those ferries over the last number of years and has seen the kind of security terminal that you have to go through since 9/11, that has shifted on those ferries. It's an embarrassment, and I think everyone would say that it was an embarrassment. It is not worthy of the kinds of good businesses that they run and the good work that we do coming here to Victoria.

You go through trailers. They're unheated. You often have lineups. The businesses have done everything they can and the city has done everything they can to try and tidy those up, to make sure that they're as quick possible at moving visitors through and that you get great service with the individuals who work there. They provide wonderful opportunities.

But it needs upgrading. It needs upgrading to make sure that we meet the security needs that are there, and it needs upgrading to provide better customer service for people coming to Canada, their first glimpse of Canada as they come through.

That's work that I would certainly hope, as we look at the transfer of Belleville terminal over to the Ministry of Transportation, won't get lost and that I hope will in fact rise to the top as a critical project that needs to be taken on and needs to be looked at here in British Columbia and here in Victoria, in the capital city. I think there are opportunities missed and opportunities lost if we don't get that work done. So that's a piece I'll be looking for.

I want to touch for a moment, as well, on the programs and the sponsorships that are done by the Provincial Capital Commission. Again, I heard the minister, and I've seen the comments in the press where the minister has said that government will ensure that those projects get covered off. Government will ensure that those projects are taken care of, that they're not going to go by the wayside — that government will provide them.

I want to read a list of a few of the events that happened that were sponsored by the Provincial Capital Commission, the very organization that's going to disappear with the passing of this bill.

[1355]

Earth Day festival. I think that anyone who lives in greater Victoria in the capital region has been to Earth Day festival over at St. Ann's Academy, a wonderful opportunity that brings together musicians, artists, local businesses, community groups.

Last year during the election, for example, we had a panel discussion with members from all different political parties, to have an opportunity to talk about our priorities when it came to climate change and to address the issues around protecting the planet — very fitting for Earth Day, a wonderful festival that is sponsored by the Provincial Capital Commission. It's something that is supported by the Provincial Capital Commission.

Swiftsure, the yacht race for Victoria — anybody who has lived in Victoria or visited Victoria knows that Swiftsure is something that is a given in Victoria and, again, is supported by the Provincial Capital Commission.

One of the areas that they spent a fair bit of time in partnership with First Nations on is Aboriginal Day in our capital city. That, again, is something that's been sponsored by the Provincial Capital Commission. I've attended many wonderful events that have occurred, often using St. Ann's Academy, where they have the theatre in the back of the academy. They've provided opportunities for us to learn about our First Nations culture, to respect our First Nations culture. What will happen, with this bill, to Aboriginal Day and the sponsorship that's provided and supported by the Capital Commission?

Canada Day — I think most people would expect that their capital city is going to be part of Canada Day and that it would have a recognition. That, again, is something where the Provincial Capital Commission provided support for that kind of event.

The buskers festival — I'm not sure if any members visited Victoria during the summer and saw the buskers festival going on.

Each of these festivals are extraordinary in themselves, but they also bring economic activity to the area. They also increase economic growth in Victoria. Symphony Splash is another example.

This is a long list of events that take place, that are sponsored by the Provincial Capital Commission. B.C. Day — I don't think it would be any surprise that people would expect that the capital city, on B.C. Day, would be celebrating and that that would be supported by the Provincial Capital Commission. The Dragon Boat Festival is another event.

Those people who take a look at the Provincial Capital Commission and perhaps have wondered, "Well, maybe it really doesn't make a difference. I'm not really sure why it's in place. I'm not really sure why it's there," I think can take a long look at these festivals along with all of the protection of the heritage and history of our capital city and know that the Provincial Capital Commission has an impact in Victoria, has an impact on the life, both economic and social, of Victoria.

The Classic Boat Festival; the Victoria Fringe Theatre Festival; Tidings of Comfort and Joy Festival, a wonderful music festival that's held through December in the chapel at St. Ann's — that's just a list of the kinds of activities that the Provincial Capital Commission has been doing. I wonder, when I see no budget put aside for those activities…. I hear the words from the minister and the government that they're going to look after them, but I don't see any specifics that give me comfort.

One of the other programs that I wanted to touch on before I wrap up is the Capital for Kids program. This is a program that was begun by the Provincial Capital Commission to bring children from all over British Columbia to their capital city to learn about their capital city. Whether it's northern British Columbia, whether
[ Page 1805 ]
it's our coast, whether it's the Kootenays or the northern part of our Island, every year we see 38,000 young British Columbians coming to the capital city for programs, to experience the capital.

I've had the opportunity over a number of years to attend their events and visit them in the Mungo Martin House, which is right at the foot of the museum. To see the young people…. The day that I dropped in two years ago, they were learning about First Nations and our history.

What an extraordinary experience for children, many of whom had never been out of their community. This was their first big trip to a big city from small-town British Columbia to learn about their capital and to learn about the history of their capital. What a valuable opportunity for those young people.

[1400]

This is a program that is important, that is critical. I think we need to have assurances — more than simply words, but assurances. With the Provincial Capital Commission disappearing, unfortunately, with this government's direction, what is going to happen to those programs and services?

In closing, I just want to say that I will be voting against this bill. I do believe that the bill leaves a number of questions unanswered for people in my area and people in the region and people across British Columbia. What is the kind of protection that's going to be there for the existing sites, for the heritage sites, for the historical sites? I've had no assurances, no specifics around what kind of protection will be there.

What land is going to be sold? I'm very concerned about losing the opportunity to have that land stay in public hands. I'm very worried about the fact that it may be sold off for one-time resources to help the government balance their budget. Once that happens, that land and that history and that heritage is gone forever.

One of great strengths of the Provincial Capital Commission was to assure people in our region that we would be protecting that history. So I'm very concerned about the selling off of that land and what could happen to those lands and to those dollars — as I said, shortsighted to think that we could sell it and help a budget one year and then have the money gone for good.

I think the last piece I just want to mention is the local voice and local control for the capital city and where that voice will go now. Where will that planning occur? Where will the opportunities and the conversations happen if there is a land swap to be had, or if there is work that needs to be done on projects, or for new proposals that come up in the capital city? Where will that discussion go for our local mayor and council? Where will the discussion go for our local citizens, to ensure that kind of development is done in partnership with the city?

The very last thing is just respect. As I said as I started, it's respect for the capital city being the city for all British Columbians and not simply being for the people of Victoria, not simply here for the people who live here but, in fact, here as part of our history, as part of our past and part of our future as a capital city. Where is the recognition and support for the capital city from this government? I think it's pretty clear it's not here, with this bill coming forward, and that's why I'll be speaking against it.

A. Weaver: I wish to reiterate almost word for word what the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill just spoke about. In fact, much of what I was going to say was actually brought forward by the member.

A key word that was raised at the very end by the member was the word "respect." I think that's an important word to reflect upon, because this is our capital. Let's explore, then, some of the history of where the Capital Commission came from.

It's been in operation for over 50 years, and it's played a critical role in managing some of Victoria's key and most important heritage properties, properties that are essential to one of this region's, if not British Columbia's, most vibrant industries — that is, the tourism industry.

This is an industry that creates jobs, particularly for students in the summer who are struggling under debt created by reduced funding for education. I have concerns with respect to the impact this will have on the tourism industry, not necessarily because of the proposed change in the administration but because of the lack of assurances that we've been given that those key heritage properties and parks will remain in the public hand and will not be sold off to the highest bidder.

This is what I'm looking for. I'm looking for some government assurances, real assurances, that these heritage properties, such as St. Ann's Academy, which the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill just described, the CPR Steamship Terminal and others, will not be sold off and that they'll continue to function as well-maintained, tourist-friendly, heritage buildings.

Of course, I want to acknowledge at the same time that there was a piece of good news that came as a consequence of this soul-searching for the PCC, Provincial Capital Commission — that is, the recent trading of land with the city of Victoria.

[1405]

In my view, that was beneficial and that did go some way to address some of the concerns that I've had, but only a small way. The city of Victoria benefited from this as has the province. I'm hoping that the government has actually thought through this and that there are similar thoughtful plans in place for the other key properties.

Something that's often overlooked with the Pacific…. I'm sorry. I keep saying "Pacific" because there's PCC in my field of climate, of course.

I'm hoping that the government has planned to continue the very, very important outreach programs that are run through the PCC — programs like the travel-funding
[ Page 1806 ]
program, which again, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill spoke about, which assists student groups in visiting our capital from around the region, from around our province. It provides wonderful educational opportunities for these youth and children in our communities.

These programs have great value. I'm hopeful, again, that the government can actually give us some assurances that these opportunities will remain as we move forward.

Coming to the Belleville terminal, I'd like to quote the Minister of Energy and Mines for what he said recently with respect to the proposed transfer of the Belleville terminal to the Ministry of Transportation. He suggested that there was a healthy capital planning branch within the ministry.

The Belleville terminal is an eyesore to people in British Columbia, not just Victoria. It's the first thing many people see when they come not only to Victoria, British Columbia — even Canada. I'm certainly hoping that in the transfer to the Ministry of Transportation, should this bill pass, there is indeed money set aside for rapid use to actually upgrade that terminal.

With that said, as it stands, there are so many uncertainties with respect to what will happen with these properties. I find it so difficult to understand how I could vote for this bill with those glaring omissions not being filled.

M. Karagianis: I'm rising today to join my colleagues in speaking out against Bill 6.

When I was first elected to municipal council in the mid-1990s, one of the first assignments I had was to sit as part of the Provincial Capital Commission. It was a great eye-opener for me to understand and to learn exactly what the Provincial Capital Commission did and how valuable the organization was in maintaining the assets here in the capital — heritage properties, various events around the region, and certainly, some assets that helped to make this body completely self-sustaining.

It was, I thought, a brilliant plan that an organization like this could fulfil so many aspects of keeping our capital attractive, interesting and vibrant, preserving heritage sites and, at the same time, paying for all of that without going to the taxpayers for any money. I thought, "What a brilliant commission that's been set up here" — not unlike those set up across the country, many of which are not self-sustaining, many of which are funded by governments because they understand the importance of these kinds of capital commissions to help enhance capital cities.

So I was quite mystified when I saw that we were about to pass legislation in this House and debate the Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act. I thought: "Now why, of all of the things that government is currently charged with — all the very important and vexatious and concerning issues that government faces — were we picking on the Capital Commission and the dissolution of the Capital Commission as one of the very first pieces of legislation that's been passed here in this current session?"

That, for me, meant delving deeper to say: "Now, why would the government…?" Considering the important things that they do have to concern themselves with, why is this such an important act for us to undertake? Well, of course, my colleagues have already alluded to what we believe is some of the underlying heart of this, which is the issue of asset sales in order to balance a budget.

[1410]

Really, in a very shortsighted way, it's evident to me in reading through Bill 6 that that's what this is all about. This bill refers to, primarily, the transfer of Provincial Capital Commission properties and assets. Page after page, clause after clause in this bill, talk about all of the properties and assets — no reference whatsoever to the other duties and responsibilities that the Provincial Capital Commission has undertaken over the years, and certainly, as my colleagues have also mentioned, no clear understanding of who and how some of the responsibilities of the Provincial Capital Commission are going to continue in the future.

Certainly, there's some discussion in this bill about taking on the liabilities of the Provincial Capital Commission. Is that where we find the various events and critically important undertakings of the Provincial Capital Commission? Do we find it under the liabilities? Is that how it's referred to here in this bill?

There is great historical importance in this organization. My colleagues have alluded to that as well. It's been in place for over 50 years.

It has great significance to the capital in more ways than just the assets that it owns. It is for all of the other things it undertakes, for the tradition that it undertakes, for the importance around — I think what other colleagues, including the member from Oak Bay, have talked about — the respect we have for the capital, for the way the capital looks, the way it feels, the preservation of some the great assets here.

It would seem to me that this bill speaks to a throwaway culture in this government, that this is about finding some assets and finding a way to maximize those to balance the government's budget and throw away all of the other great values that come with the Provincial Capital Commission — its assets, many of which are not property, which are more intangible.

I mentioned at the beginning of my comments that I had, early on in my time as a municipal councillor in Esquimalt, sat on the commission. Over time, of course, I've watched how the commission has functioned — various representatives that have sat there, the great decisions that they've made, the initiatives that they've undertaken over the years to ensure that the Provincial Capital Commission continues to thrive and function as a self-sustaining body, that it involves itself in great community events, in improving assets. We've heard many of my colleagues talk about the amazing St. Ann's Academy and
[ Page 1807 ]
the beautiful site that was restored there.

All of these things were handled by local representatives who sat at the commission table and talked about the value, from firsthand knowledge, in each of their communities — those around the core who sat on that commission — and continued to make sure that the Provincial Capital Commission operated to the very best and highest use and represented the preservation of assets of the capital here.

Over time in the last 12 years I have watched — we've all watched — as this government has slowly stripped away that local representation. It was with great sadness that we saw, bit by bit, the commission itself being dismantled in advance of this onslaught against the assets.

It seems to me, again, it's a bit of a throwaway culture here. If we see that in fact, other communities across Canada have thriving capital commissions that look after the value and assets of capital cities, and some new ones that have been created in the last number of years, why then are we taking this really draconian move of getting rid of an organization that wasn't costing taxpayers anything, that had great representation, great value for the local community, undertook great community events and owned a lot of properties, many of which helped it be self-sustaining and many of which have been part of the rare and wonderful character of the capital and maintained that character here in the capital?

Now, one of the most recent activities that's been undertaken here, which others have pointed to, is this issue around property and land swaps. Well, this has always been the purview of the Provincial Capital Commission. This is not a new initiative undertaken by this government. The Provincial Capital Commission has always had the ability and, in fact, the will to make these kinds of great swaps and investments to help to enhance the capital area.

[1415]

The Point Hope shipyard, which is in my constituency, is, I think, an example of a very good property swap. But it's not unusual for the Provincial Capital Commission to be able to do that. With or without this dissolution, that has been an attribute of the commission that certainly was not hampered by the current structure.

The issue of heritage site preservation, I think, is also really important, and it's very important to this community. We have a very rich culture in greater Victoria, and we have a very strong, staunch and I think very valuable heritage ethic in this city. It would seem to me that there has been a trend both at the federal and provincial level over the last decade of slowly sort of stripping away the importance of historical sites.

We've seen privatization occurring on federal sites. We've certainly seen it on provincial sites. I think this is to the detriment of our communities, because what happens with these sites is they begin to lose the care and concern and supports that make them heritage sites that we can all be proud of. When you have to have a user-pay system in order to sustain these historical sites, inevitably there is some erosion of financial supports for those.

It concerns me greatly that this, again, strips away one more piece of a preservative environment for heritage properties.

I know that others of my colleagues have spoken about this, and I want to talk a little bit about what happens once this bill passes. Despite the fact that I will be voting against it, and I know that my colleagues will be voting against it, we know the government's ability to just ram these things through and not listen to the community or not give deeper concern and thought around the actions that they're going to take on this act. But I am very concerned about what happens to the assets, the self-sustaining assets, of the Provincial Capital Commission.

Let's assume that asset sales are what this is all about. First and foremost, we take a number of these lands, and we sell them off — a one-time quick gain, and we use that to help to prop up the government's attempts to balance their budget. Now that asset is gone forever, and we will never be able to use it again for the betterment of all British Columbians — everyone in British Columbia, and certainly, everyone in the capital.

But more importantly, will those dollars be put someplace where they could then be used to help do some of the great work that could come out of this, like improving the Belleville terminal? Can those dollars be held in escrow so that they can be used for the greater good of the capital? I've heard no indication from the government whatsoever as to what they're going to do with any of those dollars and how they will be used.

I'd be very interested to hear the government's views on that, and perhaps the minister, when she makes her closing remarks, can address some of that.

My colleague my friend from Victoria–Beacon Hill spoke earlier about the list of events and other responsibilities that the Provincial Capital Commission has taken on. Many of these are significantly important events in this region. When I think of things like the Symphony Splash, when I think about the Swiftsure race, when I think about the Dragon Boat Festival and when I think about Fringe, these are all really important cultural events in this region and part of a larger fabric of cultural events that take place elsewhere that are linked to this.

I do not believe or have confidence for one moment that those, in the hands of this government, are going to be sustainable. We are going to see a government who has shown no indication as to how they are going to treat all of those responsibilities and functions of the PCC. It's certainly not listed here in Bill 6, unless they are under this nebulous little category called "liabilities." Everything in this bill is about property transfer and assets. Nothing in this bill talks about the functions, responsibilities and other components of the Provincial Capital Commission that are being caught up in this dissolution.
[ Page 1808 ]

Who is going to be paying for these events? How are they going to be managed in the future? Are they in jeopardy? The government should tell us that — if, in fact, that's true. In reality, what will happen with all of these events is that the government…. If they choose to not pay for them, to not contribute, to not sustain the responsibilities that they're taking on by dissolving the Provincial Capital Commission, where are they going fall to? Well, to local government, hon. Speaker.

[1420]

Is that really the ultimate plan? We're going to take the Provincial Capital Commission. We're going to dissolve it. We're going to strip all of the land assets away and use the money from that to try and offset the provincial budget. Secondly, we're going to take all the responsibilities, all the great things that the PCC has done over the years and is responsible for, and we're going to download those onto local government.

I think if that is the route we're taking, I want to hear that from the government's own lips. So far, we have seen no clear indication of what will happen with any of those great events and with those assets that can't be sold, that still do need care and preservation.

What happens to St. Ann's Academy? What happens to any other heritage site here in the capital city that still needs care and attention, that might need restoration? What happens to those? If it can't be sold off to balance the budget, what happens, at the end of the day, with those sites?

I certainly cannot support the bill as I currently see it. Unless I hear something significant from the government that says to me that they are not planning on just using these dollars in general revenue to help balance the budget; that if properties are going to be sold or swapped, those dollars are held in escrow to be used to further preserve and enhance and care for other properties in the capital; and thirdly, that all of the responsibilities for the events and functions that the Provincial Capital Commission now contributes to our community will be preserved — that they are safe and are not going to be somehow either abandoned or downloaded to local government….

Until I hear that, I will not be satisfied in any way with the actions the government's taking. So I will not be voting in favour of this bill based on that.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close.

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you very much for the comments that have been raised today. I'm confident that when we go into the committee, there will be answers for you.

This really was a decision around empowerment as well. Many of us in this House have experience with local governments. I often think back to 1956. As I was going through this, I was thinking about W.A.C. Bennett and about the decisions that have been made in this House. I was thinking about how times really have changed.

There's been a lot of empowerment and a lot of change that has happened. I think the most significant one…. We heard lots about ensuring that there's local voice, local choice, decision around land use planning for municipalities. How do we make sure that that respect and those pieces are in place?

But I think there've been some changes since 1956 that have changed the framework of how land use planning happens, not only in the capital but in British Columbia. First of all, we've empowered municipalities, since 1994, with the responsibility for communities' heritage values.

In 1994 the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act was passed, with 22 provincial statutes that were amended to include provisions for heritage conservation. A policy decision, also in 1994, around the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act provided local governments with the authority and responsibility for heritage in their community.

Further, and something that local governments across this province fought for, in 2004 the Community Charter came into effect in British Columbia. It's Canada's most empowering local government law, giving B.C. communities broad powers to address local issues effectively, local issues that have been raised as very important to people in this House. It's a model for all of Canada regarding intergovernmental respect and collaboration.

We've also heard that the decisions that have happened and have evolved out of these decisions on the land use swap have been good for the municipalities, have been good for the province, have been good for private business. We are encouraged that this will continue.

[1425]

I'd also like to take a moment to talk about my passion and my excitement around ensuring that programs like kids in the capital, the Youth Parliament, the heritage fairs — which both sides of the House absolutely respect and admire, and we know it's important that we continue to contribute to these valuable programs — will continue. We're looking at new ways to broaden this, looking at new partners that we can bring in to ensure that not only do we have 38,000 kids coming to the capital…. But let's see how we can use resources or look at how we can bring in other partners to ensure that we broaden and grow that program.

As I've spoken around the province of British Columbia, I talk about the importance of civic engagement. I talk about how it's important, when we talk with Elections B.C., how we engage that next generation so that they, too, can have the experience that we have in this House.

I remember one of the first times I travelled out of my community as a small-town girl from Quesnel. One of the first times I ever went on a plane was to Ottawa, and it was for exactly one of these examples of youth in par-
[ Page 1809 ]
liament. I know it set me on a journey that I'm proud to say I participate in today. So we have that commitment to ensure that those types of programs continue within our ministry.

This decision on this bill was about ensuring that we don't have duplication. It's about ensuring that we have efficiency. When we talk about programs and talk about the importance of things such as the Fringe Festival and the Symphony Splash, we have been funding these kinds of hosting events in our budget.

Our budget within the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development has a record level for arts and culture funding — $24 million to the B.C. Arts Council, $350,000 for the arts legacy fund, $2 million for the arts and culture program, $2.2 million for the arts branch operation, $11.86 million for the Royal B.C. Museum, $17.5 million for arts and culture community gaming grants, $2.5 million for Creative B.C. When we reviewed this, we thought that these important festivals and things that are happening in this capital can be looked at within our ministry.

You know, Bill 6 is about change, and change is difficult. But one of the things that we're incredibly proud of…. On Family Day we decided to try something different. We supported the Royal B.C. Museum on Family Day to ensure that there was free admission at the museum. I am proud that that day had 10,000 people come through the museum. That was the greatest one-day admission ever at the RBC Museum.

These are the types of changes that all of us in this House should look at. We want to make sure that we improve. We want to make sure that the legacy of W.A.C. Bennett and the things he envisioned for British Columbia are things that we carry on.

I commend and thank the tremendous work that the commission has done over the years to provide us the ability now to step up and continue with their outstanding work and to ensure that their legacy continues. I very much am looking forward to the committee phase of this bill.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 6, Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 3.

BILL 3 — MISSING PERSONS ACT

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act, now be read a second time.

In the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry report, Commissioner Oppal noted that police faced a major obstacle to obtaining timely information when investigating missing women. He recommended that the provincial government enact missing-persons legislation to grant speedy access to personal information of the missing persons without unduly infringing on privacy rights. This proposed legislation does just that.

[1430]

In Canada we value privacy, but we need to recognize that there are times when police need the tools to protect us. The Missing Persons Act we are introducing recognizes this need and addresses it with the appropriate limits and judicial oversight. The act will allow police to apply to a justice for quick access to a missing person's information that will help to locate their whereabouts and determine if they are safe.

To be clear, this bill is not about criminal activity. Instead, our proposed law focuses on cases where a missing person has not been seen or in touch with people who are normally involved in their lives. Our act will apply to those times when a person goes missing and there is no suspicion that their disappearance is the result of a criminal offence.

The Missing Persons Act also focuses on minors and vulnerable or at-risk persons whose safety and welfare are of concern because of their age, physical or mental capabilities, or the circumstances surrounding their absence — for example, a teenager who was last seen leaving a friend's house and has not been seen since, or a person with dementia who has wandered away from home, leaving vital medication behind.

Basically, the legislation allows police to apply for a court order to compel someone who has the missing person's records to hand them over if the justice determines the information will help to locate the person.

This legislation is consistent in intent with other legislation passed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. However, in B.C. we have made several enhancements that we believe strengthen public safety. For example, we have enhanced police access to third-party records in situations involving a minor, vulnerable person or a person at risk. We have strengthened our offences for contravention of the act, and we have increased oversight over use of the act.

Also unique to B.C. is our proposal to create a new category of missing person called a person at risk. Like the legislation in other jurisdictions, our act recognizes that minors and vulnerable people are more at risk of coming to harm. In these cases, police are given the authority to access the records of third parties and apply for search orders.
[ Page 1810 ]

Our new category of person at risk is intended to ensure that police have these same additional options in cases where the missing person does not fall neatly into the definition of a minor or vulnerable person — such as, for example, a sex trade worker.

Who will qualify as a person at risk will be determined after significant further consultations have occurred. Consultations will be essential to correctly capture those persons who may be at higher risk to go missing and come to harm than the general population.

Our legislation also includes the ability for police to request access to the records of a person last seen with the missing minor, vulnerable person or person at risk. This provision is not in other jurisdictions' legislation, but we feel that in certain cases the records of these third parties may hold valuable information on the missing person's whereabouts, even though they may no longer be in the present company of the missing person. Before police may submit a request to a justice to access the records of a third party who was last seen with the missing person, police must make reasonable efforts to obtain consent from that person.

The act balances privacy considerations by restricting the types of records that police may apply to a justice for disclosure and requiring the justice to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the information will help to locate the missing person's whereabouts.

Records that police may request be disclosed include telephone records that may indicate where a person has gone, cell phone data that may indicate where a missing person may be located and employment information that may indicate whether a missing person has shown up for work since they have been reported missing.

In emergency situations where there is no time to apply to a justice for an order, this bill gives police the authority to make demands when persons go missing. These demands can only be made if there is a serious threat of harm or death to the missing person or there is concern that the records may be destroyed.

The types of records police may demand in an emergency are more restrictive than what they may apply for from a justice. This limitation ensures that police are only getting the information they absolutely need to locate the missing person.

When police make these demands, they are required to provide a report regarding the circumstances in which the demand was made and to file this report with their officer in charge. Also, police forces must provide the minister with an annual report regarding their demand for records.

[1435]

The act provides further safeguards on the use and disclosure of records accessed by police. Any information and records collected under the act can only be used for the purposes of locating a missing person or in a related criminal investigation. For example, if a missing-person investigation reveals that the person was, in fact, kidnapped, the records collected under the Missing Persons Act may be used in the subsequent criminal trial.

I want to emphasize, however, that this legislation does not allow police to gather intelligence for investigations other than locating a missing person. That is not the purpose of this act. The purpose of this act is to locate missing persons and save lives.

We have built a more robust offence section than other jurisdictions. It is an offence if a person uses or discloses information and records in contravention of the act. In B.C. we have gone further by making it an offence if a person fails to comply with an order. No other jurisdiction has an offence for failing to comply with an order, so B.C. is a front-runner here.

Offences under the act carry fines up to $10,000 for a person and up to $25,000 for a corporation. Additionally, a fine can be levied up to the maximum amounts for every day when a person or corporation fails to comply with an order.

We are aware that it's not a crime for a person to willingly disappear. Sometimes adults choose to leave their normal day-to-day lives on their own accord. They may do that. Much like what happens in current missing-person investigations, police will not disclose information regarding a missing person who does not want to be found without their consent. Police do this now. When they find somebody who doesn't want to be found, that's as far as it goes. However, they are still obliged to find the missing person to ensure their safety.

In closing, our proposed Missing Persons Act strikes the appropriate balance between an individual's right to privacy while ensuring that police can get appropriate access to records and places in the event this access may help locate a missing person faster, which is the ultimate goal of this legislation: finding missing persons and saving lives.

This House will know that this was one of the themes in Commissioner Oppal's Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. It was one of the sets of his recommendations that we give police additional powers in locating missing persons. It was one of the tragedies of the missing-person investigation that, in some of the cases, the women were known to be missing very quickly, but the police did not have the tools that they needed to go and find them.

This act fills that gap. It gives police the tools they need to locate persons who they know are missing and to find them and to either bring them back or to leave them be, whichever the case may be. It allows the police to go and look for missing persons. It provides public safety, and it has the potential of saving lives.

K. Corrigan: I'm pleased to be able to rise and speak on Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act. I suspect that we on this side of the House are going to support the bill, but we do have some real concerns — I'd say grave concerns
[ Page 1811 ]
— about the scope of some of the provisions. I am going to talk about some of those today.

In fact, I'll let the minister know now that at the next stage I'm going to be suggesting and submitting a number of amendments — I think around five or six amendments — that address some issues that have been raised by the Privacy Commissioner, by organizations like B.C. Civil Liberties, certainly lawyers — a whole variety of people who have some concerns about the scope of the act.

But the spirit of the act and the heart of the act — we are supportive of government doing this. The minister is absolutely right that this act is fulfilment of one of the important recommendations made by Commissioner Wally Oppal in his report on the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

I want to just set the stage a little bit and say how important that inquiry was. We were disappointed that some people did not get to participate as much as we hoped they could. There were many interveners who were not funded by government.

[1440]

Nevertheless, we have some very strong recommendations. We have 63 recommendations in all, and government is now starting to move on those recommendations. Frankly, it's been slow in coming. There have been some recommendations that Commissioner Oppal made where he said that there are some things that should be immediately taken care of.

For example, he said in his report: "I urge the provincial government to commit to these two measures immediately upon receipt of this report — one, to provide funding to existing centres that provide emergency services to women engaged in the sex trade to enable them to remain open 24 hours a day." Now, there has been some funding in Vancouver, but another centre that provides exactly those kinds of services in Victoria is, I believe, at risk of closing because it doesn't have funding — so one organization, but others are starved.

The second one and a very important one, certainly to the people we talked to, who are very concerned — families of the missing and murdered women and organizations that work very closely with the families of those that are either missing or have been murdered and with the communities — is "to develop and implement an enhanced public transit system to provide a safer travel option, connecting the northern communities, particularly along Highway 16."

The minister knows and many people in this House know that we in the official opposition have been repeatedly and regularly supporting those calls from the communities, who say that it is wrong and it is dangerous. There have been deaths on Highway 16. It is wrong that people — that women, particularly — are hitchhiking on that highway as we speak.

There is an easy fix there, which is the fulfilment of the recommendation that I just read, which former Justice Oppal, Commissioner Oppal, said was something that should be committed to immediately upon receipt of this report. I believe this report is about a year and four months to a year and a half old.

So we have some concerns. It's also very important…. We are supporting government on the Missing Persons Act — with some concerns, as I've said — but I wanted to read from Justice Oppal's report a little bit at first, because one of the things he said in his summary of recommendations is that he talked about the fact that there was a total of 63 recommendations.

He said: "It should come as no surprise that I have made a large number of recommendations to address these complexities — 63 in total." The issues are very, very complex. We certainly acknowledge that. All of the issues regarding policing, coordination, safety, respect, understanding, collaboration — the importance of all the pieces fitting together was very clear from Commissioner Oppal's report.

What he said in conclusion is: "The recommendations dovetail one with another. Each provides an additional tool, an additional check or counterbalance, an additional collaborative mechanism, all geared toward the central goals of enhancing the safety of vulnerable women and improving the initiation and conduct of investigations of missing persons and suspected multiple homicides."

Then he says: "I have found that the missing and murdered women were forsaken twice — once by a society at large and again by the police." It is imperative that we understand and remember those words from Commissioner Oppal, when he says that the recommendations and the implementation of the recommendations need to dovetail together, need to work together and need to be seen as a whole.

While we support…. Now that we have a few first steps, after a long period of time, with the Missing Persons Act, we have some legislation introduced yesterday that is going to go some distance towards fulfilling another recommendation. That has to do with audits of major case files.

[1445]

These are steps in the right direction, but we have to remember it's important that everything dovetail together and that we come up with a comprehensive plan to implement the recommendations, to consider the recommendations.

I understand that in some cases the recommendation will not be implemented exactly as it is worded by Justice Oppal, and I respect that. But the important thing is that the legacy of the missing and murdered women be respected and that we work collaboratively, I would say, between government and opposition in order to honour the spirit and honour the legacy of those women and make sure that we fulfil the various recommendations.

It is an important act — 63 recommendations, as I said. Certainly, safety of women and, in many cases, aboriginal women, particularly when we talk about Highway 16….
[ Page 1812 ]
Certainly, recommendations for supports for aboriginal peoples, restorative measures, equality-promoting measures — these are all important recommendations. But today we're going to talk particularly about Bill 3.

This is one of those cases where we have to find the correct interface and the correct balance between our concern for safety…. It's the primary purpose of the bill. Concern for safety needs to be correctly balanced with and interfaced with a protection of privacy and individual rights. That is where our concerns largely lie.

As I said earlier, we are going to propose a number of amendments. I will certainly invite the minister, as I said, and members to listen to my suggestions and, I hope, support the amendments, because I think they will make a fundamentally supportable bill more supportable and a better bill. Those amendments, the ones that we are going to propose, will address those privacy concerns and concerns about individual rights.

I think it's important, from this side of the House, that we look carefully at whether or not individual rights and privacy concerns are being respected. Frankly, the other side of the House, the B.C. Liberals, have quite a history of introducing legislation that they claim is constitutional, that they claim follows the law and later is found not to be constitutional, is found to be breaking the law. In the case, of course, of the education bills, two bills in a row — the last one being Bill 22 — ended up being unlawful and created a mess in the education system.

I think it's important that before this legislation is passed, we look at it very closely. As I said, we are going to propose some amendments that we think will help ensure that the challenges and the concerns that individuals have will, to some degree, be addressed. And I hope that we can, on both sides of the House, work together in order to have those amendments come to pass.

We also have concerns about civil forfeiture, which some people feel at times has been used as an end run around the criminal law. We've had challenges of the roadside suspension laws, successful challenges. And the millions of dollars that have gone — public dollars, as well as dollars from organizations that have fought some of this legislation — is money that is wasted. It's taxpayers' money that is wasted — millions of dollars that could have gone into good public services like education and health and other public services.

I'm very serious about making sure that we get it right, and I think we haven't quite got it right with this bill.

[1450]

I just want to mention a young woman who is working with the official opposition at this point as a legal intern, Ashley Sehra. Ashley is a legal intern who is working with the official opposition right now. She has worked with me very closely on writing amendments that we are going to propose at the next stage of the bill. I want to thank Ashley very much, as well as all the staff that we are so lucky to have working with us in the official opposition.

This is a bill which gives the police the authority to compel the production of records that may assist them in finding a missing person. As the minister has said, this doesn't have to be part of a criminal investigation. The types of records that can be compelled are records containing contact info, identification marks, telephone and other communications records, Internet browsing history, GPS, employment information, travel information, video records and health records. So it is providing significant increase to police powers. These are police powers that are important to support in cases where we have a missing person and probably could have been used previously in many cases to have a more favourable outcome for people who are missing.

I just note that my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville introduced legislation that would also help in the case of missing persons. I believe it's called Silver Alert. It's on the order paper, and I think that's another piece of legislation that could enhance the safety of community members who get lost. I'm really hoping that government will see fit to support the legislation of my colleague, as well as some of the amendments that we are going to propose in this bill.

It's a great deal, as I said — all those types of records that can be accessed by police. When it isn't a criminal investigation, we have to be very careful when we tread that way. I think we have to be very careful that we get it right. I have a great deal of respect for the police and the great work that they do. Certainly, in my community of Burnaby the RCMP are the policing agency, and we have a fabulous detachment, fabulous members, who look after us well. I had a couple of break-ins and a threatening event in my office over the last several months, and I've got to say that the service we received from the RCMP in that situation was absolutely fabulous in each and every case.

I think we all, every member in this Legislature, certainly respect the work that the police do. They do fabulous work keeping us safe in our communities. Nevertheless, when you are considering an act that extends the powers fairly significantly of the police, for a good purpose…. When that happens, we have to make sure that we safeguard people's privacy and their rights as well.

I'm going to talk about some of the concerns that I have. Just before I talk about the individual sections, I want to go to the report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry and talk about the specific recommendation. I think it's important for us, when we're talking about the scope of the powers that are going to be given to police, that we need to think about what was the purpose of the legislation as foreseen by Commissioner Oppal in his report.

Here's what he said:

"Timely access to information is integral to the analysis of a missing-person case and can be of vital importance in an investi-
[ Page 1813 ]
gation. The commission found that an enormous amount of time was spent by police officers on basic data checks for information on the missing women. One of the barriers police face in investigating missing-person reports is that they do not have ready access to personal information about the missing person because it's protected through privacy legislation.

"This inaccessibility presented a significant challenge in the missing and murdered women investigations and continues to be an obstacle today. This obstacle can be overcome through the adoption of provincial missing-person legislation, providing a statutory basis for police to obtain access quickly, thereby expediting the investigation."

[1455]

He goes on to point out…. It was interesting that the commission received numerous submissions supporting the adoption of B.C. missing-persons legislation — including from family members, members of the public, the Vancouver police department and the RCMP — and no dissent was voiced.

Very strong support for the legislation that has been introduced. He recommended that the provincial government enact missing-persons legislation "to grant speedy access to personal information of missing persons" — and here's a key, to me — "without unduly infringing on privacy rights."

This legislation should be enacted on a priority basis. Now, it's been a year and four months, but we do have the legislation now. Unfortunately, we haven't sat very much the last while, so we haven't been able to implement the recommendations of Commissioner Oppal. But we do have this now.

I think it's important to remember that Commissioner Oppal recognized that there had to be a balance there and that we had to find the right line between protecting the safety of individuals and making it so we can find people more quickly, and also respecting the privacy rights — and, I would say, the Charter rights — of individuals who were going to have their information accessed. Certainly, when you widen police powers that way, we want to make sure that we do that.

I think that's the backdrop to it. Number 1, we have to respect the privacy rights and have to be careful how we do this. Number 2, I think we have to remember always that the purpose of this act is that we are trying to find missing persons. That is why I looked at this piece of legislation and said: "Okay. All sections of this piece of legislation — are they framed in a way that is consistent with that? And are they framed in a way that could not be used for different purposes, or that the powers are more than are necessary to assist in finding a missing person — in other words, without unduly infringing on privacy rights?"

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

One of the sections that I have concern about is section 13. We will have more time to talk about this when we get to the committee stage. But I wanted to talk about them now because I wanted to explain why it is that I have concerns, and we can do that more when we're at the committee stage. But I also want to give the government an opportunity to consider the amendments that we're suggesting in order that we can improve the bill.

Section 13 is one that deals with the emergency demand for records. The minister outlined that usually when a member of a police force is looking for records, they need to go before a judge. But section 13 provides that there can be an emergency demand for records if there is a concern that there could be serious bodily harm to, or the death of, the missing person or destruction of the record. Then that creates an emergency situation.

However, the Privacy Commissioner wrote a letter to the minister expressing concern about this section. It was a fairly minor concern — a minor fix, not a minor concern. What the Privacy Commissioner suggested should happen to the bill was simply:

"I recommend that my office be notified after an emergency disclosure demand is made. This would not be designed as an approval mechanism but would enable my office to monitor the use of emergency demands and evaluate, over time, whether they are being undertaken in an effective manner that is proportional to the privacy impacts on the individual whose records are disclosed."

[1500]

We have proposed an amendment, which we will submit at a later time. It simply says that the officer in charge must forward a copy of the written report to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It seems like a fairly easy fix, and I can't really see any reason at all why government would not make that small amendment in order to satisfy the concerns of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

That's one of the concerns that I have and I share with the Information and Privacy Commissioner and others. I'm hoping that we can get a change in that as well.

A second concern is with section 7 — another concern raised by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. This deals with third-party records. The Information and Privacy Commissioner says:

"The bill provides authority for police forces to demand the records of missing persons as well as records of third parties who may be in the company of or who were last seen with the missing person. However, it did not provide for notice to those individuals whose records are collected by police forces. Individuals should know who is in possession of their personal information and the purpose to which that information is being put."

She concludes that little section with:

"I recommend that individuals whose information is collected pursuant to the Missing Persons Act be notified of that fact within a reasonable period of time after the information is collected."

The act requires that the police, before they make that request, do try to find the third party and get their consent. Nevertheless, if they don't, then what the Information and Privacy Commissioner is saying is that there should be notice afterwards. People should know that their records have been accessed and what records those are.

We have a second amendment that would provide that
[ Page 1814 ]
there be notice not only to the third party but also to the missing person, if they indeed are found. And that will happen, hopefully, in many cases, particularly with this act. They will be found, and in that case, this proposed amendment requires that a notice of disclosure is sent to the third party or in the case of missing person if that person is found. Another fairly easy fix that will satisfy the concerns of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Another area of concern is about the disclosure of information for purposes other than investigating missing persons. That has to do with section 21. This talks about disclosure of information.

The act as it presently reads says: "This section applies despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." It says: "A police force may disclose information in a record accessed under this Act only as follows…." And there are a number of sections that follow that.

The one that is of concern — both to the Privacy Commissioner, again, and certainly to me and others — is: "A police force may disclose information in a record accessed under this Act only as follows: (a) for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose."

The concern the Information and Privacy Commissioner had about that particular section was that it significantly broadened the authority for disclosure of information collected under the Missing Persons Act. In that case, the Privacy Commissioner said: "I do not believe personal information disclosed under this proposed legislation should be used for any other purpose."

I go back to what I said earlier, when I was quoting from the missing-women's report. It's that we have to remember what the purpose of the act is. The purpose is to find missing people, so there doesn't seem to be any necessity, if that's the purpose, to have that last part: "for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose." We need to make sure that the act does what it is meant to do.

[1505]

Mr. Speaker, I'm the designated speaker in this case. Thank you very much.

For the purpose of….

Interjections.

K. Corrigan: I'm not done yet. I'm just telling him I have more time. Oh, you're excited that I have more time. Oh, yippee. Thank you. I know. It's a riveting conversation, but it's an important conversation about an important piece of legislation.

What we are going to be proposing is that that last part of that section 21(2)(a), "...or a use consistent with that purpose," simply be removed. That's another concern.

We also have a concern about another section that has exactly the same phrase, and this is about the use of information in a record. It says in section 20: "A police force may use information in a record accessed under this Act only for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose." Again, we have concerns about that — the widening of the scope of the use. We are going to be proposing that that last part of the section, "...or a use consistent with that purpose," again be stricken from the act.

This is the section that B.C. Civil Liberties Association has said they are particularly concerned with. It says in that section as well: "For certainty, this section does not prevent information in a record accessed under this Act from being used for the purpose of a related criminal investigation."

They are concerned that this is a repurposing — and, again, widening — of the powers of the act. I'm concerned about repurposing; certainly, the B.C. Civil Liberties are concerned about repurposing, so we are going to suggest an additional section to make sure that the missing person's rights are protected by suggesting an addition of a subsection that says: "A police force may not use information in a record accessed under this Act for the purpose of incriminating the missing person."

Another suggestion that we have, just to make it absolutely clear that the purpose of this is to access records so that we can find an individual, as opposed to perhaps…. I know the minister will say that's not the intent, but it's not what the minister's intent is, it is how will the sections be interpreted and how will they be used in real life.

We want to make sure that missing people's rights are protected as well, or at least that we stay to the purpose of the act.

One of the comments that I've heard various groups making is that there is a real concern by groups that individuals might not be willing to report missing persons or provide records if they thought the records of the missing people might end up incriminating them, resulting in criminal charges, which I think would be an unintended consequence.

Certainly, I'm not suggesting that I want people to be able to commit criminal acts and get away with it. We want to be very clear, though, that we stay with the intent, which is to find missing persons. That's another amendment that we are suggesting.

Finally, I have a concern with one of the definitions. The definition that I'm concerned about is the definition of missing person. I look at the definition, and there are a couple of ways that someone can be declared a missing person. There are a couple of triggering qualifications, and I have concerns about those.

In the act "missing person" means "an individual whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable efforts to locate the individual" — so that's the first thing; they have to be unknown — "and (a) who has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual, or (b) whose safety and welfare
[ Page 1815 ]
are feared for given (i) the individual's age, (ii) the individual's physical or mental capabilities, or (iii) the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence."

[1510]

I don't see why it is necessary to have subsection (a). Maybe when we're in committee stage, I'll talk about that a little bit more.

I see a danger with that. It could be used in a way…. Here's an example. If somebody hasn't been in contact with family, could the police declare somebody a missing person? That would involve an investigation. Many of us, many people, would say that that's fine and that they would like to see that, but again, that is not the intent.

The intent is to provide tools to find missing persons who are missing for a variety of reasons. But I have possible concerns about the way that is framed. We're going to have an amendment on that one, as well, that changes the definition of "missing person."

Some of these concerns that are being raised now. The reason that they are being raised, or part of the reason that they're being raised, by the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, by B.C. Civil Liberties, by lawyers who are going to be dealing with this in court…. They will be in court, I'm sure, possibly challenging some of the provisions, as many provisions of several acts have been challenged in the past, sometimes successfully.

The thing that I don't understand is why the appropriate consultation and discussion, which could have fixed some of the problems I've talked about, did not happen in advance of the legislation being brought to this House. I know that there's a provincial policing standards committee that is tasked to deal exactly with this and with these kinds of situations. This is exactly the place. There is representation from a variety of organizations there, including B.C. Civil Liberties.

If this piece of legislation had been taken to that committee for discussion, maybe some of these questions that I'm raising now, some of these issues that I am raising now and that others are raising…. If it had been taken to the Trial Lawyers Association, if it had been taken to the criminal bar of this province, then perhaps some of the problems that I see and we see with this piece of legislation, concerns about privacy and concerns about rights, could have been ironed out at that meeting, in those consultations.

We wouldn't have had the Information and Privacy Commissioner, for example, writing three-page letters to the minister, saying: "We think there are some serious problems with your act." Yet that apparently did not go to the provincial policing standards committee. I think it just speaks to the importance of having full consultation before you bring in an act like this so you don't end up having to fix it later.

I think that pretty well covers all, certainly, the amendments that we are going to suggest. It covers the concerns that I have.

Just in summary, there are many, many recommendations that Commissioner Oppal made — 63 in all. We've been waiting a long time for action. We had some small action, but we've got to remember that what he said in his report is that this is such a complex system, a complex set of issues and failures — and he called them blatant failures — that there are many answers and there are many recommendations.

There are many things that we need to be doing, and the recommendations, as he said, dovetail one with another, which means that we need to look at them as a whole. We need to act.

Certainly, some of the ones, as I said earlier, that he said needed to be done immediately there hasn't been action on. We need to act on those recommendations, as we have been calling for in this House.

[1515]

Overall, we are likely going to support this bill, but we are very much concerned about some of the deficiencies that we see in it. We are offering a solution. We want to get yes, as the other side often says.

With that, I am going to take my seat.

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today to give my support to the Missing Persons Act, Bill 3. I also thank our Minister of Justice for bringing the bill. As well, I appreciate the remarks from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

Just to comment on some of the things that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake did mention. I agree; this is a bill that is an interface between the protection of safety as well as the protection of privacy. I agree wholeheartedly that the entire purpose of this act is to find missing persons.

The proposed legislation will support the implementation of the recommendations contained in Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. The proposed Missing Persons Act is consistent with the intent and spirit of one of the recommendations of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry: to enact missing-person legislation to grant speedy access to personal information of missing persons without unduly infringing on privacy rights; and adoption of single-purpose legislation, as in Alberta and Manitoba.

The purpose of this legislation is to find those people. It's about providing police with more timely access to information about missing, vulnerable and at-risk people and others who may be in their company and to places where they are believed to be. But it strives to weigh safety needs and privacy rights, requiring police to obtain a court order in all but emergency circumstances when time is critical. Overall, we are striving to empower police while maintaining sensible limits on sensitive information in extraordinary circumstances.

The proposed legislation builds on similar acts now enforced in Alberta, Manitoba and recently passed in Nova Scotia. Notably, B.C. has included a definition — "person
[ Page 1816 ]
at risk" — which, when regulations are developed, may help to better protect marginalized women and is making it an offence to fail to comply with orders and demands for information made under the act.

Currently police must have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence, such as a kidnapping or an assault, has occurred before they access phone records, financial and job particulars, and other restricted information about a missing person who may be at risk.

This legislation includes the meanings for "missing person" and "vulnerable person" and "person at risk." This distinction is required to provide police with additional powers in cases that are at higher risk.

It addresses the gap that currently exists when the police are trying to locate a missing person whose safety may be at risk by providing them with access to information, records and search orders they could not normally get.

Regarding the points that the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake raised, there are concerns that were brought up by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, but we have attempted to mitigate these concerns by restricting in the act that this information can only be used for the purpose outlined in the act.

With regards to the comments that the member made about the civil liberties association, the purpose of the legislation is to help locate a missing person in order to help ensure that he or she is safe and out of harm's way. This legislation balances the rights of an individual to keep their information private while ensuring that police can obtain information and records in order to help locate that individual.

In addition, our government has included a provision for the province to designate a central missing-persons agency to provide a coordinating function so that information pertaining to missing-persons investigations is shared and linked amongst law enforcement agencies across jurisdictions in order to more effectively and efficiently help locate the missing individual. This was a recommendation of the Missing Women Commission.

[1520]

This act also pertains to low-threshold cases — for example, a few hours after a teenager has run away or when a dementia patient has wandered off. For example, a missing person is defined as a person whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable efforts to locate them and who has not been in contact with persons whom they would likely be in contact with or whose safety and welfare are feared for, given their age, physical or mental capabilities or the circumstances surrounding their absence. If the circumstances meet these criteria, the act can be used.

There was a sad case last year in Lynn Valley in my riding, when a patient, a resident from one of the care homes, wandered away. Despite the heroic efforts of the RCMP and North Shore Rescue and the social media efforts that searchers used — using a special emergency alert system of the North Shore Emergency Management Office to send e-mails and automatic phone calls to area residents — this poor woman was not found in time. This act would have been able to assist in that case and others.

There have been consultations with stakeholders, with the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the B.C. Police Association, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and B.C. Police Missing Persons Centre, and at this time consultations with the Privacy Commissioner are ongoing. Government is committed to ensuring that consultations are done with all those affected by this legislation, including First Nations, police forces and any other affected organization.

For those reasons, I am supporting this bill, and I am happy that our Minister of Justice brought this bill forward.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Nanaimo. [Applause.]

L. Krog: Always delighted to hear the thunderous applause that greets me when I rise in the chamber — well, at least two hands clapping, in any event.

I'm reminded of what Jean Chrétien said some years ago. He said something to the effect that everybody wanted to go to heaven, but nobody wanted to die. Of course, that's the only way to get there.

The aim of this bill is laudable, appropriate, desirable. It represents the fulfilment of a recommendation of the Oppal Commission. It would provide tools to the police to do the job that they desperately want to do when they're confronted with a person who's missing.

You have to step back sometimes and remember that the police force in any community are the people who deal with often the saddest and most difficult and darkest parts of anyone's lives. They're the ones who bring home the drunken teenager, the teenager who's had some issue with drugs, picked up for doing whatever. They're the ones who attend at the scenes of domestic violence.

They're the ones who are told that someone's missing, and they desperately want to assist in trying to find that person. One can understand their significant support for this legislation and, indeed, broad community support.

The point of my remarks today — and I intend to be fairly brief — is that in getting to that desirable end, to enable the police to do their job effectively to locate missing persons, you have to respect very carefully the rights of all of us to our privacy and to ensure that the information that is obtained is used only for the purposes of the act and also for the purposes with which the missing person is literally reported to the police. That's where it becomes a little more problematic.

It's interesting. We're now on, arguably, the 30th anniversary of what was supposed to be 1984. I suspect a number of the members in this chamber read 1984 when they were much younger, or Brave New World.
[ Page 1817 ]

In many respects we've actually arrived. I think in Great Britain there is something on the order of 14 million security cameras now. So anywhere you go in what my grandmother referred to with some love and affection as the old country, wherever you go at any given time of the day, you are likely to be the subject of some camera that's watching what you're doing.

[1525]

I suspect many of the members have cards that they use when they go to the grocery store. I always jokingly say that Jimmy Pattison, if he really wanted to know, could tell the brand of toilet paper the Krogs are using, for heaven's sake, or the type of deodorant or how many vegetables they buy. The bank certainly understands every financial transaction.

We have given up our privacy, in a sense, sometimes innocently, sometimes knowingly, sometimes without a care. Indeed, many people don't care, but many still do.

Notwithstanding the availability of all that information, there are privacy laws — not perfect — that protect our rights to that privacy and that information, and I must say, honestly, thank God for that, because the world that was envisioned in 1984 is not a world in which any of us want to live. We hope we never see it used for those darker purposes, but in fact, Orwell probably wasn't far off.

The real objection to this legislation — and it's the only significant objection, in my view — is where the good purpose of it runs up against privacy and runs up against the purpose for which that information is obtained by the police. That's where I think we must pay heed.

Indeed, I'm always hopeful that the government will pay heed to the remarks contained in a letter dated February 14, 2014, from Elizabeth Denham, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia. Now, it's not a valentine, notwithstanding it's dated February 14, but it is a message, nevertheless, that I think bears repeating in this House today.

Ms. Denham, having viewed the legislation carefully with a critical eye, has suggested three amendments to ensure, in her words, that "personal information is collected in a manner that is transparent to the individuals involved. My proposals would also ensure accountability for the personal information that is subsequently used and disclosed."

What she recommends is this. Firstly, she recommends that "my office be notified after an emergency disclosure demand is made. This would not be designed as an approval mechanism but would enable my office to monitor the use of emergency demands and evaluate over time whether they are being undertaken in an effective manner that is proportional to the privacy impacts on the individual whose records are disclosed."

Now, my friend the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, who spoke earlier, raised an excellent point in her remarks around the use of the civil forfeiture laws. When that matter was debated in this House…. Again, it's surely a good end that people would not be entitled to retain the profits of their crime, if you will. Consciously voting for it, as I knew I was…. Indeed some people who'd never been convicted of a crime but had obtained assets or wealth by, literally, as someone once said, taking it from somebody else or getting it in a way that wasn't right and proper, would in fact be required to forfeit it. That's a good end. That's a very good end.

But there is some suggestion now that the civil forfeiture cases, the claims, are in fact being used in a way that is not consistent with the legislation, where people who have assets that were not accumulated as the result of any activity that one would regard as untoward, let alone criminal, are in fact being sued. Of course, as anyone who has had experience with the legal system understands, it's not really the issue of being sued; it's the issue of having to pay a lawyer to fight the lawsuit when you're being sued or, indeed, if you're on the applicant's — as we call them now, or the plaintiff's, as we traditionally did — side of things, being able to hire a lawyer to take your case to obtain justice for you.

In the civil forfeiture cases there are examples — I suggest, enough — that this Legislature should be reviewing the legislation and reconsidering how it impacts on people, whether it's being used fairly and rightly.

[1530]

That's why the recommendation made by Ms. Denham, I suggest, is a good one. It will enable her, as part of her statutory duty, to monitor this.

We have a number of independent officers of the Legislature — as many legislatures in the country do, as many members of the British Commonwealth do and as many other nations around the world do — where they are charged with some statutory responsibility to ensure that legislation is properly used, that politicians behave in a manner that is consistent with the values of the society that elected them to office. I would recommend that in fact what Ms. Denham is proposing is something that the government actually adopt.

In fairness, historically, even this government, in my recollection, has in fact adopted recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner by way of putting forward their own amendments. Now, if they want to leave that privilege to the member from Deer Lake and the opposition, I'm always happy to see that happen. We like to get our names in the press as much as the government, because after all, some day we hope to sit on that side of the chamber. I'm sure that day will come.

Now the second recommendation is that she recommends that individuals whose information is collected pursuant to the Missing Persons Act be notified of that fact within a reasonable period of time after the information is collected. A highly sensible recommendation; highly sensible and consistent with our values around privacy.
[ Page 1818 ]

It's not a case of a criminal being investigated, where you'd want to claim some wonderful right under some mythical section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that you have to be told when the police are investigating you. That would rather destroy the whole point of a criminal investigation.

This, in fact, is simply a situation where information is collected pursuant to the act that they be notified within a reasonable time after that information is collected.

Even the Attorney General in her remarks today, speaking at second reading, talked about how…. Let's face it: some people like to disappear. Nothing wrong with that. Some people like to live off the grid, as they say. Some people don't want to be known, and for the odd period of time, that's not a bad thing. Indeed, I can think of some politicians who'd be well advised to stay off the grid entirely. I won't mention the mayor of Toronto, of course, but I think there is an individual who would do well to go into hiding for a little while and stay out of the media. But that's a discussion for another day.

Hon. T. Lake: I don't think he's taking your advice.

L. Krog: The Minister of Health suggests that the mayor of Toronto isn't taking my advice. I suspect that's true. I don't share much in common with the mayor of Toronto, either in terms of political philosophy or, notwithstanding my expanding middle girth, the same kind of weight. I'd like to think I have somewhat more regard and respect for the public office to which I've been elected.

That aside, the third recommendation is this. She recommends that the authorization for disclosure of information for a consistent purpose be removed from the bill. She's making reference there to section 21(2)(a), which reads now:

"This section applies despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. (2) A police force may disclose information in a record accessed under this Act only as follows:" — now, it is somewhat restrictive — "(a) for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose; (b) if the individual the information is about has consented, in the prescribed manner, to the disclosure."

It then goes on to a number of other sections.

Where we talk about "a use consistent with that purpose," that is where I think it potentially opens it up for a broader use, and a use where we're starting to stray into that Orwellian nightmare which is not surely the purpose or intent of this government or indeed the purpose or intent of the legislation.

I think those are three very reasonable recommendations for amendments to the bill.

There is some suggestion that, like the Alberta Missing Persons Act, the act should include a section that stipulates that a special legislative committee be struck five years after the bill comes into force in order to review the legislation. Our act doesn't contain that opportunity for review.

[1535]

Now, I appreciate the government doesn't have much use for committees. We see that pretty consistently. We've had standing committees that if they were actually standing around here, would have collapsed from old age before they ever actually sat. I don't know why we call them standing committees. It's a rather charming term, and someday I'll take the time to look up the historical reference that will explain it to me. The reality is that this Legislature in particular is notorious for not making use of committees.

Surely this is an act, given its relatively intrusive — but for a good purpose — aspect into the privacy of people…. Would it actually hurt for a legislative committee, much as some of the other legislation has been subject to review…? We have passed legislation in this chamber that is subject to review by legislative committees.

Surely it would be a good thing if this were reviewed in, say, three or five years. Let's see how this is actually working out on the ground. Let us hear from the police forces. Let us hear from individuals who have been the subject of this. Let us hear from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. Let us hear from all of the myriad of groups and individuals and representatives of groups that may be able to provide some cogent advice to the Legislature as to why it is working or not working, or where it requires or needs improvement.

It's a perfectly reasonable proposal. It's one, I suspect, that if the government doesn't take advantage of the advice being given, perhaps the opposition will. The intent of this bill…. The intent is surely a good thing. Everyone gets it.

I think of all the terrified parents in this province when their child is missing, particularly in the circumstances that accompany those teen years, which I don't think that many parents in British Columbia will look back on with any significant fondness, or there's a situation where someone has gone missing…. You read the cases. It's a student at UBC. They head off to class, and they don't come back. I can only imagine what it must be like for their parents and their loved ones or the people who work with them in their workplaces, or wherever it may be.

Surely something that enables the police force to try and determine quickly where they are and under what circumstances they disappeared is a positive end.

We have a duty to do here what is consistent with our societal values and with what people want. That doesn't include everything, but surely it should include the opportunity to ensure that when missing persons have literally gone missing, the police force can do their work.

As the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake put it, I suspect we'll all support this bill. There are a number of questions to be asked. There are a number of amendments that I think should be made, if you will, to polish the offering from the government — polish it up a bit. It could be
[ Page 1819 ]
done in a nice, cooperative way, which doesn't always happen in this chamber. I'm sure the government is capable of doing it.

I appreciate the remarks of all who have spoken so far in this debate. I think it's an interesting debate. I think this is a good step forward. But let's do the best job we possibly can. What has been suggested today in terms of improvements, both by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and by the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, are all consistent with improving this legislation. Let's do the right thing and do it that way.

J. Martin: On behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack, it is with great pleasure I rise to speak in support of Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act.

I have no doubt that the vast, overwhelming majority of British Columbians will join me in welcoming this timely legislation. It will enhance public safety and provide police authorities with the information they need to investigate missing persons.

Now, I've spent almost my entire adult life working in the area of public safety, criminal justice and crime prevention. These are evolving, fluid fields. The subject matter of criminal investigation is always changing. The investigative techniques are always changing. The motives of offenders are changing.

[1540]

When I started studying criminology back in the '80s, the term "victimology" wasn't even in the glossary. It didn't even exist. We had virtually no understanding and no desire to even begin understanding what it is about victims and what makes some people more vulnerable than others.

Mercifully, that has changed dramatically. We understand that not all victims are created equal, that certain groups and certain individuals, perhaps through no fault of their own, are destined to be at a higher likelihood of being victimized at some point in their life and maybe multiple points in their life.

Just as the term "victimology" really didn't exist when I started studying in this field, missing persons really wasn't something that we thought of in the area of criminal justice. It was something that we talked about in terms of identifying missing kids on the milk cartons, but it wasn't an issue that was seen to be something that we needed to turn legislation toward. It wasn't something that we saw as requiring different investigative tools from law enforcement and other authorities. So we've come a long way.

When I had the privilege of studying, when I was doing my graduate work, I became an acquaintance and later a friend with Kim Rossmo, who was the famed geographic profiler who has probably contributed more mathematical tools to assist authorities in tracking missing people and tracking predatory behaviour than virtually anybody else.

One thing that Kim Rossmo always stressed, when we started having a crisis of missing women, is that police really haven't come of age in an era where they were trained or conditioned to understand at what point a missing person may be a victim. That is a very significant leap, because people go missing all the time.

Vancouver city police get about ten missing-person reports a day. Very, very few of them end up being the victims of a serious crime. It's extremely difficult to ask law enforcement, to ask legislators, to ask criminal justice professionals to respond to some of these changing phenomena. But this bill, Bill 3, is one of those tools. It's one of those resources in our toolbox that is going to help us and assist us in not just locating but protecting missing persons.

We have to do so with a very delicate balancing act — that balancing act being the recognition of public safety and the well-being of the individual, particularly the well-being of those most vulnerable and most at risk. How do we balance that with the need for privacy, with an individual's right to keep personal information to themselves?

That's the tricky part — to come up with a piece of legislation like this that is so thoughtful and so sensitive to that delicate balancing act, and something that is written with the understanding that there could be challenges around civil liberties, could be issues around privacy. How do you strike that balance?

Well, I think we have an example of how you strike it, and that's with something called Bill 3. This legislation recognizes the rapid advancement of information technology, and it modernizes the investigation process.

Police do not conduct themselves in any manner resembling the way they did in the '70s or even the '80s. The profession, the industry, has completely been overhauled. It's incumbent, from time to time, that the legislation gets reviewed, gets tweaked. Sometimes new legislation has to be introduced to recognize these changing times.

Bill 3 strikes a delicate balance between providing police the investigative tools they so dearly need while at the same time protecting privacy rights and personal information. This is one of the major struggles in trying to craft any legislation in the field of criminal justice.

[1545]

Most important of all, though, is that Bill 3 supports the implementation of recommendations contained in the final report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. This is something that British Columbians want. That Missing Women Inquiry has forever changed the way we are going to think about and respond to people who go missing.

The government established the Missing Women Inquiry in 2010 to review the police investigation leading up to the arrest and the conviction of Robert Pickton. The inquiry also took a broader examination of the manner in which all cases involving missing women were in-
[ Page 1820 ]
vestigated. At the end of that process, Wally Oppal, head of the inquiry, delivered 63 official recommendations, which this government has accepted.

Bill 3 supports both the intent and the spirit of one of the most key and significant recommendations of that inquiry — to enact missing-person legislation "to grant speedy access to personal information of missing persons without unduly infringing on privacy rights."

There, once more, is that delicate balance — privacy rights and public safety, the protection of the person versus the protection of their personal information. This is no easy balancing act.

Bill 3 is essentially a response to recommendations from that inquiry. Currently, as it stands, police cannot get access to a missing person's information unless they have evidence that a criminal offence has taken place. Clearly, understanding how long it may take for such evidence to come into view or to become known is a problem in and of itself. This legislation, Bill 3, addresses that gap.

What we are doing here, in a nutshell, is giving police access to critical information — records and search orders that are currently beyond their reach. At present police must have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence such as a kidnapping or an assault has occurred before they can access information such as phone records. Clearly, something like phone records could be of enormous assistance to a police investigation when we're looking at a missing-person case where time may be of the essence.

However, in matters relating to personal information, we must balance privacy rights of the individuals. They must always be respected.

To satisfy these concerns, the proposed legislation contains restrictions and safeguards to ensure that personal information is handled only for the purposes of locating missing persons. These restrictions are necessary. They're essential. Without them, the effort to locate a missing person is going to be compromised, so we have to have that assurance in there. These restrictions and safeguards will ensure that personal information is handled only for the purposes of locating missing persons.

We recognize that not all people who go missing are victims of a crime. In fact, for most of the people who go missing, there is no criminal activity involved whatsoever. It is not a crime to go missing. As has been mentioned already, it's not a crime. It's not a wrong at all if someone wants to disappear. They have that right.

As we know, this is problematic for family, loved ones and concerned others. Bill 3 takes this into account, and it's designed to help authorities locate missing people to ensure he or she may not be in danger. That really is all this legislation is attempting to do at the first level.

Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia already have legislation similar to this. But Bill 3 differs. It goes a little bit further. What it does is add a person-at-risk category, and it adds a category for vulnerable missing persons.

One of the difficulties with any type of legislation in criminal justice is that it tends to be crafted with the rational person in mind — the rational offender and the rational victim. That's the whole essence around deterrence — that a particular type of punishment, a particular sanction, will deter someone from criminal activity.

[1550]

The fact is that a lot of people, both offenders and victims, are not necessarily rational. When we are looking at those potential victims that we would classify as being vulnerable or persons at risk, we are not necessarily dealing with rational people. We are dealing with victims of sexual abuse, of exploitation. We're dealing with runaway youth. We're dealing with drug addiction, mental illness, poverty — a whole plethora of social and personal problems and issues.

We have to have the tools. We have to have the ability to recognize that not all missing people are going to be fully cognizant of their whereabouts, their state and their place of being. They are people at risk. They are vulnerable. This legislation, in its forethought, addresses that vulnerability.

The inquiry specifically called for a provision for persons at risk so that police can better act and protect individuals who live at the margins, or the fringes, of society. This is who this legislation is primarily addressed at, although it's not exclusive.

The legislation also makes it an offence for failing to comply with demands for information contained within the act. For example, this legislation limits the use and the disclosure of information, and it cannot be used to further unrelated investigations. That is a provision that exists within the legislation.

This government has also included a provision for the province to designate a central missing-persons agency to coordinate investigations across jurisdictions in order to more effectively and efficiently help locate missing people. So this is not a piece of legislation that was quickly crafted together in response to public demand or in response to an inquiry. This is a piece of legislation that was very carefully and thoughtfully developed through consultation — extensive consultation — with numerous stakeholders.

These consultations have evolved over a period of time, with the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the B.C. Police Association, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the B.C. Police Missing Persons Centre. At this time consultations with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner are ongoing. That's obviously going to be a huge component of this final piece of legislation.

The government is committed to ensuring that consultations are done with all those affected by this legislation, including but not limited to First Nations, law enforcement agencies and other effective organizations.

I'll just end with a quotation from the Vancouver po-
[ Page 1821 ]
lice. I think that within that quotation we can see that this piece of legislation, Bill 3, is exactly what is needed to deal with a very serious and significant gap in the legislation as it exists right now.

"Vancouver police get between 3,000 and 4,000 missing-persons reports every year. This has the potential to help in some cases…. In some missing-persons cases, time is of the essence. The quicker and the easier we get information, the greater potential to save someone's life…. We don't want somebody's privacy hampering our ability to find somebody."

This comes from Const. Brian Montague, Vancouver police spokesperson, who is one of the most respected law enforcement individuals in the province.

So again, I'm proud to stand in support of a very difficult and a very sensitive piece of legislation that is addressing one of the most serious issues that has plagued this province over the last several decades. This is one small piece of the puzzle, going a long, long way to protecting those most vulnerable and those most at risk. I'm proud to be part of a government that would put a bill of this nature forward.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to rise and take my place in this debate. I was fascinated listening to the previous speaker, who kind of talked about this as being some monumental piece of legislation.

[1555]

In fact, it's a tiny sliver of what was required coming out of the Missing Women Inquiry. The explanatory note here on this bill says that this "provides the authority for police to access records and search premises in specified circumstances when the police are conducting a missing-person investigation."

Well, that's just such a tiny piece of what the Missing Women Inquiry actually had to say and, in fact, represents a tiny piece of what they talked about even directly regarding improving missing-persons policies and practices.

I do want to say that there are kind of two aspects of this. Government has touted this as being some significant response to the Missing Women Inquiry report and to the 63 recommendations that were made by Justice Wally Oppal. In fact, some of the very most significant recommendations made in the Missing Women Inquiry are missing from Bill 3 and from the actions that Bill 3 could have actually taken.

First and foremost, we know that the recommendation that was given to have a champion who takes on these recommendations and ensures that the government implements 63 recommendations that were made after this very careful and very exhaustive inquiry that was done was the appointment of Steven Point as the champion for these recommendations.

We know that Steven Point resigned that position nine months ago, and the government has taken no steps — zero progress — on finding a replacement for Steven Point. Even his departing words to the government were very clear: this list of recommendations needs a champion, and that person needs to be appointed as soon as possible. In fact, I think he said "yesterday" when he made those recommendations.

When I look at Bill 3, it says to me…. It really highlights the fact that the government has taken no actions whatsoever to replace Mr. Point. We have asked the government in these chambers about their intentions. Are they going to replace Mr. Point? When are they going to replace Mr. Point? In fact, the Missing Women Inquiry asks for and needs that kind of champion.

When the government presents Bill 3 as this narrow, tiny, small piece of a sliver of a response to the recommendations, it immediately calls into question their intentions on so many other pieces. Is this their flagship? Bill 3 is the flagship response to the Missing Women Inquiry? They certainly haven't taken steps to replace Steven Point, and we know that that is an imperative recommendation in the Missing Women Inquiry.

Supports for organizations that provide many of the services that are called for in the Missing Women Inquiry. I will talk most pointedly about the organization here on the south Island called PEERS that has had funding cuts from this government that have jeopardized its ability to stay open, to keep its doors open 24 hours a day so that people in the sex trade — those very people most affected during the Missing Women Inquiry, some of the people referred to in Bill 3….

These very individuals are now jeopardized in their ability to find a safe place to get help, to get treatment, to come and be safe, to report aggressive or abusive perpetrators on the streets not just for women in the sex trade but for all women. There have been many opportunities where PEERS has reported aggressive, abusive individuals on the street that have made it safer for all women in this community, and those individuals were taken off the street.

This report asks for organizations like that to receive adequate funding. Now, the WISH Drop-in Centre in Vancouver has certainly had their funding put in place, but that's only one piece of the puzzle. The government has ignored that other very significant organization here, PEERS, that also needs to have the security of funding so they can keep their doors open. How do you enact Bill 3 if you are cutting away some of the support systems around women who could go missing or be endangered?

I will also say that it's very evident to me that other really imperative aspects of the Missing Women Inquiry…. We've talked in this chamber about the dire need for some kind of transportation system along Highway 16 where people, women, have gone missing. Women could continue to go missing because this government shortsightedly will not put in a response around a shuttle bus on Highway 16. The government refuses to give us an answer on that. No money in the Transportation budget this year to address that.
[ Page 1822 ]

[1600]

Those are really dire pieces of the Missing Women Inquiry. So when the government tables Bill 3, as laudable as it may be in its minor addressing of this issue, it really highlights the fact that there are so many other things the government could be doing and should be doing on the Missing Women Inquiry.

I draw your attention to the actual recommendations in the inquiry — aside from the need for transportation and a bus on Highway 16; the replacement of Steven Point as a champion; proper funding for organizations like PEERS, who help vulnerable women get off the street, find a safe place and find a safe way to liaise with the police.

Among the many recommendations here, there is a whole section about improved missing-person policies and practices. That starts with section 7.1 and runs all the way through to 7.11 — so 11 specific recommendations just around the issue of missing-person policies and practices. Are they incorporated in Bill 3? A few are, but many are not.

It seems to me that the government had a great opportunity with Bill 3 to incorporate what were very specific well-laid-out plans here. None of this is too complex to have been included in this bill.

Number 7.1 says that the provincial standards "be developed by the director of police services with the assistance of a committee consisting of representatives of the B.C. Association of Municipal Police Chiefs, the RCMP, representatives of community and aboriginal groups, and representatives of families of the missing and murdered women."

I don't know how much input they had into Bill 3, but certainly anecdotally from the families, they don't necessarily seem appeased that somehow Bill 3, with its narrow definition of allowing police to access records and search premises, meets the larger demand of the missing and murdered women's inquiry.

Number 7.2 is that proposed provincial missing-persons standards "include at least 15 components." That would include a definition of a "missing person." Not in here. This is about accessing records. As laudable as that is, they're missing the point on so many other pieces of this inquiry.

Secondly, "criteria for the acceptance of reports, jurisdiction, missing-person risk assessment tool, provincial missing-person reporting forms, standards related to interaction with family and reportees, initial steps and background information, supervisory responsibility and quality control, forensic-evidence standards, coroners' liaison, monitoring outstanding missing-persons cases." This is about accessing records in a very narrow way, and look at the number of…. "Closing missing-person files, prevention and intervention, and the role and authority of the BCPMPC."

Number 7.3 is that the provincial standards "require a proactive missing-persons process whereby police must take prevention and intervention measures including safe-and-well checks when an individual is found." This does not represent that.

We go on. Now, there are several points in here which the government has selectively pulled some pieces out and written into Bill 3, into their legislation, but that does not comprehensively address the issues. Even in this section, they have pulled selectively a couple of pieces out of here, but it does not address many of the larger issues here.

Number 7.6 is that provincial government "establish an agency independent of all police agencies with the purposes to include coordinating information, identifying patterns, establishing base rates, checking on police investigations, ensuring accountability for linked interjurisdictional series and warning the public. It should provide oversight and analytic functions, but it should not be an investigative entity."

I don't see anywhere the intention for this Bill 3 to incorporate that very specific recommendation, which I think is, again, one that after an exhaustive inquiry…. Honestly, the inquiry did have some issues. It wasn't a perfect inquiry, but it was pretty exhaustive in the inquiry that occurred.

[1605]

I would think that the government — who at the time responded by saying, "We will institute every recommendation. We will absolutely. We accept the report. We will take action on these recommendations" — would go a lot further than simply extracting several pieces out of the report and saying: "That's it. We've now have addressed this." "We've addressed pieces of the report," and somehow that is acceptable.

Number 7.7 is that provincial authorities "create and maintain a provincial missing-persons website aimed at educating the public about the missing-persons process and engaging them in proactive approaches to prevention and investigation." Again, this talks very narrowly about records, about the ability for the police, in specific circumstances, to conduct missing-persons investigations.

There are larger pieces of the Missing Women Inquiry that have been missed from this. This goes on with several other points here.

I have no intention of opposing this bill, but when I hear the government say: "Well, we wash our hands now of the Missing Women Inquiry. We hired Steven Point, and despite the fact that he's quit, we're not going to take any further action. We partially supported organizations that help vulnerable women in the sex trade or on the street, and we're not going to take any further action. Too bad for the women on Highway 16, and oh, by the way, Greyhound has cut the service there as well, and we have no intention of taking any action…." When government says that, I say that that is irresponsible.
[ Page 1823 ]

To hear that their response is the Missing Persons Act, Bill 3, is not enough. It doesn't go far enough. I won't oppose the bill, because it's fairly laudable in the process that it prescribes here. But I don't want to hear the government say that this is in response to the Missing Women Inquiry — because, boy, they've got a long way to go before they accurately and adequately respond to this and make good on the promise that they would put all of these recommendations in place so that the families would feel that some justice was done.

Lots of questions to be answered here around this. Bill 3 — a tiny little sliver of the piece of the puzzle.

G. Heyman: Like many of my colleagues who've spoken before me, I want to applaud this bill for what it attempts to do. It's an important bill that will have significant utility in instances where women or other persons go missing and will put important tools in the hands of law enforcement officials to help, if possible, relieve the danger and threat they may be under. That's important. I don't want to make light of it in any way. I want to also acknowledge that this was an important recommendation of Justice Oppal's commission of inquiry on the missing women.

As my colleague from Esquimalt–Royal Roads and other of my colleagues before her have pointed out today, that is one recommendation of the Missing Women Inquiry. Frankly, it is a recommendation that's focused on addressing issues after the fact, not doing some of the very important things and implementing some of the very important recommendations of that inquiry that could actually prevent somebody being in danger, somebody going missing, the police and family having to search for somebody and far too often — far too often — finding out that the person they're searching for is either missing forever or deceased.

I look forward to the day when the Justice Minister actually introduces legislation to implement all of the recommendations of the Missing Women Inquiry and take all of the possible measures that could be taken to minimize risk before the fact and not just to help authorities address, after the fact, the threat — whether it is in time or, far too often, too late. Having said that, let me now address the substance of the bill.

The bill does put important tools in the hands of authorities who are searching for somebody who has gone missing. It is well-intentioned in that regard, as others before me have said. It's a bill that we would like to wholeheartedly support.

It helps ensure safety in very time-sensitive situations by allowing speedy access to personal information of missing persons. It expedites the whole process where a missing person's life or their physical safety may be in danger.

[1610]

But it's also important…. This is where I want to address some issues that others before me have raised and that the Privacy Commissioner raised in a letter to the Minister of Justice suggesting some amendments, some important amendments that would ensure transparency, would ensure some level of monitoring, would ensure that people's personal, private information was not used inappropriately — but not doing that in a way that would in any way delay the process or interfere with the ability of authorities to actually do the search and get the information they require.

It is, however, important that we consider very carefully in this House measures to limit unnecessary release of private, personal information and that we respect individuals' right to privacy. That's what British Columbians respect. That's what the law expects. That's why we have a Privacy Commissioner.

That's why I hope that the Justice Minister and the members opposite in considering this bill, this important bill, will consider the words that the Privacy Commissioner has offered. The amendment she's offered, the amendments that the critic has offered and the amendments that I will suggest in a few moments would improve the bill, would give British Columbians a sense of security about the kind of monitoring that is required to ensure that a bill, however well-intentioned and necessary, has not been subjected over time to misuse or use in a manner that was not intended by the original bill.

Commissioner Oppal, in his report, suggested this measure, that access be granted to people's personal, private information but "without unduly infringing on privacy rights." This is the same quote the Privacy Commissioner raised in putting forward her support for the bill in principle but with the important caveats that she raised.

She is concerned that expedited access must be accompanied by sufficient transparency and oversight of emergency demands for records by police forces. She also is concerned that we limit subsequent disclosure and use of the information for any purpose other than that for which we are told it is intended, and that is locating a missing person.

In that regard, section 20 of the bill notes that information accessed under it does not prevent information in a record from being used for the purpose of a related criminal investigation. I would submit to the Justice Minister and for consideration by government that by including this clause we may actually be creating a disincentive to people who have information or knowledge from actually releasing it for the purpose of helping to identify the location of a missing person. We may, in fact, be creating an artificial barrier to the purposes of the act. I would submit that for consideration as well.

The Privacy Commissioner proposed three amendments. They would not require any added level of approval for the release of information than the bill currently does. It would not delay the production of information
[ Page 1824 ]
to help authorities locate a missing person. But they do help ensure transparency after the fact and in future use for individuals involved. They help provide a level of oversight by an independent officer and, ultimately, by the public, to whom the independent officer might report if that officer felt that the submissions made directly to government about the use of the act were not sufficient to gain the change in behaviour and use that was sought.

These are important values: transparency, oversight and accountability. They underlie much of what we do in this House. They're important values shared by British Columbians, particularly with respect to access of information and our rights as individuals to privacy.

Obviously, there are instances, and this act is intended to address those, where an individual's right to privacy must be weighed against the immediate need to locate that individual, if they're missing, or to use information that's private information about another individual to help locate somebody who's missing and in danger.

But I'll state again that the amendments that the Privacy Commissioner has proposed to the government are minimal.

[1615]

They do not interfere with the government's process of requiring records. They simply help us be sure that people have a right to know if their information has been accessed, that we know over time if this bill has unintended consequences, the act has unintended consequences, in terms of unnecessary invasion of privacy and also that the information is being used for purposes very explicitly related to locating and finding a missing person and removing them from harm's way if there is still time to do that.

First amendment. Section 2(b) authorizes a member of the police force who believes emergency demand is justified to demand, without a court order, to gain access to a person's private information or a third party's private information if it helps find somebody who's missing. In this case, they're required to file a written report with the officer in charge of the force and to report annually. The force must report annually on the number of emergency demands that were made. These are emergency demands for which no court order is required.

The commissioner points out that this can be a significant intrusion on the privacy of citizens in the absence of any judicial oversight. Her suggestion, which would not delay the process at all but would provide some insurance to British Columbians that this is not being abused or used in situations that really aren't emergent is that notice be given to the officer of the Privacy Commissioner at the same time that it is given to the officer in charge. This is not notice for approval. She is clear about that. It is simply for monitoring and evaluation on the public behalf at the same time as the written report is provided to the officer in charge.

This is a helpful suggestion, in my view. I hope the Minister of Justice would find it to be a helpful suggestion and that the members opposite would find it to be a helpful suggestion in assuring British Columbians that their privacy is not at risk.

The commissioner's second proposed amendment is that the authority for records of missing and third parties who may be in the company or last seen with a missing person…. No notice is required to be given to individuals whose records have been collected.

This is a peculiar aspect of this particular bill, I will say, because in other instances people are to be notified that their personal information and records have been accessed. I don't know if it's an oversight, but it's certainly missing from the act, and the commissioner simply says that everybody has a right to know that their personal information has been accessed. She suggests that within some reasonable period of time after the information has been collected, people be notified.

This is similar to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, section 33.1(m). It's not unreasonable. It goes to the heart of people's right to know who knows what about them. Again, it does not in any way interfere with the administration of the purposes of this bill.

The third recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner was that section 21(2)(a) allows disclosure of information for "a purpose…consistent with the purpose of locating a missing person." In the submission of the Privacy Commissioner, this significantly broadens the authority of the act. She does not believe that the act should be used for any other purpose but that for which we've been told it is explicitly designed, and that's to hasten the location of someone who's missing and may be in danger.

It is open to interpretation. It is open to interpretation by police forces, and particularly coupled with the fact that it may be used in conjunction with an emergency demand for written records for which currently the act provides no monitoring or oversight, it is potentially subject to abuse.

I would submit, on behalf of British Columbians, that British Columbians believe that if their private, personal information is to be accessed, if it is to be used, the purposes for which it should be done should be absolutely explicit in an act.

With respect to that example, the Privacy Commissioner also stated in 2012, when the Pharmaceutical Services Act was brought in, that Bill 35 enumerates overly broad and permissive measures for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, that the ministry is neither focused nor targeted at a specific need.

[1620]

I know the intent of this bill is very important. It's certainly critical to people who are missing and may be in danger. It's critical to their families. There should not be delays. But similarly, if there is a conceivable purpose
[ Page 1825 ]
consistent with the purpose of the act, surely that should be clearly spelled out.

I offer as another example, when there was the unfortunate Stanley Cup riots, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia volunteered to provide its facial recognition database to the Vancouver police department to identify Stanley Cup rioters. The Vancouver police department was more than happy to use this tool that was available to them. Many British Columbians would have thought that that was quite appropriate — that people had committed crime and anything that could be done to identify them was appropriate.

But the commissioner pointed out, correctly, at the time — and she actually had the power at this time to overrule that — that this was a change in use from what was intended by the design of the software and by the legislation and that if the police wanted access to the database for a specific purpose, as opposed to gathering it for everyone in the database, they must receive a warrant, a subpoena or a court order. As a result of that, the unwarranted use of this database, under the law, was suspended.

Let me simply say, again, that the amendments suggested by the Privacy Commissioner will not hinder timely access, but they will provide monitoring, and they will protect the public's right to know that their private personal information has been accessed. It will protect against abuses, many of which may simply be unwitting abuses by police authorities who believe, in all good conscience, that they're using the act appropriately to prevent a crime or to find somebody or for a related purpose.

The commissioner has made it clear that if there is a purpose for which people's personal private information is to be revealed — that their privacy is to be, for want of a better term, "violated" — let the act be specific. Let the act not contain the kinds of holes that language like "purpose consistent," which is open to interpretation, creates.

So I would hope that the members opposite and the Minister of Justice will take the very constructive suggestions of the Privacy Commissioner, suggestions that we will put forward through our critic, in committee stage, for improving the act, for making this act better and to ensure that it is only used for purposes for which it is designed while at the same time providing the public the assurance that there is a level of monitoring; that there is transparency to individuals; that potential for abuse has been minimized, if not removed; and that we move forward on that basis with an important piece of legislation, but a piece of legislation that can be improved, that should be improved and that I hope the Justice Minister and the members opposite will allow us to collaborate with them to improve.

C. Trevena: I take my place in the debate on Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act. I'd just like to touch on a couple points about the act.

I think that it's been very well discussed so far by my colleagues on this side, who've raised a number of concerns about it, in their willingness to support it.

The two areas I would like to focus on are really the limitations of the act and some of the ways that we could, I would say, solve them — some of the concerns that have been raised and how we could solve them.

This act is one of the recommendations that came from the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, Wally Oppal's commission. The member for Chilliwack acknowledged that there were 63 recommendations, for this act, and that this is the spirit and the intent from one of those recommendations.

I think that the member for Chilliwack, in going through the criminology side of it and the importance of how things have advanced in criminology in the last few years, has missed some of the very basic things that have come out of the other recommendations, some which are very simple.

[1625]

The one I'd like to focus on, one of the recommendations, is that there should be a shuttle bus along Highway 16, the so-called Highway of Tears. That would be a recommendation that would be well worth acting upon. It doesn't negate from the need to have some legislation to ensure that missing people can be traced. The police have tools there to trace missing people, but we should be looking at ways that we can be preventing women going missing.

While this is just one of the many recommendations — and it's an important recommendation — I think that we should, as I say, be looking at the more preventative. The possibility of a shuttle bus would mean that women wouldn't go missing. It would mean that for many women who we might need to use this act…. We wouldn't have to use the act.

At the time when we had the recommendations for the shuttle business, which the government still hasn't acted upon 18 months after the recommendation came through…. A simple system. Just get a bus. We can get buses around the Lower Mainland, and we can get buses all over the place, but we can't get the shuttle bus on Highway 16, on the Highway of Tears.

At the same time that we didn't get that bus, we also lost the Greyhound service. It cut its service, which further limited people's ability but particularly women's — particularly vulnerable women, poor women, First Nations women…. It limited their ability to be able to move. Because their ability to move freely was limited, they ended up having to hitchhike, which meant they were more vulnerable to go missing.

So we have the legislation which deals, importantly but sadly, with the back end, and we're not dealing with the front end. I think that if the government was consistent and wanted to ensure that the spirit and the intent of Mr. Oppal's recommendations really were carried out, the
[ Page 1826 ]
government would ensure that the other recommendations of the Missing Women Inquiry — particularly this service, this shuttle bus — were put in place.

I think there's still an opportunity for them to do it. We keep raising the possibility, and I hope that the government is listening. I hope they're working out how to do that.

We're in the middle of the budget process. We've got the opportunity to discuss the budget. We've got an opportunity to discuss the budget within Transportation, and I will be raising that opportunity in the estimates debates.

But I do think that…. You deal with the end. You should also deal with beginning. You should deal with some of those reasons why people go missing. I think poverty and isolation in rural areas are some of those reasons.

That is one thing I think…. The intent and the spirit of one of the recommendations is not good enough. We need to go much further.

We're talking about a missing-persons act. Most missing people that we have seen in this province, most missing people that we all know about, are those missing women. Yes, we talk about seniors who go missing, and we know about kids who go missing, but the real number of missing people, the missing persons of B.C., are the missing women. I don't think that a missing-persons act is going to be the answer for what's been happening and what continues to happen.

Moving on, I think that like my colleagues…. It's a bill that we will be supporting, but we believe that it needs some amendments to it.

It allows police to access records related to a missing person when a crime isn't suspected. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has raised some concerns, and I know that we will be tabling these amendments. The office has said that they want to ensure emergency orders are used appropriately, including — and I'll just read it out — "to ensure the office is notified when police use an emergency order, to ensure third parties are notified when their information is collected and to narrow the purposes for which this information can be collected."

I notice that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour mentioned in her contributions that there are still consultations going on with the Privacy Commissioner. This begs the question: if the consultations are still going on and the Privacy Commissioner has concerns and the Privacy Commissioner has indicated they want to see amendments to the bill, why has the bill been tabled now? Why not wait until those concerns have been dealt with? Then we could wholeheartedly support the bill. We wouldn't have to worry about these serious issues of privacy.

My colleague from Nanaimo is talking about the brave new world that we live in — 1984 — and concerns about privacy. We do let a lot of privacy to go. We use credit cards. We sign onto the Internet. We do a lot of things. But there is a certain amount of respect for privacy. How far can law enforcement go without jeopardizing privacy?

[1630]

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour talked about getting a balance. I didn't quite get the words but, really, the need to breach privacy and the need to have that privacy. They're still trying to find that balance, and that's why consultation is still going on. I think that those consultations should have been completed before this bill was tabled.

The other way forward…. My colleague the member for Nanaimo suggested that perhaps we enact the bill, after discussion through the debating process here, and then, in the committee stage, perhaps we have it for a trial period and see how it works.

I think that this bill would really be the perfect bill to put to our committee system. Not the way that we have it at the moment, where we have our bill, and then we stand here and we do our….

The critic on the bill, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, will stand very ably asking the Minister of Justice questions about each clause. She'll be supported, I'm sure, by the member for Nanaimo and maybe the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and others about each clause. But perhaps this is the opportunity to go through the debate, then take the bill out to a full committee.

My colleague the member for Juan de Fuca last week tabled a bill. He tabled a bill on making sure that we could get a full debate on legislation by ensuring that our committee system works. By ensuring that all those standing committees that the Premier, when she stood in the House a few weeks ago, one of those rare times…. She stood there and gave the list of all the committees that we were supposed to be having.

But we never meet. The member for Juan de Fuca tabled a piece of legislation that would make sure those committees met.

Perhaps we could enact that bill and take this piece of legislation to a committee, have a wider discussion and bring people in. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association have expressed concern. I'm sure a representative of the Missing Women Inquiry would like to have further comment on this. Have a broader discussion.

I think that the mechanism is there. Unfortunately, we seem to be trapped in this way of discussing legislation. We have a debate where, largely, members of the opposition stand up and make speeches about certain parts and their concern about a bill. We get the preface and the conclusion from the minister who's introducing the bill. Then we go into this strange question-and-answer period in the committee stage of the bill. Then it is inevitably passed because the government's got the majority.

I don't think that's very healthy, particularly when we have concerns, when we have a bill that members on the
[ Page 1827 ]
government side have admitted they haven't finished consulting about. Perhaps this is the opportunity to really make this Legislature work better.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

This is a bill that will get support. But we should be ensuring that it is complete before it is tabled, that all the consultation happens so that when we get to the amendments, we know that those…. Well, basically, we wouldn't need amendments because we've had the consultation. As it is, we're going to have to make amendments, representing the voice of independent officers of the House, because the government hasn't finished its work. It has tabled the bill too early.

With that, I'm going to conclude my remarks. As I say, like my colleagues, I will be supporting this bill, but I do think that prevention really is vital. The fact that we have 62 recommendations of the Missing Women Inquiry still outstanding, 18 months after the Missing Women Inquiry came to be, I think is a disgraceful indictment of this government's lack of care for the problem that we have there.

In fact, there's a very simple recommendation of providing a bus that would ensure that the missing women…. I go back to my earlier comments. When we talk about missing persons in B.C., we are talking about missing women. A bus to ensure their safety would make a huge difference.

I think that the government is also losing the opportunity of making sure that this House works the way that it should do for all of the people of B.C. — not just for the people that the government would like to represent but for all the people.

[1635]

S. Robinson: My colleagues have spoken quite well to the bill. I, too, will lend my support to the bill, but I have some concerns. I'd also want to set the context, because I think the context here is important.

This is generated from the Missing Women Inquiry. I think it's important to recognize that this does not let the government off the hook with the other recommendations. It is a small sliver, a small piece. The member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads spoke very well to that.

While the Missing Women Inquiry is the impetus for this bill, I think it's important that the Missing Women Inquiry recommendations have a role in making a difference today. This bill doesn't necessarily make a difference in these women's lives today. It's for when they go missing.

Really, what these women need are actions now. They need opportunities now, they need safe places now, and they need a bus now. This bill will only help in the event that they go missing. That is just not good enough. It's just not good enough in that context.

The other context I want to address, and what I find very interesting, is the context of the Silver Alert private member's bill that I proposed last week. Reading through the bill, it would appear that this government's commitment to finding missing persons, including those with dementia and Alzheimer's….

I think it's sort of alluded to in section 21(3)(e). "For the purposes of a missing person investigation, a police force may make public the following information…." And (e) says: "information about any medical conditions of the missing person that may pose a serious or immediate threat to the health of the missing person."

It sounds like this government is very interested in getting information that would help make it easier to find someone with Alzheimer's or dementia, so I really hope that the Silver Alert Act would be part of the government's plan to help missing people. It would greatly contradict their commitment if they didn't support it. It would greatly contradict their commitment to make public information on any medical condition. I really hope they find a way to support that as well.

The intent of the act I certainly fully support. The idea of uncovering whatever information is needed to find somebody who is missing, who is vulnerable, who is scared, who needs to be in a safe place makes really good sense.

What concerns I have, however, are the applications of the act. We want to make sure that it is properly applied, and I too have some concerns, just like some of my colleagues, about this.

The clause in 20(2), when it speaks to the use of information and where it's limited, says: "For certainty, this section does not prevent information in a record accessed under this Act from being used for the purpose of a related criminal investigation." That gets repeated elsewhere. I think it's in section 21(8): "For certainty, this section does not prevent information in a record accessed under this Act from being disclosed for the purpose of a related criminal investigation."

The question that comes to my mind in terms of how this gets applied has to do with those who have information. What will be their incentive? In my other life I was a family therapist and an addictions counsellor. I worked in the alcohol and drug addictions field. I worked in the public as well as the private and the non-profit sector in that capacity.

Part of working with these people…. Some of them, of course, got their drugs illegally or perhaps were dealing, but they were coming for counselling because they decided that now was the time for them to change their lives. They knew that they were acting illegally in some of their transactions, but they decided that they needed to come for counselling, that that was going to be their step to making a better life for themselves.

In our conversations there would be information about who they were associating with, where they would hang
[ Page 1828 ]
out or where and how they were engaging in illegal activities. That information I would certainly hear about. Now, if I'm reading this correctly, it would suggest that I would be obligated to share information about who their associates were, where they hung out or where they did these illegal acts.

[1640]

That, really, for me is cause for concern. The cause for concern is this. If there is a threat that my records, on an emergency basis, would be used in a criminal prosecution…. I'm not talking about locating somebody. I'm talking about the idea that they would be used in a prosecution of some sort. Then their ability to participate fully in therapy, their ability to participate fully in the process of making better decisions for themselves, their ability to form a relationship with their therapist or their counsellor and their ability to move forward would be severely compromised.

I have serious concerns about the risk that puts to those kinds of relationships. That's sensitive information. Albeit if somebody is missing and I have been their therapist and I hear from police that we need to find this person, that they are fearful for their life, that they believe that this information is critical, and they were to assure me it would not be used in any sort of criminal justice capacity, then I would absolutely be willing to share that information. What is of utmost importance here is the ability to save people's lives.

But if those clauses remain, if those clauses continue to be there, which would put at risk…. The idea that any information I share about third parties and where they might be could be used in a criminal investigation — that actually changes the nature of what I feel comfortable disclosing as a family therapist and addictions counsellor.

It also puts at risk the nature of the relationship, because when clients know that, if they believe that…. Part of doing my work is that I let them know what the nature of confidentiality is. If I let them know that if they share information with me and they go missing, the police could come and get this information and potentially use it against them, criminally, then my job to support this person, to help them to form relationship and to help them make better decisions is severely compromised.

I don't think that's what the intent is here. I think the intent is really to find missing people. That's really what we want to be doing. I think there are some risks here. I understand that the Privacy Commissioner has some concerns, and I understand that the member from Deer Lake is going to be proposing some amendments.

I think that's the piece that's missing here. There really wasn't some thought put to: what are the unintended consequences of some pieces of this proposed act? I would hope that as this moves forward, there is some real, serious consideration to what some of the unintended consequences are and consultation with these groups who work with some of these people, work with people who've worked in the sex trade.

They share a whole lot of details about their lives. It is the process of therapy. It's the process of counselling. It's a process of understanding. It's a process of them recognizing some of the poor choices they've made. But if they believe that as they disclose and they tell these stories, that will be used against them in a criminal justice system, then we all fail them. That's not the intent.

I'm going to urge the government to very carefully consider all of these aspects, making sure that this really is about finding missing persons; this is not about criminal charges. That puts a whole lot of our work together in jeopardy, and I don't think it's worth it.

I will be supporting this going forward. I will leave my comments at that.

D. Plecas: I'm very pleased to be speaking to this bill, Missing Persons Act. I speak to it, of course as a member of this side of the House, but as somebody who has spent a number of years investigating the whole matter of what we can do to better provide for public safety and guard against violence against women — having done a number of studies relating specifically to missing persons.

I have been involved in research which has resulted in my having had an opportunity to look at all missing-persons cases that are unresolved since 1949, so I have a fair idea of what the issues are around this. In particular, knowing that, I couldn't be more pleased than to see this piece of legislation.

[1645]

I believe it is a direct hit on what police across the country have been asking for, for years. I think it's particularly important for us to remember that this is not just a bill which addresses concerns about safety for aboriginal women and women in the north; it's about missing persons in general.

All of us know and appreciate how serious this issue is. All of us appreciate how important it is for us to do more to be helpful to resolving missing-persons cases, to protect people who go missing. All of us in the House, I'm sure, want to do something about that. I think this bill does that precisely.

I'm also reminded when I think of this bill that it's another effort in a long line of things this government has done to do more to guard against violence, against women in particular, and to provide for public safety. People should know, if they don't now, that in British Columbia we have done more to reduce crime than any other single jurisdiction in the western world — whether you went to any state in the United States, you went to any province in Canada, you went to Australia, New Zealand, the U.K.

There is no jurisdiction where crime has been more reduced than it has here in British Columbia. That is a direct function of the kinds of initiatives which have been put in place here in the province.
[ Page 1829 ]

One of the concerns, I know, that has been raised a number of times is the matter of privacy and the concerns that there might be a chance that information received by the police might be misused. I think people will want to have in mind that we have had, for a long time, protocols in place to ensure that there isn't a misuse of information. There are checks and balances along the way to make sure the information is only used for its express purpose, and I think that has been addressed in the legislation as well.

There has also been some attention given in the House here to implementing the recommendations of the Oppal Commission. Of course, this government has said they are committed to considering every single recommendation. I think it's fair comment to say that most of those recommendations will be addressed fully.

That doesn't mean that all of them would have to be. I say that being attentive to the one recommendation regarding the proposal for a bus service in the north between Prince Rupert and Prince George. I wouldn't be convinced that that's a particularly safe thing to do. Knowing what I know about predators against women, one might think that perhaps there's an opportunity there where predators would see this as a target. I'm reminded of all those incidents of violence against women which happen on or near bus stops. Whilst I appreciate the concern, I would say that that's perhaps not one of the things we should be doing at the moment.

More importantly, what we should be doing is what this government has been doing over the last decade, and that's being attentive to what we can do on the preventative side. We simply need to be having programs in place that address the root causes of violence against women, the root causes of what leads people to go missing. Of course, quite a percentage of those are accidents, but we know there's a certain group of people in society who are most vulnerable, most at risk. It calls upon us to be more attentive to the kinds of things we could do on the preventative side.

Again, respecting that recommendation, and the recommendations of the Oppal Commission in general, I'm not thinking that this would be the best thing we could do at the moment. I think there needs to be a lot more thought given to that.

[1650]

We also know that overall there are no easy solutions. Reminded again that of all of the things we could do to be helpful right now in resolving and looking at the issue of missing persons, this act is very much a direct hit on what has been recommended by those who have looked at this issue in depth and who have had to deal with this issue across the country for years.

Again, I just want to go on record as saying that I could not be more supportive of this act.

N. Simons: I appreciate the comments from members in this House, from both sides. I think this is an issue that we really need to talk about. We need to take the appropriate steps to address what is a significant social issue here in the province. I appreciate the comments of members from both sides of the House.

But there is one issue that I think we haven't really talked about. I've looked for missing people. I've had kids whose parents have been murdered. I have worked with them. I mean, I know what the impact is on communities, as we all can imagine, when a person goes missing.

When I look — not just as a criminologist, as a social worker…. I think that what we all have to recognize is that what we're talking about is that when victims and vulnerable people go missing, they most usually come from poverty — communities of poverty, families in poverty.

I really think that this is an opportunity for us to recognize that. There are obviously people who go missing who are seniors and people who go missing who are hikers and people who go missing who are in the sex trade and people who go missing who…. We don't always understand why a person is missing, and I defer to the member opposite for having studied missing people.

I think when we're talking about victims of crime — people who go missing as a result of crime — most often they are vulnerable by the occupation, vulnerable by lack of family ties, vulnerable through a lack of community ties. Unless we address the issue of poverty….

There are people in our societies who are just criminal and who do things to other people. It's hard for law-abiding people to understand that.

I think if we can actually concentrate on creating resilience in people of all communities, and especially in communities that are disproportionately low income…. By building resilience and by allowing for programs that build resilience, we're actually going to be addressing the root causes.

In many cases our vulnerable citizens are First Nations living in rural parts of the province. Unless we recognize that poverty will result in sometimes stress and neglect and dangerous behaviour, those people will be putting themselves in vulnerable positions.

What we should be trying to do as legislators is to shore up the natural defences in families and to shore up the natural defences of community so that individuals will look out for one another, will prevent each other from getting into dangerous situations.

In some cases, in fact, I think the law sometimes acts in a way that further marginalizes people. I think we have to make sure that as a society we see the fundamental, most important thing is to protect the lives of citizens.

When we have people involved in the sex trade…. I think that recent Supreme Court decisions might result in, perhaps, us figuring out that we have to recognize that vulnerable people who engage in dangerous behaviours need our support. They needed it when they were chil-
[ Page 1830 ]
dren. Their families needed it when they were children.

I think that whether you're a criminologist or not, it's fairly clear to most people that if a child is raised in a home where there is adequate food and an absence of undue stress, they become healthier citizens physically, emotionally and spiritually.

[1655]

It may be hard to find a piece of legislation that will actually address that specifically, but I think, because we are legislators and because we have the ability to enact regulations and laws that impact various parts of our society, that we should really be looking at a coordinated approach to this.

This is a one-off piece of legislation that I think will give police forces an important tool for their already crowded tool belt. The police that I know and talk to do need to have some tools. I think, obviously, we would want to protect against abuse of that, but I wouldn't suggest that that would be something that…. It would be a rare occasion, and I wouldn't want to make that the focus, necessarily, of this debate.

This is an important ingredient in what should — and could, perhaps — be a larger series of actions that we could take. Not all of them will be 100 percent effective. But the combination of a variety of social programs and social support networks and support through various programs, I think, combined could have a significant impact in a preventative way on how people become vulnerable.

It's not flashy, and it's not necessarily easily measureable, but I think despite that, we know as citizens of this province that our communities are healthier when children are raised in violence-free homes, where parents who are under stress get the support they need, where educational services and special attention is afforded children in schools and where recreational activities allow kids to develop the resilience they need to become stronger adults.

I obviously support this legislation, with the comment that it is one answer to many questions. I think that we need to continue to look at those other questions and really make a concerted effort to address the poverty that exists, whether we're the worst or fifth-worst or even not the worst. That doesn't matter. We need to address the kids who are in poverty. A little eight-year-old isn't going to know whether they are part of the poorest children in the country or not. It's irrelevant. They're one child too many who is poor.

I think that when we recognize those underlying causes of social disintegration, or however you want to phrase it…. Once we address the underlying causes, we'll have much more success. Our programs will be more successful. Our social workers will be more successful. Our teachers will be more successful. Overall, I think our communities will become healthier.

So I appreciate this legislation and thank the government for bringing it forward. I hope that as we debate in the next step of this debate, we will be able to maybe even tweak it a little bit as legislators. I think this is beyond, sometimes, the partisanship that infiltrates this place. I hope that suggestions that are meant in goodwill are considered so that we will all be very comfortable supporting this, as a step towards helping make our society safer.

M. Morris: The member opposite was right. It goes beyond poverty, though.

One of the underlying factors to a lot of the missing people that I've dealt with in my career as a police officer and we all deal with as a society is the alcohol and drug abuse that's associated with the lifestyle a lot of these people have, which leads to poor decision-making.

I have dealt with — I can't remember — hundreds of tragedies over the years where people have gone missing. It has affected families. It has affected the police officers that investigated those cases, and whatnot. No matter which way you cut it, nobody comes out a winner in these situations here.

I'm in support of this bill, as I understand everybody in this House is.

[1700]

The concerns that I've heard come from the members opposite with respect to the information that is gathered by police officers as a result of this new legislation being abused, in my experience, is unfounded. As my colleague earlier stated, there are safeguards in place already in the criminal justice system.

If any police officer tries to use any information that is not legally obtained in the course of a criminal investigation, it jeopardizes the entire criminal case that may be currently before the courts. No police officer wants to put in hundreds of hours of investigation and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money in investigating a case only to have it tossed out at the end of the day.

I've seen police officers go to great lengths, you know, go above and beyond the call of duty in trying to mitigate the people that may go missing within their detachment areas. During periods of cold weather, for an example, when they come on shift — at four o'clock in the afternoon or seven o'clock in the afternoon — all the members go immediately to all the haunts where a lot of the people go to do their drinking or do their drugs or do whatever they do in the high-risk lifestyle that they lead. The police officers check on those areas to make sure that these people are still alive.

If they can't find them, they go looking for them door to door, in many cases, to make sure that these people are safe. That often gets overlooked by the public. They don't know what goes on behind the scenes and the extent that police officers go to, to try and track these people down even before they're reported missing.

One of the other problems that police officers have
[ Page 1831 ]
with respect to investigating missing persons is obtaining information necessary to broadcast the fact that they're missing. The common element with people that go missing…. A lot of these folks that go missing lead high-risk lifestyles in drugs, in the sex trade. They're alcoholics. They live a life of poverty, but it's compounded by all these other factors. They've had previous run-ins with police, sometimes dozens or perhaps over 100 times in a year. They might be arrested for some kind of a regulatory offence like alcohol abuse or being drunk in public or something like that.

When a police officer starts making inquiries as to "Have you seen Joe?" or "Have you seen Sally?" they will get silence from the people that hang around with them and associate with them, because that's standard. You know, you're not going to give the police any information.

The police have a very difficult job to do because people don't have to tell you anything. Police have to have reasonable, probable grounds to do a whole bunch of different things that are out there. It's an extremely difficult job.

This proposed legislation here, I think, is going to be very beneficial to the police, and I think it's going to lead to more people being found before harm comes to them, to the extent that we can. A lot of times when people do go missing, it's because perhaps they've taken a drug overdose and they ended up in some very secluded spot where nobody can find them for days and days until it's too late. Those kinds of situations are hard to overcome.

By getting this information up front, getting it on the police information system, which is second to none…. The PRIME system that police use across this province connects every police department that there is so that everybody knows right across the province that an individual from Prince George is missing or an individual in Mission is missing or an individual in Dease Lake is missing and where they might be able to check if there are relatives or common links that we can find throughout the province here. This is one cog in the wheel.

I know that my colleague also mentioned some of the recommendations that members opposite have brought up with respect to the bus service along the west coast. That's something that I know that this government is serious about looking at, but it's a significant issue with a lot of compounding factions to it. It's 800 kilometres from Prince George to Prince Rupert, the same distance as it is from Vancouver to Prince George. To institute some kind of a service like that provides significant hurdles that must be overcome.

I do know from personal experience that there are a lot of First Nations communities up there that operate their own small passenger vans, providing services to their members going from community to community. That's something that we have to look at as well.

It is something that's being looked at, but it's a larger issue than just talking about it across the floor here and saying that it must be implemented right away, because it has all kinds of connotations.

[1705]

What do you do with the commercial enterprises that are in place? Is it based on age? Is it based on sex? Is it based on the amount of income that you make? There are a whole bunch of factors that we need to be cognizant of when we make that.

I just want to say that I hear, actually, unanimous consent across the House for this particular bill, and I'm glad to see that.

J. Kwan: I rise to also debate Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act. I've been listening to the comments from the minister, from the members of this House, and I do find the debate quite fascinating.

First off, let me just say this. I think the critic on our side, the Solicitor General critic, has made some very, very thoughtful recommendations for the government to consider by way of amendment, critiques — but also input, which she went out on her own to enlist from the community to bring back to this Legislature. After all, that is what we're supposed to do. Many of my colleagues have also advanced different points of view around this bill.

Now, I do want to just raise a couple of issues. My colleague for Powell River–Sunshine Coast raised an important point related to the issues that are brought up in this bill which are around missing persons. Sometimes certain people that are at risk in our community have very many different challenges. He mentioned poverty, as an example, as a key element of that.

It is true that here in British Columbia we have the worst child poverty rate, year after year, closing in on ten years. That is our record.

Let me just look and quote for a minute the report from Wally Oppal, the report entitled Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. In this report he actually cites:

"The missing and murdered women were members of one of the most marginalized groups in Canadian society. As a group, these women shared the experience of one or more disadvantaging social and economic factors — violence, poverty, addiction, racism, mental health issues, intergenerational impact of residential schools and so on.

"A disproportionate number of the women were aboriginal. This is sadly consistent with the broader provincial and Canadian trend of aboriginal women being vulnerable to all forms of violence, including a higher risk of going missing in circumstances likely involving foul play."

Then the report goes on to say:

"I find as fact that the following conditions contributed to the women's vulnerability to violence: grossly inadequate housing, food insecurity, health issues and inadequate access to health care, extreme poverty and drug dependency."

Those are the issues that were identified by Justice Wally Oppal as key factors that put women at risk. If we look and see what action has been taken to address these issues, I would argue that over the last ten or 12 years
[ Page 1832 ]
very little has been taken by way of action to address these issues.

Hence, we do have the worst child poverty rate. As we all know, children don't live on their own; they live with adults. When you have a child that's living in poverty, you have an adult that's living in poverty. When they're at risk, that means the entire family is at risk.

As it happens, on the issue around housing, we've not had a consistent, comprehensive housing program in the province of British Columbia since 2001. Inadequate housing is identified as a key factor to which women are put at risk.

There are many, many issues which I want to raise, but I want to go back to Bill 3, to what the member for Abbotsford South just said.

His logic around the bus centres around this, basically. This is the Highway of Tears bus that…. The opposition, the community, have been calling for the government to ensure that there's safety in transportation along the corridor of the Highway of Tears. Basically, what I heard him say is this: "The bus won't eliminate all of the risks, so let's not provide a bus." That's basically the logic behind that.

[1710]

Now, I've got to ask this question. We've been asking the Attorney General this question. When will the government actually act on the recommendation — put forward by Wally Oppal as a key recommendation, as a priority recommendation — to ensure that there is safety in transport along the Highway of Tears?

This was also one of five recommendations that have been identified by the coalition of missing and murdered women. The member for Abbotsford South is basically saying that perhaps the government should hold off and not proceed with this.

Let me just say this. This recommendation has been put forward by the community to the government since 2006. There was a symposium held in the community that talked about the need for safety in transportation. It's not like someone dreamt this up yesterday. It's not even like Wally Oppal thought about this after the inquiry. This was advanced to the government back in 2006, and there's been no action.

Yes, I grant that there's complexity in dealing with all kinds of actions from government. I get that. I wasn't born yesterday. I get that life is complex and sometimes it's difficult to do things, but if you put your mind to it and set it as a priority, I bet you dollars to doughnuts that it can be done.

As my colleague sitting right behind me, the member for New Westminster, said as we were listening to the comment: "You know what? The government can actually put in the Port Mann — the largest bridge, really, that we know in our communities here in British Columbia — and will invest that money in building that. Surely to God the government can figure out how to put a shuttle bus along the Highway of Tears to ensure that there's some level of safety for the women who are at risk — not to eliminate all of the risk factors but to provide some element of safety, some option for people to actually have transportation that will get them from one place to another."

Sometimes that transportation means what? Going from one place to another to get groceries, something we all take for granted. I take it for granted, living where I live in an urban centre, because I have buses. I have access to buses, and I have a private vehicle as well. Some people in our communities do not have that option. This is with the backdrop of the private sector, Greyhound, having reduced bus services in the community. Since 2006 this has been called for, and still there is no action.

Now, I wonder — and I hope that the Attorney General will respond in closing on Bill 3 — whether or not what the member for Abbotsford South just said is the government's position. The government wouldn't answer that question when the question was put during question period. So I hope that she will answer that question.

Maybe that is actually the truth behind it all — that it's in fact exactly the government's position and that they actually don't have intentions of moving forward on this. They somehow, in their own logic, think that if they can't solve all of the problems, let's do nothing at all. Maybe that is the logic.

As the minister says, the impetus behind Bill 3 is the Wally Oppal recommendations. That's what I heard the minister say, and I heard multiple members on the government side say that as well.

As people know, the opposition will support this bill. There were concerns that were raised by my good colleagues who spoke before me, most particularly from the critic on the file, who has raised her thoughtful comments around that. I won't be belabour those points, but I will say this. Bill 3 is not the panacea for the recommendations that were put forward by Wally Oppal. Let's be clear about that.

Where things went wrong…. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie said the police will do all of these things with great caution and so on. Let us be clear that that did not happen in the case of the missing and murdered women.

Let's just go to the report and not what I say. Some of the issues on the critical police failures. You've got to ask the question whether or not Bill 3 will actually solve these problems. I would venture to say that a majority of the issues that were identified in the Oppal Inquiry would not be solved by the introduction and even passing of Bill 3.

[1715]

Let us just take one moment and look at the recommendations on what we're talking about here. "Critical Police Failures," "Time delays in reporting women missing." Now, in the paragraph under this heading, it actually says: "While there are a number of reports that were not
[ Page 1833 ]
received for a year or more, typically, missing women were reported to police within a few weeks or months after they were last seen. In several cases the report was made within days of when the women were last seen."

What happened in those cases? The report actually identifies that the barrier lies with the police culture and their attitude towards the women that went missing. That is the issue. So enabling, through Bill 3, access to records — would it actually solve the problem of the missing and murdered women case?

I have to say, with great fear in my heart and sadness, that I don't think it will. I don't think it would necessarily solve that problem, because the problem lies in: "Police accepted most reports of the missing women immediately. However, in some instances police did not accept reports or accepted and closed reports without locating the missing women."

You might be able to access records, but if you don't act on the report of someone who has gone missing because they're deemed to be transient, which was cited in the report as part of the problem, how will that solve the case? How will Bill 3 address that? I would venture to say that Bill 3 does not address that issue.

Does Bill 3 address this issue? "Initial investigation," the report goes on to say. "My overall conclusion is that there was a significant lack of urgency in the police response to the reports of the women's disappearances. There was a general police failure to take the basic steps of dispatching patrol, attending the last known residence and interviewing reportees."

That was part of the problem. The member for Prince George–Mackenzie said that whenever someone is reported missing, the police will go to the taverns and go to various places where the people were last seen. That happens in most instances, I would probably venture to guess that, but it did not happen in the case of the missing and murdered women. So in that sense, will Bill 3 address the issue? I don't think so.

The report goes on to say that because there's a lack of urgency in the immediate response.... "What is most apparent from a review of the missing-women's investigations is that these investigations were not treated as urgent." Hence, the problem.

It goes on to say:

"Once the investigator received the file, identifying and interviewing family, friends, associates and persons of interest and other investigative steps typically took place over a period of years. This was a clear systemic pattern of error with important consequences for the quality of the investigations. In a number of cases investigations proceeded at a glacial pace or stopped entirely. In some cases, after the report or initial investigation, no investigation appears to have been conducted for years."

That was the problem.

So I ask the Attorney General, who in question period used Bill 3 as the rationale for their lack of action in the implementation of all 63 recommendations from Wally Oppal: how does Bill 3 address this issue that has been identified from Wally Oppal?

Deputy Speaker: The member knows that she's not allowed to use props.

J. Kwan: Pardon me?

Deputy Speaker: There are no props allowed.

J. Kwan: Sorry, I'm not using this as a prop. I'm using this as notes to read off the quotes.

I do ask the Attorney General this very question. How does it solve those very problems that were identified as critical failures of the police system for the missing and murdered women? Bill 3 does not address those issues.

[1720]

I'm not saying that Bill 3 is not worthy of support. I'm not saying that it doesn't provide for some elements as a tool in addressing missing-persons cases. But in this instance I would argue that there are many other factors, which the government has taken no action on, and that it would not solve those problems.

I also want to say this about the bill. The report does say that there are limitations. It does say that there are limitations with the police ability to act. It's true that the recommendations call for changes in legislation by way of the Missing Persons Act, but let us not pretend for one minute that somehow this is in place of all of the recommendations that are needed.

Now, I heard the member for Abbotsford South say this, which is very, very telling as well, in this debate. The member actually said that the government would likely not enact all the recommendations that came from the Oppal Inquiry. As it happens, when the coalition of missing and murdered women met with the minister after six months of calling for a meeting with her…. After the election, after six months of calling for a meeting with her, they finally got one on November 25. At that meeting the minister said the same thing, that there were some recommendations that were in abeyance and that not all of the recommendations would be enacted.

The coalition members then asked, with a follow-up letter to the minister, which recommendations they would not proceed with. To date there's not been a response. In fact, last week the minister was supposed to meet with the coalition members, and then, at the last minute, with only days before the meeting, the meeting was cancelled. The meeting was cancelled. That is the reality of where things are.

Where are we in addressing the recommendations from the Wally Oppal Inquiry? The minister says Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act — the inspiration for this act came out of the Wally Oppal recommendations. Then I ask this question: where is the inspiration for the rest of the recommendations? Let me just name five of them, five of them that the coalition have put forward.
[ Page 1834 ]

We've already talked about the importance of safety in transportation. I hope that the members will acknowledge that doing something is better than doing nothing.

Since 2006 the call has been there for the government to act, and the government says that they've been consulting all these years. How's it going? How many years do you need to consult to figure out how to put a shuttle bus along a corridor to ensure that there is some element of safe transportation for women in our community? How long does it take? Do you need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out? Maybe the government can just assign a fund to the community and let them implement it, because maybe they'll be far more efficient in getting the job done.

The second recommendation from the community is a priority that has been put to the Attorney General. They call for mandatory police sensitivity training. So much of the Oppal report talks about the failure of the police system around their attitude and the lack of action. The parts that I cite are only some of the elements. There are many, many other factors that actually were part of the system where it failed the women.

Mandatory police sensitivity training — is that part of Bill 3? No, it's not. Why couldn't the government then enact that recommendation if they say that Bill 3 has been inspired by the Oppal Inquiry? Well, if Oppal's inquiry recommendations could inspire the Missing Persons Act, surely to God they could inspire the government to act to ensure that there's mandatory police sensitivity training.

Another issue. If the Oppal Inquiry recommendations inspired the Missing Persons Act, surely to God the government can actually act on a key recommendation. That is to put forward an advocate, a lead person, a champion to ensure that these recommendations are followed through.

[1725]

Since Steven Point resigned — that's over eight months ago — there has been no champion anywhere. Does Bill 3 talk about ensuring that there will be a champion to ensure the recommendations are followed through? No, there is not.

The community, the coalition, called on this minister at the meeting, as a priority item, to actually recognize the victims of this horrible crime, the worst homicide in the history of Canada — the case of the missing and murdered women. They called on the government to act on Oppal's recommendation to establish a compensation fund.

To date there is no compensation fund. Worse than that, the government is actually challenging the facts as they were presented in the Oppal Inquiry by taking the victims' families to court on this issue.

We spent $10 million on this inquiry and on the recommendations. Is the government now, by that action, saying that the facts as they were presented in the inquiry are wrong? Is that what we spent $10 million on? To get all those facts and simply to say: "Gee, let's take it all to court and see whether or not Wally Oppal did his job as the commissioner and whether or not he got the basics right — and that the facts of the case as he had put them out in the report are simply wrong"?

If the government would acknowledge that Wally Oppal was not wrong, then why are we in court fighting this? Why don't we get on with it? Why don't we have legislation, and why don't we have it in the budget to say that there will be a compensation fund for the families so that the healing could begin, so that we can actually get on with addressing this issue and preventing this from ever happening again?

The coalition asked for the government to follow up on mental health and addiction services as a priority for aboriginal women and children — as a priority item. I look at Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act. Do I see any recommendation related to that? No, I do not. Why not?

I have to ask this question: why not? Why wouldn't we want to provide those important services for the women who are at risk today in our community, for the children who are at risk today, to ensure that history does not repeat itself? Isn't that what we want to do when we say under Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act…? Part of that is to ensure that we learn from the history of what went wrong with the missing and murdered women's case. Why don't we advance preventative actions that will make a difference right now in the lives of people?

We all advocate and say to people: "We don't want addiction to engulf you." Yet the critical services that are needed to assist people to a path of recovery — those services are simply not there. That's what we have in our community today.

I am sometimes at a loss to fully understand the government's actions. They say — at least, on the face of it, with sincerity — that they want to act on this. I remember when the Oppal recommendations were released to the public. I remember how the Premier and the various cabinet ministers all said that they were going to stop this from ever happening again. Well, in spite of all of the things that went wrong in the Oppal Inquiry, the community signed on and said: "Let's get on with it. Lives are at stake. It's important that we get on with it."

[1730]

To date, 13 months later, the 63 recommendations are primarily sitting on a shelf collecting dust, with the report, and with very little action from the government. I am at a loss to understand why that is.

I am going to support Bill 3 because I think it is one tool that is required. I would venture to say that this tool is important and probably significant in other cases beyond the missing and murdered women.

That said, it does beg the question. When the government claims that Bill 3 is a defence for their lack of action in the implementation of the Oppal Inquiry recommendations, then I take issue with that. This is not a defence.
[ Page 1835 ]

I have to say, as well, that there is nothing that stops the government from doing other actions as well — from actually enacting this bill and moving forward with it and the other recommendations that are so critical to community safety for the most vulnerable segment of our community.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I also want to say that the concerns that were raised…. I do want to note that we need to be ever-vigilant to make sure that the actions and the powers that have been given to the authorities will not be abused. I know that we should all just have faith that things will be as they should. But given the history of the missing and murdered women, sometimes my faith is tested, and I know that the community's faith is tested as well.

So I would want to know from the Attorney General: what measures will actually be in place to ensure that there is accountability and no abuse of the system? I do worry about that.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I know that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has said that, for example, investigations take place and you need a warrant to search a place and so on and those procedures are followed. Probably, most of the time…. Although I don't have all the stats, I do know of devastating cases where those practices are not followed. When that happens, it's devastating. It's devastating for the family members who've lost a loved one.

I remember the case, the Amanda Zhao case, where a student — a Chinese national, actually — was murdered, and because of the errors that were made through our system, the accused fled. It took years for the family to seek justice, and they had to go all the way back to China and had to have the federal government involved in making an arrangement to resolve that.

Bill 3, while it's an important tool, is one tool, but it does not address many of the recommendations that the Wally Oppal Inquiry put forward. I ask the Attorney General, when she provides her closing statements, to answer those questions. Is it the government's intent to not implement all of those recommendation? If so, which are they?

When can we expect to see the bus? Is it, as the member for Abbotsford South said, that the government is actually not really going to act on this?

We need some clarity about where we stand on these issues. The community needs clarity. I think the government owes them that, and they deserve at least that much.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Justice to close debate.

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, the last speaker is quite correct. This is one piece of a multifaceted response to the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. The missing-persons legislation is one piece of that.

I thank the members opposite for their comments, and I thank the members on this side for their comments. I'm pleased that there will be general support. We'll look forward to more detailed discussion and suggestions of amendments during the committee stage.

[1735]

With that, I would like to move second reading of Bill 3.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 3 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 3, Missing Persons Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading on Bill 5.

BILL 5 — FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL
RESOURCE OPERATIONS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that Bill 5, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, be read for a second time.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. S. Thomson: The proposed amendments in this bill will streamline processes within the natural resource sector and improve the stewardship of British Columbia's forests and rangeland.

Proposed amendments to the Forest Act will streamline administrative processes by transferring decision-making authority from cabinet to the minister on most wood residue export applications. All applications for wood residue export will still be subject to review by the Chip Export Advisory Committee — both the producers committee and the users committee.

It is also proposed that the Forest Act be amended to allow people to collect firewood from First Nations woodland licences, woodlots and community forest agreements if they've received the proper permission from the holder. Other proposed amendments clarify provisions related to collecting annual rent, bonus bids and putting specific conditions on forest licences.

The province is amending the Land Title Act to resolve land ownership uncertainty and fairness issues associated with the older section of the act, which dates back to 1965.
[ Page 1836 ]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The proposed amendments provide certainty for landowners by enabling cabinet to affirm the private ownership of any underwater portions of subdivided land that is next to Crown land.

Acting on our commitment in the B.C. jobs plan and recommendations of the Ranching Task Force to improve regulatory processes for range tenure holders, proposed amendments to the Range Act will streamline the process for approving permits and licences so that vacant Crown land range can be allocated more quickly and efficiently.

B.C. cattle producers directly employ about 2,300 people and generate about $351 million of economic activity each year. The proposed amendments will improve business certainty for range operators by allowing longer terms on tenures and conversion of grazing permits issued prior to 2004 to grazing licences.

The amendments will allow a holder of multiple tenures to more easily consolidate or subdivide these tenures and enable the conversion of grazing leases to grazing licences, providing improved flexibility for tenure holders to manage their unique business models.

Proposed amendments to the Range Act will also remove the requirement for operators to obtain ministry approval before selling their excess hay production.

Our government remains committed to ensure business certainty for the guide-outfitting industry, an industry that supports 2,000 jobs and generates $116 million of economic activity each year.

Proposed amendments to the Wildlife Act will allow corporations as well as individuals to hold guiding territory certificates. This change will allow more than one person to jointly hold a guiding territory certificate through a corporate structure, reducing individual liability and making it easier to obtain financing when purchasing a guiding territory certificate.

We are also proposing to replace the licensing requirement for assistant guides with an authorization issued by the employing guide-outfitter. This change will give guide-outfitters the flexibility they need to hire staff quickly in response to unexpected peak periods of business.

Increased development in the wildland-urban interface has resulted in increased wildfire risks and potential threats to privately owned structures. The province's top priority is to protect people's lives.

Proposed amendments to the Wildfire Act will make it clear that the government should not be held legally accountable for unavoidable property damage or losses caused by wildfire so long as the government did not act in bad faith while working to control or suppress wildfires. This level of liability protection is consistent with existing statutes, such as the Transportation Act.

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations was created to provide a more streamlined, integrated approach to land-based management, and these proposed amendments in these legislative initiatives assist in that objective. These amendments support our goal of implementing more streamlined regulatory and administrative processes within the natural resource sector.

[1740]

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the opportunity to respond in second reading to Bill 5.

As the minister has laid out, the bill is a change of a number of existing acts. The government and the minister have described most of these changes as minor changes and fairly benign.

I do want to say that both my colleague the member for Cowichan Valley and myself were briefed by the minister's staff. I certainly thank the minister for consistently feeling his obligation to do this. It's something that we really appreciate. Certainly, any time we have those briefings we are left with appreciation, as well, of the staff we have working within the ministry. Their professionalism and passion for their work is something that we always leave the meeting being reminded of.

We will, as the opposition, of course not oppose the bill in second reading, because it is a number of different areas. The premise of opposing all of these changes doesn't really make sense. I think the tradition is that if there are changes that are indeed benign, then they would be supportable.

If there are, as we move into committee stage, areas where the government has not made a compelling case for what they intend to do, at that time we will register our opposition to the particular sections of the bill. We will go through step by step. In the areas where it's contentious, if the government isn't able to make the case that they are in the right direction with the changes, we will at that point vote against the particular sections.

Now, the sections of the bill that we have received concerns about are really limited to only a few areas. I think in terms of the briefing we had, at that time we gave pretty good indication to the ministry staff about what those areas were. I think it's important here to put those on the record so that the minister knows the areas that we'll be asking particular questions on.

The first six sections of this bill deal with amendments to the Forest Act, and they seem fairly straightforward. There was one section that was put in front of us last year, I believe, and then removed and fixed and is back there in front of us. It seems fairly straightforward.

Section 6, which the minister mentioned, deals with the minister's ability to sign off on, I think, about 200,000 bone-dry units rather than 5,000 bone-dry units of chips that would be able to be exported. Presently that is a decision cabinet would make, and now that would sit with the minister. That's a change. It's a change that, for instance, PPWC, one of the unions that represents pulp workers,
[ Page 1837 ]
thought was something that may be troublesome, so we will be asking the minister about that.

The minister did talk about the Chip Export Advisory Committee. Of course, that's a committee that is supposed to be looking at chip exports but in the past was a committee whose advice has been overlooked. Certainly, there are concerns from people involved in the pulp industry about the rigour of the checks and balances to make sure we're not exporting chips that are needed here. Having said that, the government will be making the case that this is not a significant change in that rigour. That's part of the discussion we'll have on section 6.

Section 7 deals with changes to the Land Title Act, and it's an area of interest in Merritt in particular. This is something I mentioned to the minister's staff. They seemed to feel it was not one of the reasons for this amendment. Nevertheless, people in the Merritt area raised, I think, what could be some interesting concerns about this fairly obscure change to the Land Title Act.

[1745]

Basically, what the issue is for Merritt is that the Merritt fish and game club has been in conflict with the present owners of the historic Douglas Lake Ranch over access to lakes on the ranch. These are lakes that were created with dams. What happens under common law, as was explained to us, is that when you create a dam, the lake that you've created becomes, after a period of time, public land.

Under common law, lakes and rivers are always publicly held. That is something that automatically would take place under common law. There have been changes in the past that would allow a property, when they create the dam, to have cabinet make it so that the land remained private.

What this change intends to do is to retroactively allow cabinet to go and return the lake back into private hands. What the Merritt fish and game club are saying is that they have been denied access to lakes that they feel are public lakes. They currently are public lakes, but if this legislation is passed, then what potentially could happen is cabinet would go and revert the lakes back from being public to private.

Why this is important is because the ranch owners, as I said, want to limit access. Presumably, this legislation would allow cabinet to give ownership of the lakes back to the ranch. Now, the ranch owners are very connected people. I think one of the family members is a Walton from the Walmart family. These are very powerful people. That's the concern that is raised — that somehow this very obscure legislation has been changed and it will impact an issue in the Merritt area.

That's something just to give the minister an idea of where we would go. We would want an explanation of the genesis of this bill. We would want, if we were going to support it, to be assured that this isn't what the bill is aimed at. I think that people in Merritt, people who fish in that area, would be, of course, interested in that. We'll be asking questions on that proposed change, and the minister can be prepared for those questions and be prepared with an explanation.

Now, sections 8 through 63 are, as the minister said, intended as a means of implementing recommendations from the 2009 Ranching Task Force. The explanation that we had was that it attempts to streamline permits and licences for grazing on Crown land. As well, there is a significant extension of the terms. This is an area where we will again have questions for the minister.

I have received a number of letters, e-mails and calls from provincial organizations such as the Nature Trust, Ducks Unlimited, Habitat Conservation Trust, Wildsight and many individuals with concerns about sections within the changes to the act in question.

I know that it has been an issue that was raised in the media. As an issue, my understanding is that the government has done some work. That's part of what we're going to be asking for: what has been done to take care of the issue that is raised?

Just for the record, the letter from a number of prominent groups…. This is Ducks Unlimited, Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation and the Nature Trust of British Columbia. These are organizations that have done important work around the province and in the area that I represent.

The concerns they have are these: "Range tenures under the Range Act appear to have been applied, inadvertently or otherwise, to over 50 conservation areas in B.C., totalling over 22,000 hectares, including critical properties in Vaseux Lake, Columbia Lake and Wigwam Flats, to name just a few. In most cases it appears that this was done without consultation with either the landowner or the land manager."

[1750]

They go on to say that some of these lands are fee simple lands leased to B.C. by the Nature Trust of B.C. using funds raised from charitable organizations as well as the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation.

They also say that it appears that the Crown has for some time been issuing tenures on these lands and retaining grazing revenues so derived. It certainly doesn't meet the expectations of these groups.

They go on to say that Bill 5 seeks to extend the life of many of these tenures and exacerbates an already untenable situation. I suspect that that's an unintended consequence of this bill. It has made some of these organizations aware of what is taking place and has raised concerns that the problem is only going to get worse with the changes that are put in place.

I'll also read to you from B.C. Nature, a letter from the Federation of B.C. Naturalists. They have two concerns, as well, that they've expressed not only to the opposition but, I would presume, to the minister.

The first is the "extension of tenures for grazing up to
[ Page 1838 ]
25 years, as reported in the media. The existing shorter-term tenures are preferable, as they provide more flexibility to make adjustments for conservation purposes if required." The other concern they have is the "conservation of grasslands within parks and protected areas where the main focus is conservation." They urge you not to extend the term of grazing permits within parks and protected areas.

Those are the concerns that B.C. Nature, the Federation of B.C. Naturalists, has raised. Those are, again, two areas that we are going to be looking at.

Now, section 64 is a minor change limiting provincial liability when fighting fires. I think, on the surface of it, it seems a completely reasonable change that the government is putting in place here. Likely, the liability for the provincial government…. I think we always presumed that that would be limited, but the advice I understand that the government has been given is that it has to be laid out specifically — that unless they intend to do harm to property and individuals that they wouldn't be held liable.

That brings us to section 65, which are changes to the Wildlife Act. That's where we have received, again, correspondence. In fact, we had invited feedback on this issue. I sent out an e-mail to a number of organizations.

I should say that this is where it's really helpful to have the briefings. What many of these organizations have said, including the guide-outfitters organization, is that when you actually look at the legislation, even after eight years, it's not completely easy to see what the changes mean. When you're looking at legislation that amends previous legislation, you can have a significant change, and it's not completely clear when you look at the bill in front of you. So the briefing was useful.

There are two parts to the changes to the Wildlife Act. I think the first one, where you have changes in how assistant guides are put in place, sounds quite reasonable. My understanding is it's supported by the Guide Outfitters Association.

I think many of us in rural areas know friends and, in fact, relatives who have acted as assistant guides and know that for the people running the business…. They have a tremendous interest in making sure that the people that are taking their customers out are well qualified, and this puts the onus on the guide-outfitter to put in place the assistant guide. I think we'll ask questions on that, but I'm comfortable that we'll find it a reasonable change.

The other change, which is to allow corporations to own guide-outfitting areas — I think that's a more contentious one and one where the government is going to get, again, some concern. We'll express that concern.

[1755]

I do have to say that in speaking to the Guide Outfitters Association, they are not completely sure of the language. So they're going to be listening to hear what the minister says about exactly what is being offered here. Certainly, what they've told us is that they see advantages for their businesses and support for the concept.

Beyond that, we have had a really tremendous amount of response from resident hunters. I think this is something that the government and, in fact, the guide-outfitting community have to be cognizant of — that there exists real concern about allowing corporations…. The changes that are put here will, I think, require that the minister really sell this as the way to go forward.

I'm going to read from just a couple of the responses I've received back. There are just two of them, but they're both retired ministry staff, so they're people that have worked with the legislation on the ground in rural B.C. I don't think anything here will be news to the minister or to people that are familiar with this. But I think they do a fairly good job of expressing some of the issues here.

This first is a gentleman who worked for the Ministry of Environment and its predecessor for 30 years. As part of his duties, he administered the guide-outfitting industry in his particular district or region.

What he goes on to say, and what the minister will know, is that the requirement now is that the guide-outfitter be a resident of Canada and that usually they are people who would live in British Columbia. That's the rule right now. But what we know and what is said here is that, of course, foreign ownership is really nothing new, as for years there has always been corporate ownership of guide areas.

"I think that if you closely looked at the large guide areas in the northern half of the province," the gentleman goes on to say, "the vast majority of them are corporately owned and held by delegated licensees, the prime point being that on paper, the owner had to be a person, be a Canadian citizen resident in Canada. But of course, behind them would be money that would often be corporate money or offshore money."

The prime point is, then, that if the ministry was going to take action on either the licence or the certificate or both, with no recourse by the actual owners, then you had some leverage.

He goes on to say that with a corporation, he feels it would be difficult to force a transparent, arms-length sale of an area. So bad management of an area cannot easily be remedied, as the guide-outfitter could change several times a year with no change in practice by the corporation.

"This will increase enforcement costs for the conservation officer service or whoever is going to be managing this, which is already stretched to the limit and understaffed and underfunded. This will also increase the cost of administration hearings and would definitely increase the number of administrative hearings that would be required."

That's somebody with experience in managing it.

Another gentleman with a tremendous amount of experience in the ministry goes on. This is what they say.

"Loosening the ownership requirements is definitely a very bad move. The government has turned a blind eye in the past to some of the foreign ownership, and from my firsthand experience, foreign owners are often only interested in profits.

"When I worked for the ministry, I received more complaints
[ Page 1839 ]
from hunters involved with foreign-ownership territories than with local-based owners, by a large margin. Local-based owners are in their territories more often, have a good understanding of the area and take on a much better sense of ownership and what is needed to make each client at home.

"The government really does not understand this industry and the need to keep B.C. residents running this business, as it is their resource, on a personal basis and something they need to manage correctly in order to operate professionally."

I don't think any of these concerns are new to the minister, and I guess the preparation for the committee stage would be to make a compelling case that this is a step in the right direction. As I say, it's confused by the fact that, of course, many of these are, in practical terms, already corporately owned. I mean, that is this reality.

[1800]

Having said that, there are also some very real concerns expressed by resident hunters. I would say I had a number of quite emotive e-mails that felt we were selling out something that people felt it was wrong to sell out, which is something that I think the minister needs to consider.

For the guide-outfitters, the minister probably spent the better part of a year, two years, working through allocation issues. It's one thing to have an allocation fight or conflict between resident hunters and guide-outfitters when you're talking about two groups that are based in the province. I think it becomes far more complicated when resident hunters feel they're up against a corporation. But these are things that, hopefully, the government and the guide-outfitters have considered in deciding to go in this direction.

I look forward to the next stage of this discussion. I know that the minister will be as precise and as respectful in the debate as he always has been in the past.

The final thing I'd like to say is that I very much want to thank not only those that work for us in research — who are, of course, Jeff Dean and others; always a tremendous help — but also the people who take the opportunity to contact us as opposition and make us aware of issues that otherwise we would have difficulty being aware of.

With that, I'll take my place and turn it over to the next speaker.

A. Weaver: As the last member finished with thanks, I shall begin with thanks to those same people who have contacted us with respect to this act and to my somewhat amazing research staff who, on a difficult day, are able to have me prepared for several bills and for being in two places at once, which is the estimates on Advanced Education.

I will be speaking with respect to Bill 5, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act.

Another thing I'd love to point out is that I am delighted by the colour of all these binders that we seem to have under our desks here with all the various bills. I applaud the Legislature for actually choosing such a vibrant and meaningful colour in putting these bills together.

This is also my first experience speaking to a statute amendment act where multiple bills can be amended all at once. I can understand those who would argue that such a bill offers expediency and permits government to conduct housecleaning in a far less onerous manner, but for an independent, it does provide a challenge. It provides a challenge in that we must be looking at a variety of acts at the same time while also trying to be in several places at once.

With that said, with this bill before us today, I do support much of what is being proposed. I'll start off with the Range Act.

The Range Act, with increases to the length of tenure to help to provide market certainty to our cattle industry, is something that my office and I have actually confirmed is in the interests of the ranch industry. We had discussions with representatives from that industry, and I'm happy to report that they are quite pleased with the proposed legislation before us today.

Likewise, the changes to the Forest Act are positive in many ways. Well, of course, the devil is ultimately in the details. On the surface, I think many of the changes are constructive, and I look forward to learning more about the specific changes proposed when we move to Committee of the Whole.

Despite a number of positive changes in this bill, I do want to address one aspect of it that raises some troubling concerns. The government describes the proposed changes to the Wildlife Act as fulfilling "government's commitment to provide additional business certainty for the guide-outfitting industry."

I'm a huge fan of giving industry, business, some certainty. While I support efforts which will help to ensure important B.C.-based industries, like our guide-outfitting industry, are provided with such certainty for them to flourish, I'm concerned about some of the long-term aspects of this bill.

[1805]

First, I think the changes to the licensing requirements for assistant guides need to be balanced with the need to have responsible and well-trained guides who put the preservation of B.C.'s natural environment first and foremost. I'm not yet certain that the proposed qualifications for assistant guides will ensure this is in fact the case.

Second, I want to raise some concerns about the removal of the requirement that an individual or company that is issued a guiding territory certificate be a citizen or a permanent resident of Canada. This issue was raised by the previous member, who spoke on this topic as well.

My fear is that with this change, what was once a B.C. industry will transition to an industry that has significant foreign ownership, which ultimately will not be good for B.C. jobs and the B.C. economy. This is contrary to the founding principle of guide-outfitting in British Columbia.
[ Page 1840 ]

I'd like to read a quote directly from the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia's website that perfectly highlights why I think this bill may be at odds with the values of the industry: "Guide-outfitters developed an understanding of wildlife and wildlife habitat within their guiding territory. This ownership increased the sense of responsibility and was the beginning of wildlife stewardship…. Most guide outfitters derive their primary source of income from their family-run guide-outfitting business."

While a foreign company could no doubt hire local British Columbians to manage their guiding territory certificate, I remain deeply troubled that opening up ownership of these certificates to foreign companies could degrade the relationship that is expressed on the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia's website — namely, the connection that ownership shares with ecological responsibility and wildlife stewardship.

My final concern about this bill pertains to what it doesn't do in respect to what it is doing and what I think also needs to be included. As we look to provide greater certainty to the guide-outfitting industry in B.C., we are still not addressing one of the major issues in this industry, and that is trophy killing.

I'm not talking about the majority of hunters in British Columbia harvesting deer and other species for food but rather the targeted killing of specific animals merely for sport and, in particular, an iconic species in a protected area of our province, at least as far as the First Nations are concerned today — and after recent agreements with forest companies and environmentalists, hopefully on a greater scale tomorrow. That is the Great Bear rainforest.

Over 90 percent of British Columbians are opposed to the hunting of animals for sport — that is, the killing of animals for sport. One of the most egregious examples of this, in my opinion, is the trophy killing of an iconic grizzly bear. I fail to see how a civilized society like British Columbia can call itself the greatest place on earth and allow an iconic species such as the grizzly bear to be killed for sport — not for food but for sport.

Would we go out in our local area of waters here for the heck of it and harpoon orca whales for sport? No, because the orca is an iconic species that typifies and signifies what is beautiful and great in the our province of British Columbia. The same is true for the grizzly bear.

I want to be very clear here. Hunting is an industry that certainly has an important place in British Columbia. This issue extends far beyond just the general public. Ninety-five percent of British Columbia hunters, when surveyed in and around the Great Bear rainforest region, agree that people should not be killing animals if they're not prepared to eat what they kill. And 91 percent of our hunters in British Columbia agree that fellow hunters should respect our First Nations' laws and customs when on First Nations territory, as is found in the Great Bear rainforest.

Given that the bill we are discussing today directly deals with the guide-outfitting industry, I firmly believe we have an opportunity to address the trophy-killing issue as well. I would like to see the government consider including in this bill clarification about what the B.C. guide-outfitting industry can and cannot hunt for.

[1810]

While the actual change required is in the form of a regulation — I recognize this — the government could take this opportunity to provide such certainty to this industry about the values it feels should guide what and how we hunt in this province.

As I said in the beginning, I can see how a bill that amends a variety of acts is particularly difficult to deliberate on and ultimately make a decision about whether or not to support it. I want to be clear that I feel most aspects of this bill are quite positive and that this bill provides clarity and certainty to a variety of sectors.

I hope, though, that the government will consider the comments I have made pertaining to the changes in the Wildlife Act and can respond, whether in this piece of legislation or in forthcoming legislation, to an issue that has the support of 90 percent of British Columbians, 95 percent of hunters in British Columbia and, certainly, most people in the House.

B. Routley: As my colleague had mentioned, it was great that we were able to meet with the ministry staff and to have a more fulsome discussion about some of the elements of the bill, some of the questions that we had. We certainly appreciate the fact that they spend the time and the energy in giving us a briefing.

Some of the concerns that we have, have been already mentioned. I won't duplicate everything, but I do want to talk about the changes to the Forest Act section, the overview of some changes. Some of that is just housekeeping, or could be called housekeeping, and that's dealing with wood residue export applications. I can see how, on the one hand, it makes no sense for cabinet to be making decisions about exporting some chips. I get that part of it, but I do have to comment that more and more decisions are made by the minister, or the minister has the authority to then defer that decision-making authority to someone under his command and control.

There is a movement in all of the legislative changes to more centralized decision-making. Part of that has been made necessary by the dramatic changes — not all of them good, I would say. That's shutting down regional district offices all over the province of British Columbia. In fact, when I first started in the forest industry back in 1985, I still remember going down and seeing Tom Walker, who was the district forester with the once proud B.C. Forest Service, and having a real face to put on the management and command and control of the area in which many forest workers worked in the Cowichan Valley.
[ Page 1841 ]

He was not only aware of everything that was going on, on the ground. You could see, walking through the building, just by looking at all of the maps, the tree farm licences, people working on annual allowable cuts, that kind of thing…. You felt a kind of regional command and control about what was going on in your particular part of the world.

Now a lot of that has been totally centralized. They've shut down all of those regional offices, and a lot of these people…. There are more than 1,000 workers that worked under the B.C. Forest Service. They've basically been merged as part of this new Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I have jokingly called it the ministry of licensing.

There is, by its very nature, now a need to spend a lot of time and energy getting done what is critical to all of the different lands that are under the control of the minister — no longer the Minister of Forests, I might add. He's now the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, which means mining, water — a whole bunch of different areas that he's responsible for. No longer can he focus just down like a laser beam of light on what's going on in the Cowichan Valley.

[1815]

I'm sure that it would take a little more time to get any kind of regional perspective on what's happening with many of the areas. It's more difficult for locals to do everything from getting a licence for their woodcutting…. There's no building to go and stop into, see somebody and actually have a chat and get a licence and all of that stuff. That is all gone — no longer able to do that.

But I do see, as I say, as a practical person, that some of what we heard made a lot of sense. It doesn't make sense for cabinet ministers…. In fact, I was actually surprised to hear that cabinet would sit around and discuss things like wood residue export applications and wood pellets. But anyway.

I can see that we're going to have to ask a lot of questions about some of the details of what these things will do. As my partner here has rightly pointed out, we've got some real concerns with issues like the corporatization. I mean, I must say something inside of me lit up like a Christmas tree when I heard the idea that we were going to corporatize yet another sector of what goes on in the province of British Columbia.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I think that there would be more than one pioneer out there buried in a mountain somewhere that would roll over in their grave if they were to find out that what originally started as a concept of the frontier, the wonderful frontier of British Columbia…. We were going to have areas for people to manage. It was like Wild Bill Hickok, or whatever, out there with his gun. He could go out into an area and pick out, whether there was moose or caribou…. Of course, they're in short supply now. We're going to talk about that later on as well — in the range that is left.

Now we understand that there is a move by, obviously, corporate interests. I do want to hear more from individuals. We've already heard from people that are retired in the industry that do feel that the U.S. interests would definitely benefit by this.

I'm looking at the material here. It tells me that under the corporations there have been guiding territories advertised for sale on a website, McCowans Sporting Properties. They're selling off the last frontier, as they call it. These are sales ranging from $25,000 — but this is the interesting number — to $589,000.

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know many hunters that could afford more than half a million bucks so that they could have the honour of getting on a horse and going out and guiding people around the territory.

I've met some amazing characters that do this guide-outfitting. In fact, one of my old faller friends, Joey Saysell, got injured in a falling accident and now he's doing guiding. He's got his little cabin in the woods. In fact, that's where he is. I phoned him to see if I could get any wisdom from him. If you ever want an interesting day, go up to Cowichan River, Greendale Road, and see Joey Saysell. There are body parts all over the wall — mostly heads, mind you. They're very interesting. There are grizzly bears, and there are cougars and fish. It's like going to a museum.

Anyway, he's an amazing character, one of those rough-and-tumble guys that's out there. Again, I think of him out in his little cabin somewhere having a wonderful time. He's probably in ten feet of snow or maybe 14 feet of snow. Not my idea of fun, hanging out in a cabin in the middle of some mountain somewhere, but there are people that do that kind of stuff, and it's fascinating.

I'm sure, though, that he'll have something to say about the corporatization of one of these honourable positions that has a lot of history — something that we need to delve into and hear from a lot more people about.

[1820]

You know, I remain willing to be convinced if somebody has got a good story on why they think that this makes sense, if they can give us compelling reasons why we should be moving in this direction.

But something inside of me tells me, from experience, that often corporations are just an excuse to hide behind. Again, I've seen it that people try to hold somebody liable.

I've had it — a whole crew right here outside of Victoria. There was a tragic helicopter accident. The crew were owed their holiday pay, all of their severance pay, all of their rights.

Because there was a corporate interest…. Get this. The corporation that the crew worked for was one company. I won't even name them out of respect for the old-time logger that did that. He had his crew in one company, and
[ Page 1842 ]
he had his corporate interests under the veil of a separate company, with the same name, but it said "Equipment Corp." So they were two separate corporations.

Guess what. The corporation that the crew all worked for…. You know what they had in the bank account? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Left all those workers and their families holding the bag.

Again, that's why I feel very strongly that we've got to be careful. We should walk very carefully, walk very slowly, when we're making something as dramatic as some of these changes.

I do want to comment on the Wildfire Act sections. Again, some of this makes some sense. We've moved forward. I guess it was last year that the government moved to protect anyone that was firefighting, working on behalf of whether it was a landowner or the province of British Columbia. They couldn't be sued as long as they weren't acting in bad faith.

I'm not surprised that there are these kinds of eventualities — that someone would actually try to sue people trying to put your fire out. Although it is a bit odd, and I can't imagine thinking of it myself, people do come up with some ideas like that.

Also, these amendments to the Wildfire Act are made to ensure that it's clear that the provincial government should not be held legally accountable for unavoidable property damages or losses caused by wildfires, so long as they didn't act in bad faith. Again, the kind of thing that makes a lot of sense and that, I think, we should be moving forward on.

We had letters from groups like Ducks Unlimited that talked about their concerns on reviewing the implications of Bill 5.We'll expand on it a bit more, because we wouldn't want you to miss it:

"In reviewing the implications regarding Bill 5 currently before the House, it has come to our attention that this draft legislation represents a potentially serious threat to our lands and investments in conservation. Range tenures under their Range Act appear to have been applied inadvertently or otherwise to over 50 conservation areas or sites, totalling over 22,000 hectares."

Now, we've got some experience in the House. I remember the Woodworker Lien Act, where the government listened carefully. The opposition brought forward their usual thoughtful ideas that we bring forward, and they listened and said, "You know, these guys are making nothing but sense to us. We're going to move on this," and they did.

It happened once. I still live in hope. It could happen again.

J. Horgan: It makes sense.

B. Routley: Yeah.

The very fact that they are raising, though, this important issue — over 50 different sites totalling 22,000 hectares, including critical properties like Vaseux Lake and Columbia Lake and Wigwam Flats.

Anyway, some of these areas need to be looked at more closely in the later debate that we're going to get into.

How are we doing, hon. Speaker? Do you want me to…?

Interjection.

B. Routley: Carry on? Oh well.

We want to hear….

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, noting the hour, reserve your place and kindly adjourn the debate.

[1825]

B. Routley: Okay. I'll reserve my right and adjourn the debate.

B. Routley moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Plecas in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,935,671,000 (continued).

The Chair: Minister, do you have a statement?

Hon. A. Virk: If I may, I wanted to reintroduce my staff, for the benefit of my students back there, so that they understand who's here. I have with me Deputy
[ Page 1843 ]
Minister Sandra Carroll. I have Assistant Deputy Minister Joe Thompson over here. Behind me we have Assistant Deputy Minister Claire Avison, Assistant Deputy Minister Bobbi Plecas and executive director Susan Brown.

Mr. Chair, if I may introduce…. In the gallery we have the Alliance of B.C. Students, representing students from all over British Columbia. They represent the largest number of students in British Columbia, at a number of post-secondary institutions.

Welcome. I hope you enjoy the proceedings.

D. Eby: Beginning with the large estimates book labelled "Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2015," I'm turning to page 193, which is the "Summary of Ministerial Accountability for Operating Expenses." This section discusses the amount of holdback which the minister will receive if he achieves the goal that the Premier has set out for him, which is hitting his targets around these estimates.

My question to the minister is simple. How much, exactly, will the minister be paid if schools in B.C. are forced to go through the cuts that are set out in this budget?

[1340]

Hon. A. Virk: I think it's important, first, for me to talk about my mandate in terms of what is required for me to deliver to the province of British Columbia. I think it's public. There are nine deliverables. An example of them, of course, is to balance the ministerial budget in order to control spending and share an overall balanced budget for the province of British Columbia.

There are institutional targets to make sure all the resources are used appropriately. There are all sorts of other measurements, and I think that's a public document available to all. I'll just use as an example delivering on the school of traditional Chinese medicine, cooperating with the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that a centre of excellence in agriculture is created at the University of the Fraser Valley, and several other deliverables. Those are nine commitments that I am committed to, to make sure are going to come to fruition.

In terms of my salary, there is a holdback of 20 percent of my salary. One-half of that is tied to government priorities, and the other half is tied back to meeting the mandate in the mandate letter objectives.

My sector is promoting efficiencies in service delivery. It's about efficiencies that make sure that the taxpaying dollar is used to the benefit of British Columbians, that we ensure efficiencies across the university sector in terms of collaboration, co-purchasing and common procurement. Those are the efficiencies that are as noted in the budget.

D. Eby: I note that there is $17.5 million — I'm sure if I'm incorrect, the member across will correct me — cut from the budgets of universities and colleges in this budget. My question, I thought, was pretty straightforward. If the minister hits this target, these schools make these cuts, and the estimate numbers are achieved, what is the holdback that he will receive? What is the dollar value of that holdback?

[1345]

Hon. A. Virk: Let's talk about administrative efficiencies. In the budget for 2013-2014 there is a $20 million reduction for anticipated systemwide efficiencies in post-secondary. If you weigh that against the $2.416 million for medical expansion start-ups, there is a variance of $17.58 million in anticipated systemwide efficiencies to be achieved. Now, in terms of the question, in terms of the exact amount of the…. I mentioned the percentage. We're going to research down to the penny exactly what that equates to in terms of salary, and we'll provide that information to the House.

D. Eby: The minister has presented a budget here that cuts more than $17 million from B.C. post-secondary schools, and I've heard him on the record many times say that these cuts are administrative in nature, that there are such things as "buying paper together will reduce these costs, if the schools would just buy their paper together." BCIT just approved a budget that cuts $8 million, covered an $8 million shortfall. They did it by restricting staffing, increasing student fees, postponing repairs and postponing maintenance to cover that shortfall.

Selkirk is grappling with a $900,000 shortfall. I don't know where the minister thinks they're buying their paper, but can he advise this House what steps he will take that are shown in this budget that will protect student services, protect them from cuts if the schools don't do as the minister hopes, which is make administrative cuts? It certainly looks like these cuts are coming on the backs of students.

[1350]

Hon. A. Virk: There's clearly a sort of dichotomy of views from this side of the House and that side when it comes for budgets. We believe in efficiencies and making sure that the dollar of the taxpayer is used the most effectively. Certainly, that money doesn't grow on a magic NDP money tree.

Let me be quite clear in terms of efficiencies that we want to realize. There are targets of $5 million of efficiencies in 2013-14, $25 million in 2014-15 and $50 million in 2015-16. These are administrative efficiencies throughout institutions. We've asked public institutions to do a core review of all that they do to ensure that their budget targets are met and that they're using their resources as efficiently as possible.

[1355]

Let me get beyond. This is not about buying paper. To suggest such is pure folly. We're talking about the purchase of natural gas, courier services, scientific supplies, trades consumables, office supplies, travel, additional joint procurement, textbook freight, higher vending commissions, shared print shop services, credit card merchant fees, managing print services, IT services, collaborative employee recruitment sites. These are just some examples. This is beyond paper. This is beyond every service that a university would buy from vendors, working together to find efficiencies.

It has taken that taxpayer dollar and ensured that we're spending in the wisest way possible. This government is committed to that. I'm not sure if the member opposite suggests that we spend more than we need to on buying what we need. This is about administrative efficiencies. This is not about student services.

D. Eby: I note that in the budget the minister's office hasn't been subject to any cuts, although post-secondary institutions are. Despite all evidence to the contrary, that schools are in fact cutting the student services, the minister insists they're administrative, So I will move on to a more productive area, hopefully.

This is in the document marked Supplement to the Estimates Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2015. On page 20 of that document there is standard object of expense account No. 67, which relates to informative ads. Pardon me, informational ads. They're not always informative.

The budget suggests that the minister, again, is going to be spending $1 million on informational ads. Can the minister tell the public of British Columbia what he is spending that money on?

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite will be very happy to learn that while there is indeed a $1 million budget for informational spending, the net sum of $8,925 was spent in fiscal year '13-14. I'll repeat: $8,925.

[1400]

D. Eby: I'm a bit puzzled by the response. I thought we were talking about budget 2014-15 and whether or not to approve it. I see there's $1 million budgeted for informational advertising, and I wonder if the minister could explain what his plans are for that $1 million.

Hon. A. Virk: The budget as allocated for communication is a notional allocation to communicate changes in the system. I'll just use the example of the federal rule changes on international student or visa requirements. That's the reason why that's placed in the budget — for changes anticipated or yet to come.

D. Eby: I note that that amount of money could provide 100 B.C. graduate students with $10,000 each in a scholarship, which would make our schools competitive with schools in Ontario and Alberta, which do give scholarships to their graduate student residents. It could create hundreds of trades-training spaces rather than advertising for the federal government. I encourage the minister to revisit that notional allocation of money, especially if he doesn't plan on spending it, because students actually could use that money and could spend that money.

I'll move on to the matter of travel expenses for the minister and the ministry. I note that there are students from Camosun and from Simon Fraser University in the gallery. I also note that I understand that the minister hasn't met with the students from Camosun who are in an English-as-a-second-language program that's being cut. He hasn't met with the SFU students who want to give him a tour of the deferred maintenance issues in that school, where water is literally dripping down the walls.

[1405]

I wonder how much of the budget is set aside to ensure that the minister can visit these groups and hear about these issues from students firsthand.

Hon. A. Virk: My ministry has $105,000 in the budget for travel. In the first six months…. Perhaps it's news to the member opposite and others that I have actually been at the main campuses and additional campuses of all 25 post-secondary institutions and a number of private institutions, including institutions in First Nations communities in very diverse and, may I say, remote locations of British Columbia.

It is indeed a very large province with a very diverse pool of universities, colleges and institutions serving a very diverse set of individuals. I like to meet hand to hand, face to face wherever possible.

In fact, in 2013-2014 we underspent considerably, and only $65,000 was spent as part of my obligation to meet with presidents, boards of governors, community groups, industry, students, parents and staff all across British Columbia.

D. Eby: On page 37 of the large estimates document marked "Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2015," at the bottom of the page there's a comparison in government transfers under the ministry group account classification summary.

For estimates 2013-14 that number was $1.961 billion. For estimates 2014 that number is $1.926 billion. Can the minister explain what the difference is between those two government transfer numbers and why they're so different?

[1410]

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite asked a question from the bottom of page 37 on the estimates fiscal year-end book, third line down. There is a variation. The difference is $20 million for the service delivery initiative — $17 million, the reduction from the federal ESL pro-
[ Page 1845 ]
gram, offset by $2.4 million and additional budgeting for medical start-ups.

D. Eby: I understand that the minister has been in the media saying that he is going to allocate more than $10 million in what he's calling transition funding in relation to that ESL program cut. I wonder if the minister could explain where in this budget that money is coming from.

[1415]

Hon. A. Virk: The ministry has secured one-time funding in the amount of $10.5 million in fiscal 2013-2014 to provide for institutions to transition their programs in environment with the federal government to fund the bulk of immigrant settlement services. That funding came from the labour market development agreement.

D. Eby: That funding, then, is coming from the federal government. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Virk: Yes.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise what the purpose of that funding is and how the ministry will be dividing it among schools — what the formula is or what the rationale is for how that money will be distributed this year?

Hon. A. Virk: There have been a number of communiqués in terms of the ending of the Canada-B.C. immigration agreement and the seizing of funding for ESL programs. The federal government is in a process of negotiating agreements, negotiating locations and negotiating the type of training.

It was important for this ministry to make sure that no students fell through the gaps. From that $10.5 million, we were able to divide that with 17 public institutions that deliver ESL programs. It is divided based upon the number of students that each had in ESL programs.

There was an information bulletin that was put out February 19, 2014. We would be happy to provide that to the member opposite. It lists each institution and the exact amount that each received.

D. Eby: Can the minister be very specific about the purpose of this funding? Is this for severance payments for staff? If it is for students, what are the expectations of the ministry of the schools that receive it in terms of what's to be done with the money? What is the deliverable for schools that receive this money?

[1420]

Hon. A. Virk: I think it's more appropriate that I do emphasize that this one-time funding is not for severances and is not to be used for severances. It is to ensure the continuation of programs. It's to establish pathways for these students — pathways that help them segue from the current program to the yet-to-be-determined method and manner of delivery of the federal program so no student falls through the cracks on this. This is entirely for students.

D. Eby: I feel like an echo here. I'm wondering about the specific deliverable that will be expected of the schools that receive this funding.

Is it a year's worth of education for the students who are currently in the program so that they're going to finish their school year? Is it that they're going to be given a scholarship or something? What are the schools intended to be using this money for? How will the minister know if the mission has been accomplished here and these students have been segued into whatever it is the federal government has in mind?

Hon. A. Virk: As we must recognize, there are 17 different institutions that provide ESL, and each is very unique in terms of the number of students, the type of students, their level, their needs. Each institution is tasked with developing their own transition plan based upon their students, their needs and what they need to segue into the federal program when it gets announced. This certainly depends on whether or not that institution is going to receive any agreements from the federal government.

I understand that Camosun College, here on Vancouver Island, is not in discussion with the government of Canada on that, so they're going to have to develop a transition plan based upon — after the announcement of the program — how their students can segue as seamlessly as possible to those programs.

[1425]

We expect each of these universities, colleges and institutions to work with those service providers when they are announced, look at the programs, look at the locations, look at the depth and breadth of the program and then use that funding as a pathway to those programs to make sure the gaps are minimized.

Then I must also note that I understand there are several public sector universities, colleges and other institutions that are now in discussions with the federal government to try to reattempt to get some of that federal money for ESL.

D. Eby: I hope that the member opposite is not suggesting that it somehow falls to the schools to be fighting for this federal funding. If anything, it's the minister's job to be fighting for our schools and fighting for this funding.

In fact, that is very much a concern — that the minister and his colleagues have been sending mixed messages, that maybe they're working with the federal government on this cut to ESL. Maybe they're cooperating with them.
[ Page 1846 ]
Certainly, that's the message from the federal government. I also hear, of course, from the minister that he likes the system the way it is and would like to keep it, as would this side of the House.

In any event, it's very clear that this funding that's been set aside is not adequate for most schools in B.C. to run a full year of educational programming. Douglas College got $920,000 from the province, in transition. They spend $1.6 million to run their program for a year, which means they're short in terms of being able to run for the entire year. VCC — their base is $8 million for ESL. They used to get $3½ million from the province on chargeback for tuition. They need over $11 million to run the program for a year.

Given that this funding is coming from the federal government for transition, can the minister advise that he will top up that funding to make sure, on a school-by-school basis, that these students are at least able to finish their academic year?

Hon. A. Virk: It's more than appropriate for me, as minister, to clarify details. I know that disguised in the question were all sorts of suggestions of conspiracy theories, inclusion or otherwise. Let me clarify the facts.

The Canada immigration agreement between the governments of Canada and British Columbia came to a cease. This ministry was of the view that the system, as it was, with $17 million of federal money through the Canada-B.C. agreement, flowed through our universities to provide ESL to students that needed it.

[1430]

I'm firm in that. This ministry and myself were firm in the fact that this is a system that we believed in and what we wanted. Despite our objections, the federal government decided to offer a different service. I think it's the mature and professional thing to do, once a decision is made by the federal government. We had no choice, however, to work with the federal government.

I must point out that the ministry, in fact, did hire an individual to work with all the universities to help them write…. Some universities may or may not have had the experience in obtaining the grants from the federal government. We did hire an individual to work with every single one of these institutions to assist them, if they required it, to bid for the new contract that's going to come out. That indeed happened, and we're going to continue to work with these dates and with the institutions just to support students. We are committed to that.

D. Eby: I'm sure, as the minister is sure, that the schools will be just fine out of this. They're going to suffer the cut. They're going to lay off their faculty. The faculty — it's heartbreaking — will lose their jobs doing this incredibly important work.

My question, though, was focused on the students. Is the minister prepared to top up the federal grant to make sure that the students are able to finish their academic year out of this budget? Or is he not prepared to do that?

[G. Kyllo in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: It's important for our ministry to continue to work very closely with institutions to ensure that students are not impacted. All institutions are not the same. There was some $10.5 million that was spread out to 17 public post-secondary institutions to make sure that there was transitional funding while the semantics and location and type of training from the federal government was worked out.

[1435]

We're going to continue to work with those institutions, and we are going to determine if some of those institutions are successful or not in the federal process. I'm not prone to speculation in advance of that decision being made. Once that decision is made and we've determined which institutions are successful, we'll be better able to do a gap analysis and make an informed decision not based on speculation.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise what's happening to the provincial funding that would have been used, before the program was cancelled, to offset student fees and tuition charges under the province's tuition-free ESL program? I understand that this funding may have been called chargeback for tuition.

In any event, it was money that was provided by the province under a commitment that they made, which they are no longer committing to, to provide tuition-free ESLs at colleges in British Columbia. Where is that money going? What's happening to it?

Hon. A. Virk: It's important to note that beyond the federal reduction of some $17 million, we have not reduced institutions' budgets in that area, and tuition remains free in ESL.

D. Eby: That's very unusual news in light of what's happening out there right now. Vancouver Community College anticipates going from 1,300 full-time-equivalent students, which is already a reduced number, to 300, effective this summer. Those 300 are federally funded ELSA students. That means it is not available to Canadian citizens. It's only available to refugees and to permanent residents.

[1440]

I'm not sure how VCC is providing a tuition-free domestic ESL. Similarly, for Kwantlen, their website says that if you're a domestic student, you can't even apply for ESL. They're only accepting applications from international students.

Perhaps — well, not perhaps; definitely — I hope the minister can provide some clarification about what is go-
[ Page 1847 ]
ing to happen with that funding in light of a school like, for example, Kwantlen, where you cannot even apply to become a domestic ESL student. So how on earth could you get tuition-free ESL funded by the provincial government?

Hon. A. Virk: I welcome the member for Burnaby-Lougheed to the House as well.

Canada has indeed changed the delivery of the ESL program. CIC, as we've heard, is negotiating with community-based programming and some public post-secondary institutions, and existing students will be served.

Now, the VCC numbers as noted by the member opposite are certainly not the same as the numbers that I have at my disposal.

In relation to Kwantlen Polytechnic University, the information that they put out for public consumption was prior to the transition funding being available to them. We're going to continue to work with Kwantlen Polytechnic and the other affected institutions as they transition from the previous model to the new model, where the federal government is going to be providing ESL.

D. Eby: That is exactly why we're here in this estimates process, to get the accurate numbers. Could the minister please advise what is happening to developmental FTE targets for schools in light of the ESL cuts?

[1445]

And just as a point of clarification, can the minister provide specific numbers for the schools that he mentioned that he has numbers for, which are Kwantlen and VCC?

Hon. A. Virk: Our province is indeed committed to ensuring that adults in B.C. have the adult education opportunities to fulfil their education, employment and life goals. It does recognize that for many, many British Columbians their first point of access to post-secondary is to developmental training through adult basic education, ABE, or second language, ESL.

[1450]

While we're still awaiting the outcome of the discussions that the institutions are having with CIC — those institutions and discussions with CIC — their FTE numbers will not change. But let me provide some specifics as to the question. VCC has 3,048 developmental positions, and Kwantlen Polytechnic University has 701 developmental positions.

D. Eby: Then do I understand the member properly that the FTE, the full-time-equivalent student spaces at the schools affected that are losing federal funding to provide English-as-a-second-language training will remain unchanged but that the minister is thinking about changing those numbers, depending on what the ultimate funding decision is by the federal government?

Hon. A. Virk: There is always a short answer and a slightly longer than shorter answer. The short is yes and the longer is that we're going to continue to monitor FTE rates.

D. Eby: I note that we're discussing the fiscal year April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015, and this is already — I can't believe it — March. Schools are being asked, if I understand properly, to plan their year based on existing FTE targets without knowing what their funding is going to be for that year.

Might I ask the minister, then: has he allocated some money in this budget in the event that the federal government does cut schools, as everybody expects, and people are being laid off, as is happening right now? Will he allocate some money to provide these schools with business certainty that they will be able to keep the teachers, that they will be able to keep the placements for the students they admit for the coming school year if they're being asked to deliver on those same FTE targets?

Hon. A. Virk: It's always good to find something in common, and I think we both agree that it's unfortunate that the federal government is taking so long to make these decisions. I had hoped that they'd have made these long ago. It would have made more certainty.

As mentioned previously, that $10.5 million that my ministry was able to give to those 17 aforementioned institutions certainly helps to provide business continuity in this period of uncertainty and in a transitional period. We're hoping that decision by the federal government is made sooner than later, and we can have a proper analysis then.

D. Eby: Changing gears, I'm looking at the block funding for universities and colleges in British Columbia. In B.C. each school receives a letter that sets out the number of full-time-equivalent students that the government expects them to deliver, and they receive a block amount of funding from the ministry that tells them how much money they have to spend in the year to deliver those spaces.

[1455]

I have a question. I've divided the FTE expectations — the number of students that the schools have to deliver — by the block funding. There are some very unusual differences between similar schools.

Clearly, there's a need for differential funding between a rural school and an urban school, between a school with a heavy trades program and a school with less so, because there are heavy-equipment needs and so on. But when I look at similarly situated schools in this budget, it seems like they're getting funded at different levels, with-
[ Page 1848 ]
out explanation.

Perhaps the minister can explain the policy rationale behind different per-student funding levels. For example, Capilano University gets $6,933.72 — if I'm off by a few dollars, I hope the minister will forgive me; I don't have as many staff as he does — yet Kwantlen, a similar regional urban university, gets $7,388.63. Now, $450 may not sound like a lot of money. But over 5,400 full-time-equivalent student spaces, that makes a big difference in the level of service the schools are able to provide.

I wonder if the minister could explain why Langara College receives $6,232 per student and Douglas College, a similarly sized college also located in an urban area, receives $6,986 per student. What is the rationale between these different funding levels for similar schools?

Hon. A. Virk: On the surface, when you compare size to size in terms of the institutions, there are variations.

I think the member opposite clearly laid that out — that funding variations between liberal arts programs and those programs that require investments in heavy machinery and/or health programs result in varying costs to different institutions. He used the examples of Capilano University, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Langara College and Douglas College. Each one of those, while perhaps some of them are closer to size than the others, has a marked variation in the programs they deliver.

While their infrastructure and overall size may be similar, the example of Kwantlen Polytechnic — in terms of the program mix in its trades facilities and the program mixture in its health and nursing programs — is a variation from the examples cited from the other universities.

Similarly, there are variations in the programs offered between Langara and Douglas and variations in the number of FTEs, the number of programs — some of them are more expensive and some of them are less expensive to deliver — which result in a variation. Footprint and footprint does not equal similar funding.

D. Eby: I think the minister has absolutely outlined the ideal scenario in terms of funding schools for British Columbia. My understanding of the history of Capilano University being the lowest-funded university in B.C. is that they skipped the university college funding stage that all of the other regional universities went through.

They got a bit of a bump in funding when they were university colleges. When they became full universities, then they got another bump in funding. Capilano went straight from being a college to being a university, and that's why they're the lowest funded.

[1500]

While I do appreciate the minister's logic, I also note that Capilano University is currently cutting equipment-intensive courses in order to move to less equipment-intensive courses, because they cannot afford to maintain those programs at the current funding level. This is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if the school can't afford to maintain those programs.

I wonder, given that the minister and I both agree on what the ideal scenario is…. If you're delivering heavy machinery or heavy intensive — whether it's technology or automotive repair or welding or whatever it is — then you would get more funding. If you're doing liberal arts, where you are going to have a class with less equipment, then you get less funding.

Can the minister commit to reviewing this funding and making sure that it's fair between schools and that it's not based on these historical artifacts, which is, in fact, the budget that we've been presented here and the budget that Capilano University has to live with?

Hon. A. Virk: Capilano has indeed expressed concern about the level of funding it has received from the ministry. Given it's new status — and it's not new; it's been a number of years — they felt there was more required, as it's a special purpose teaching university.

[1505]

However, I must note, perhaps, a lesson in history. When Capilano was designated as a teaching university in 2008, it was agreed that no additional funding would be provided for that change in designation. Now, from time to time Capilano and all universities, institutions and colleges do program reviews based on several factors, notwithstanding student demand and also labour market analysis. They do vary programs based upon a combination of both those factors.

In addition to the grants of block funding that universities receive, Capilano has received approximately $38.5 million, of which some $18.68 million came from AVED for their new digital media and film centre. May I note that it's a flagship in that digital media industry.

D. Eby: Certainly, as the minister knows, as I know, as students who attend Capilano University know, the program that was most recently cut was a computer program that was highly successful. Employers came out to the community and went to bat for it and said: "We like these students who are trained this way. We like that program. Please don't cut it." It was cut anyway because it was too expensive.

As much as I appreciate the history lesson, I think that there is something else going on at that school, and that is that they are chronically underfunded.

I think it would be useful to move on to a different category. I'm referring to the large estimates book marked "Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2015," page 196 of that book. The book discusses surpluses at colleges and universities, an $81 million surplus. Now, these surpluses might suggest to the average reader that universities and colleges are flush with cash.

In fact, many universities and colleges cut their pro-
[ Page 1849 ]
grams before the end of the fiscal year to make sure that they have a surplus, because under the government reporting entity rules, they are not allowed to run a deficit. The schools would dearly love to be able to use this surplus to fund their programs and also to be able to plan over the business cycle, rather than fiscal to fiscal.

I wonder whether the minister contemplates, under this budget, removing universities from the government reporting entity. This isn't just some idea I came up with. This is from the 2010 throne speech, and that promise was reaffirmed in 2011 by the minister's counterpart previously, Minister Yamamoto, who said that she also was committed to removing universities from the government reporting entity.

I wonder if the minister can advise whether he will free universities to plan along a more rational program that doesn't require them to cut programs right before the end of the fiscal year to provide an artificial surplus.

[1510]

Hon. A. Virk: This government is not currently contemplating steps to remove the universities, colleges, institutions from the government reporting entity.

D. Eby: I'm very sorry to hear that, because at Simon Fraser University the student union isn't able to build their student union building. By having the school guarantee that the fee will be collected, it's going to cost their student union millions of dollars.

Overcrowded residences across the province. Schools can't borrow to build new residences because they're part of these rules. So now $81 million that is not going to be available to schools that desperately need the funding to provide services for students…. I hope the minister reconsiders and looks at the promise made in the throne speech and by the previous minister and revisits that decision.

Turning to page 37 of the large estimates book, titled "Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2015," there is a line item under the "Ministry group account classification summary" marked "External recoveries." You'll see that an amount of $17.639 million in last year's estimates has been reduced to $522,000 in this year's estimates. I wonder if the minister could explain the difference between the two numbers.

Hon. A. Virk: Quite elementary mathematics on that one. It's the amount, $17.639 million, minus the amount that the federal government is not going to give to us for ESL, which equals the amount that's left on the right-hand column.

D. Eby: Thanks to the member for the clear answer.

The last time we were here, I asked a question about whether the ministry was collecting wait-list data for trades programs. There are very long wait-lists for skilled trades like shipbuilding, welding, electrical engineering. The ministry did not at that time have any wait-list data.

Similarly, the ministry wasn't collecting data about the number of British Columbia students who were actually using B.C. post-secondary schools and how they were doing, compared with students from out of province or international students, and how these cohorts were performing compared to each other. At the time, the minister didn't have any data, although he said he'd be willing to look at other areas of data to collect.

[1515]

Can the minister advise whether or not he has started to collect either wait-list data or data on the performance of B.C. students in their own post-secondary schools?

Hon. A. Virk: Our ministry collects extensive data from students, outcome data. It does not distinguish domestic students from outside B.C. by province. That's available via open data and on our ministry website as well.

The ITA does keep wait-lists of students, and we do work with our institutions on making sure that we're balancing the programs.

[1520]

D. Eby: I wonder if the minister would undertake to provide the list of the ITA's wait-lists for British Columbia institutions.

Hon. A. Virk: As the ITA comes under the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, we will certainly forward the member's request for that data to that ministry. Some of that information certainly may be available through the ITA website as well.

D. Eby: Thank you to the minister for that.

The minister is probably aware that B.C. provides the lowest level of student financial assistance in the form of loans or grants of any province in Canada. Under this budget, can he advise what the maximum loan amount is for which a B.C. student can qualify as a full-time student in this province?

Hon. A. Virk: This government and this ministry provide a comprehensive package of financial assistance through student loans, grants, bursaries and repayment assistance programs, including loan forgiveness programs.

Specifically, there are two categories in terms of the student loan maximums. A student without dependents taking a full course load — up to $16,640. Students with dependents with a full course load — up to a maximum of $26,520.

[1525]

D. Eby: Those numbers are different than my numbers,
[ Page 1850 ]
but I'll take the minister as being correct.

Can the minister advise how that amount was reached? What calculations does the ministry use to determine that that is an adequate loan for a student, for example, in a professional program at UBC — in an MBA or law, a medicine or dentistry program or any other program at the University of British Columbia — or other schools across the province? How does the ministry know that $16,640 — I thought it was $10,880 — is an adequate amount for a student to be able to cover their expenses?

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Chair, I'm going to answer the last question. Then my colleague has asked — and in terms of collegiality — to have a little break afterwards, if you will indulge us.

If I may answer this question. The member opposite asked about a formula in terms of determining student aid. StudentAid is a needs-based program that works to supplement, not replace. Surely the member opposite won't suggest that there is not an individual responsibility through work, savings, assets and family resources and income that forms part of the equation. StudentAid B.C. is designed to make up that difference.

D. Eby: I wonder if we could take a five-minute break. I apologize, Mr. Chair, as you've just settled in, but if we could take five minutes, I'd appreciate it.

The Chair: Okay. The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:37 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

B. Ralston: I want to pose a question. It's a Surrey-specific question. Both the minister and I are members representing Surrey ridings.

It arises out of the memorandum of understanding signed by the Ministry of Advanced Education and Simon Fraser University in 2006, which said that SFU Surrey's physical space and enrolment would have to double by 2015 to meet regional demand for post-secondary education seats. That agreement has yet to be fulfilled.

I just want to set a little bit of a context for this. This is a question that I've asked, I think, over a number of years. As the minister, I'm sure, knows, the physical campus for what is now SFU Surrey was built in the 1990s. Bing Thom designed a gorgeous building that won international architecture awards — originally designed for the Technical University and then taken over by SFU Surrey.

Also, the minister will be aware that Surrey has the largest public school system district, by number of students, in the province, yet Surrey students are under-represented in what they call, in the technical jargon, the conversion rate. That is the rate at which high school graduates go on to further higher education, whether it's at Kwantlen University or Simon Fraser — the minister's alma mater, I note, so I'm hopeful about my answer here.

That's a problem that has persisted and is well documented. Both previous president Stevenson of SFU and the current president, Mr. Petter, brought this repeatedly to the attention of the government.

[1540]

There's no question that there is a demand in Surrey for seats there. There was last some government spending on acquiring what's called Podium 2, which is part of the physical infrastructure at the base of the office tower there. The ministry did provide money to buy that location within the campus. But the agreement has, as of yet, not been fulfilled.

I'm wondering if the minister can advise: when does he anticipate that this memorandum, signed now in 2006 — it's certainly some time ago now, eight years ago — will be fulfilled? The expiry date or the projected date for the agreement was 2015. We're almost there. Yet the funding for those places has not yet come. I wonder if the minister could advise me: what is the plan to fulfil that memorandum of understanding that the ministry signed so long ago?

Hon. A. Virk: I do thank the member from Surrey for his question. As much as him, I do appreciate the work of SFU, being that it is indeed my alma mater, as he pointed out. I have been to that campus innumerable times, in a variety of different ways. It's an excellent campus that serves a very broad community.

[1545]

I also recognize that the South Fraser is indeed a growing region, with a large school district. I've spent a lot of time working with that school district, as well, in previous occupation — indeed, a growing school-age and university population.

The member opposite will certainly know that in the budget that came out, there was $750 million. That was the provincial component of capital that we intend to put towards post-secondary education. As part of that $750 million, that analysis is just beginning to make sure we allocate that very appropriately and very properly.

I'm certainly aware of the MOU from 2006. It's going to be front and centre on my mind as we do the allocation across the rest of the province, keeping in mind labour market needs as well.

B. Ralston: Back on May 19, 2011, I asked a similar question to the previous minister, on page 8 of Hansard of that day. I'll just quote from the response of the minister. She was acknowledging, as the minister has graciously done, the problems of growth in Surrey, the demand
[ Page 1851 ]
there, the building of a new and vibrant town centre.

I suppose it's probably worth mentioning that the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association, the Surrey Board of Trade and the member's predecessor as the member for Surrey-Tynehead were also strong advocates for the kind of expansion and fulfillment of the commitment that was made in this memorandum of understanding many years ago.

I do want to quote from the then minister back in 2011 and then ask a question. "One of the issues that we were working on was trying to assemble some real estate around the Surrey campus that currently exists, and we have helped SFU Surrey do that. There are actually some parking lots that we've purchased and assembled into a package for future expansion. So when we have the capacity, we will be addressing the needs of Surrey."

That's now a number of years ago. I believe those purchases have been made and are available for the expansion plans that we're talking about.

Can the minister, firstly, confirm that those properties have been purchased, and secondly, advise when the commitment will be made to work on fulfilling the MOU that was signed back in 2006?

[1550]

Hon. A. Virk: First, a response to one of the questions. The answer is indeed yes, that strategic land purchases have been made. Then in response to the second part of it, this government must certainly weigh into the current fiscal environment. It's not possible for me to commit with certainty at this time the timeline for achieving it.

However, having said that, with the $750 million that has been announced for the next three years in terms of capital spending, we're at the very early stages of the allocation process and how we're going to work with that in terms of looking at the priorities. This is indeed one of those areas in terms of the priorities across the province that we'll be looking at.

That's where this stage is at. I can't commit to any certainty of timelines, but I can…. The fact is that with that money, there will be an allocation, and needs-based around the province where their needs are the highest.

D. Eby: The member for Stikine drew my attention to Northwest Community College's School of Exploration and Mining, which is based at Smithers. It has an amazing track record in its ten years of existence. Of its 1,000-plus graduates, more than 70 percent have found placement within the sector.

That rate is even higher with the workforce exploration skills training program, where 89 percent of graduates either gained employment or pursued further training. A majority of the graduates are First Nations, not just from the northwest but also from around the province. The programming mainly occurs in the mining exploration camp settings, so students get that hands-on experience. It's for all these reasons that the school has won many awards over the years, including a Premier's Award from Gordon Campbell.

Unfortunately, the school's success has not been reflected in any kind of direct funding from the ministry, despite repeated efforts by the college. The School of Exploration and Mining has managed to get by on a year-to-year basis using labour market funding.

Last year, for instance, the school did not receive confirmation from the government about funding from the labour market agreement until the day before the Legislature shut down for the election period in mid-April. That was just a matter of weeks before the programming was set to start in that camp setting. That's a very unstable and uncertain scenario for students, teachers and administrators. Now there's growing uncertainty about that funding around LMA programming into future years.

Given that we've got an award-winning school serving First Nations students in a resource industry that has an exceptional success rate, can the minister inform us whether, in his ministry's budget for this year or in plans for next year, there will be long-term, stable funding for Northwest Community College's School of Exploration and Mining?

[1555]

Hon. A. Virk: Even with all these binders I have, I don't have the answer at my fingertips for the specifics of that one program. To the member opposite, we will get the specifics of that particular program and research it and get back to him, if at all possible, today.

A. Weaver: I know that my colleague the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has already covered a number of the issues that I was going to ask, particularly with ESL funding and Camosun College. I have a follow-up, though.

The provincial government has indicated the skills shortfall will have to be addressed, at least in the short term, with imported labour. I speak specifically in terms of LNG development. Although there are impacts on health care and other sectors of the economy as well, many of these workers will require some form of English language training, especially if we wish to encourage them to immigrate. If the province no longer administers and funds ESL programs, what is your ministry doing to coordinate with the federal government to ensure that provincial goals are met?

Hon. A. Virk: Just on rebuttal, first of all, it's about British Columbians first. We have to make sure that British Columbians have the first opportunity.

So it's labour market analysis and the job skills plan that's being developed right now to make sure that we have a full skill requirement in terms of what's required,
[ Page 1852 ]
where it is required, when it is required and how many are required and to match that with what we can, as British Columbians, produce here right in our own backyard — to encourage British Columbians to get involved more in the technical trades area that's going to be required for industries in the resource sector, including LNG; to look at the re-engineering of post-secondary education, in a sense.

[1600]

Can we do dual credits? Can we expand our ACE IT program to do that first or second year of university at a high school? Can we do that and duplicate that where we need it the best? It's to look at the student loan program to make sure that it matches the appropriate skills. That's part of my mandate: a review of the student loan program, and to match skills with students.

At the secondary, British Columbians first. We have to encourage the aboriginal communities in terms of success rates of aboriginals, not only graduating from high school but graduating from universities and graduating with the right skills, and then encourage Canadians and the rest of Canada to be next in line for those jobs.

It's a wonderful problem to have: the forecast of more jobs than people. As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head has suggested, should there be the need for foreign-trained individuals to come to Canada, we want to make sure, first of all, that they have the language skills to do so.

As I've said in my previous comments today, the previous program whereby the province administered a program where we had flow-through funding from the federal government…. We were very supportive of that program. We believe it was a very successful program.

We're awaiting the results of that federal program — where, who and, first of all, which institutions will be successful, which private institutions will be successful — to see the breadth and depth of that program. Then we'll be able to do a gap analysis. What does the federal program look like? What's it delivering? Where's it delivering? How many students is it delivering to? Then we can do the gap analysis in terms of what's being delivered and what our needs are.

We're going to continue to work with the federal government. I must say that I'm not at all satisfied with the pace of the progress. I certainly hoped the program had been delivered. At least we'd know where it is. There are some things that sometimes are within our control; some are not.

I have yet to hear the results of what the federal program's going to look up. I'm waiting every day for that to come out. Then we can do that gap analysis and start working with the federal government and say: "Okay, here's where our gaps are that we need to fill."

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister. The ministry service plan notes that institutional operations are part of the overall core review. Would the minister provide guidelines or terms of reference that post-secondary institutions have been provided to undertake and report back on their own core review, and when that can be expected?

Hon. A. Virk: The terms of reference were indeed given to all different universities, institutions and colleges across British Columbia, and the responses are just starting to arrive, to come in. We'd be more than pleased to provide the terms of reference from the ministry directly to the member.

A. Weaver: Is the minister considering a provision where funding to programs or institutions is reviewed or limited if administration to service costs exceed a certain ratio? If so, has a number been determined?

[1605]

Hon. A. Virk: The objectives of the institution-wide core review were certainly to ensure that the institutions' programs serve students' needs, looking at the evolving needs of students, looking at the evolving needs of industry and the evolving need of employment, and then to make sure these programs are operating as efficiently and as effectively as possible. That includes opportunities for reallocation, relocation, collaboration, co-location, if required. There is no objective or plan to take, if there are any efficiencies in that, or to claw back any potential savings from those core reviews.

A. Weaver: There have been reports from shop teachers in the K-to-12 system that facilities and equipment for students are outdated and in need of upgrading. One could argue that this could be problematic, as high school graduates moving into post-secondary training may require extra instruction on more modern equipment.

Is there a plan to coordinate the type of instruction and equipment necessary between the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Advanced Education so that students, parents and instructors are confident entering a post-secondary skills-training program, and has there been any thought or instruction for colleges and school boards to seek cost savings by bulk purchasing equipment?

Hon. A. Virk: I want to thank the member for the question. The Ministries of Advanced Education and Education are indeed working very closely to make sure that the alignment of skills training and facilities is very much aligned.

There are a number of transition programs across the province that are providing, as the member opposite knows, a dual-credit entry into trades at post-secondary.

I've been to a number of those programs. It's so wonderful to see high school students actually training at the college. They're grade 11 or grade 12, and they are using the same equipment that they would be using later on —
[ Page 1853 ]
they're actually bused or transported by parents or otherwise to the institution — to avoid duplications.

What a wonderful model, where you have a high school number and a university number. Actually, you're working on the same equipment that you're going to, presumably, work on next year.

[1610]

Another example right here on the south Island is the South Island Partnership between Camosun College and five school districts of southern Vancouver Island and local industry. We have opportunities for students to jump-start post-secondary education.

Some of that is with some of the equipment at the schools, but some of that is where the high school students are training in a college environment while they're in high school. I think that's a wonderful program. We're looking to duplicate those kinds of programs across the province, to look at efficiencies and look at co-locating that kind of equipment in one location, as opposed to duplicating it in two, if possible.

A. Weaver: In lieu of time I have one final question, and I'll submit two more questions to the minister, if that's possible, for a written response at a later date. They may be covered in some form by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

My final question is simply a follow-up to the question just posed. As a follow-up to the previous question, can the minister place a dollar figure on the skills training requirement for post-secondary institutions, specifically for LNG development? Does the ministry have specific details on job breakdowns where direction and funding expansion of training programs will be required? And if so, has the information been provided to the colleges?

I recognize it's a rather lengthy question, and I would be happy to receive that response through written form as well, if that's okay.

Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Chair, we will absolutely provide a written response and, in consideration of the time, send the written response through you or directly to the member asking the question.

D. Eby: This question relates to aboriginal education in British Columbia.

I had the opportunity to visit an open house at the Native Education College. It's a wonderful school that provides services to off-reserve, urban aboriginal people in British Columbia. This school is the second-lowest-funded school in the province. They receive $6,500 per student from the provincial government. It's funnelled through a third-party school. They are just ahead of Langara in per-student funding.

Clearly, this is a group that needs, if anything, more supports, not less. This is the reason why NVIT gets more than $14,000 per student — because we need, in British Columbia, to do a better job of providing support and educational services to people of First Nations ancestry.

My question to the minister is quite simple. Does this budget anticipate a better funding level to reach that critically important urban aboriginal cohort and make sure that they have the supports they need in order to attend and succeed at school?

[1615]

Hon. A. Virk: In the last several months I actually did sit down with the board chair and the president of Native Education College. In all the literature and all that I've read…. That's one I haven't visited, and kudos to the member opposite that he actually has visited that location. I hear it's a fabulous location. I think we'll share that view.

NEC, Native Education College, is in fact the largest private — I'll accentuate "private" — aboriginal college in British Columbia, and we recognize the importance. It has served the community since 1967.

The ministry does provide funding. Like many private institutions, this one does get funding from a variety of locations, including some B.C.-Canada labour market agreement. It does receive some funding from the provincial government, but it is still a private aboriginal college with private sources of income.

D. Eby: I'm sure the minister is aware that these distinctions of public and private are rapidly becoming academic in terms of the various sources of funding that public universities and colleges are expected to find — and private schools accessing public funding. Native Education College receives public funding to provide services to urban aboriginal students. They receive $6,500 per student.

The question was relatively straightforward. Does this budget anticipate any increase to recognize that this a cohort that is vitally important in order for this ministry to reach their goals around aboriginal education and graduation in this province? Everybody agrees it is a huge priority.

Again, the question. Does this budget contemplate an increase in per-student funding so that this school can deliver successful results for urban aboriginal people in B.C.?

[1620]

Hon. A. Virk: The ministry is absolutely committed to the aboriginal learner. In that commitment, we're also committed to make sure that the grants that are provided to this private aboriginal college to the tune of $1.95 million are going to be maintained. That's a commitment this ministry is making. However, at the same time, this ministry does not have additional funding available to provide an increase of that grant to this private institution.
[ Page 1854 ]

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. As a follow-up to this, in regards to the aboriginal education, the ministry has a baseline in the 2012-2013 report of 3,010 graduates, with the stated goal of 4,609 graduates by 2021. The Aboriginal Post-Secondary Education and Training Policy Framework and Action Plan has a goal to increase the awarded credentials by 75 percent that seems largely due to increasing participation. But participation does not mean success, so my question to the minister is…. Would the minister please elaborate on what programs are being implemented to ensure aboriginal students are provided curriculum support, cultural and financial assistance to achieve success.

Hon. A. Virk: The aboriginal policy framework and action plan is indeed, as the member opposite suggests, to increase the number of credentials through a variety of means, but we want to increase the number of students who actually graduate with a credential as well. I think we, collectively, on all sides of the House, support that and are going to work towards that.

There are five overarching goals under the aboriginal policy framework and associated action items for each of those goals. Three of the goals, as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head suggested, are related to success and retention, very important goals.

I'll outline the first goal. The first goal is about systematic change in our public post-secondary system. Make sure it's relevant, responsive and respectful of the aboriginal learner in communities. I use the example of NVIT, in Merritt, that works exclusively with First Nations, but we have four others. If the member wishes, we can certainly respond back to him in writing on all other four of them. Or if he wishes, in the interest of time, I could certainly go through all of the other four areas, as well, right now.

A. Weaver: Writing is fine.

[1625]

D. Eby: I note that the Native Education College would love to be a public institution, and I encourage the minister to initiate that conversation with them if that's the roadblock to ensuring that urban aboriginal people in B.C. have adequate funding to ensure success in this province.

Changing gears to the student loan restructuring and consultation process that the minister told us about during the last estimates process…. The minister had received a mandate to modernize the student loan system in British Columbia. To that end, we understand that a contract was awarded to a company called Deetken Enterprises for a "detailed policy and program review with respect to student financial aid." Can the minister advise as to the current state of this contract? Has the work been completed by Deetken Enterprises?

Hon. A. Virk: I'm happy to report that the Deetken work has indeed been completed. We are in the process of reviewing the recommendations and then, with careful consideration, determining the next steps.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise, if the work continued past the initial December 2012 end date, by how much the value of the contract was changed, if at all, from the original value of the contract?

Hon. A. Virk: With the numerous binders that I have at my disposal, the specifics of that specific question I don't have at my fingertips. But we will certainly research that and get it back to the member opposite.

D. Eby: I appreciate that, Minister.

Can the minister advise whether any other reviews of the student loan system have been done, the student financial aid system, since 2011? And if so, can he advise how the Deetken review complements these other reviews that have been done?

[1630]

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. A. Virk: My understanding is that there is no other external review done. However, my mandate letter outlines the current focus on updating the financial aid system. I'll read off point 5 of my mandate letter: "Review the student loan program and make recommendations for improvement to ensure the loan program is meeting the needs of today's students." That's a process that's going on right now.

D. Eby: I have to admit I'm surprised to hear the minister say that the review is complete, that there are no other reviews underway, because students, as far as I understand — the CFS and the ABCS — have not been consulted in this review of the student loan, student financial, system. I wonder if the minister can advise, if I'm mistaken, when they were consulted and, if they weren't consulted, when he plans on consulting them about the student loan system and any proposals for change.

Hon. A. Virk: I do want to clarify the facts. The Deetken report is complete. As I said, the recommendations made in that Deetken report are being analyzed and being determined for implementation. However, as I said in point 5 of my mandate letter, to do the review of the student aid program, that's an ongoing matter that is not yet complete.

In terms of what goes into that review, I have, as I said, been at every single post-secondary public institution, in the main campus, in some of them multiple times —
[ Page 1855 ]
in some of them their tertiary campuses as well — and private institutions and talked to a number of students, faculty, staff and parents all across British Columbia who have provided myself and my team with their views on broader university education, including the student loan program.

As late as yesterday…. The date is yesterday. You were looking for a date. Today is March 4. On March 3 I met with the Alliance of B.C. Students.

[1635]

In fact, if the member opposite would just check my Twitter feed, there's a picture of myself with them. They have a presentation in front where they presented me with their views on what should happen to student loans. That was yesterday.

In fact, last week I met with the CFS, Canadian Federation of Students. Similarly, there will be a photograph of myself with those students where they presented to me their views on what they think we should do with student loan programs. In that picture you'll see one of the students holding their presentation that they provided to me last week.

Those consultations are indeed occurring, and these two organizations represent hundreds of thousands of British Columbia's students.

D. Eby: I'm sure the minister understood my question, which is that the minister needs to consult with students about the minister's planned changes and what Deetken is recommending to the minister before he implements them. As I understand his answer, that process is still underway. I thank him for that portion of the answer.

The next series of questions is going to focus on the area of salaries for administrators at universities and colleges in B.C. Is the ministry tracking the change in the number of administrators at universities and colleges in British Columbia who earn in excess of $100,000? If so, how have those numbers changed over the last ten years — or from whatever period the ministry started collecting these statistics?

[1640]

Hon. A. Virk: The ministry does not track specifically the salaries of only administrators that earn more than $100,000, but in fact tracks salaries of all employees, whether they be faculty and/or administration, that make more than $75,000 — that's available in public accounts — all across the public university sector.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise whether the ministry is tracking a phenomenon I've heard described as administrative bloat? That is what my last question was trying to get at.

I'll try it again with a slightly different tack. Does the ministry track the ratio of teaching staff to non-teaching staff at B.C. universities and colleges? And how has that rate changed over the last ten years, or since the ministry began collecting this data?

I just want to clarify that my particular interest here is in the very well paid administrators — the vice-presidents, the deputy assistant provosts and on and on — at the various schools and less so, for example, in the custodial staff, which, we all know, have been decreasing in number.

I hope I've been clear enough in terms of what I'm getting at. The minister may be able to help me out here and advise whether the ministry is tracking the non-teaching administrative staff at B.C. universities and colleges compared to teaching staff — whether they're tracking anything like that.

[1645]

Hon. A. Virk: In 2011-2012 there were 11,891 employees — and that's including staff and faculty and administrators — making over $75,000 a year at universities and colleges. That remuneration or sample of institutions has changed a little in the last five years, from 2007-2008 till that period. The ministry is going to continue to monitor that sample.

D. Eby: Just to clarify, then, is there any measurement that the ministry engages in, in terms of the ratio of teaching to non-teaching positions at B.C. colleges and universities?

Hon. A. Virk: The short answer is that we do not have a collection of ratios.

D. Eby: Turning to the supplement to the estimates book, marked "Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2015," and turning to page 20, under category 67 — standard object of expense 67, which is for informational ads — if you follow the line across for educational institutions and organizations, it appears as though there is a nil value, or zero, marked for advertising by educational institutions and organizations.

I wonder if the minister could articulate the ministry's policy about advertising spending by public institutions in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Virk: My ministry provides institutions the block grant funding to administer their institutions in terms of their training needs.

There's a government letter of expectations that goes to each of those institutions, which is available on their websites, that provides general directions and guidelines, but it does not provide specific policy on advertising in those directions.

[1650]

D. Eby: I'm sure the minister and many members have had the experience of seeing advertisements for pub-
[ Page 1856 ]
lic universities and colleges throughout SkyTrain stations, on buses, in bus shelters. There are many different schools that advertise in this way, and the expenditure by these schools on advertising appears, if nothing else through walking through a SkyTrain station, to be increasing dramatically in British Columbia.

Can the minister advise whether his ministry is tracking this advertising spending and the impact that advertising spending may be having on services available to students in the school? And what proportion of public money is being spent on advertising these public institutions?

Hon. A. Virk: The shorter answer is no, we don't collate the collective advertising that post-secondary institutions do to encourage young people to go to university. Surely, I think, the member will support me in the fact that we're going to have a lot of jobs in British Columbia. We're working to create a lot of jobs, and 78 percent of those jobs are going to require some level of post-secondary education. Over 40 percent are going to require some sort of technical and trades training. Surely, I think, we'll be on the same page.

The fact is that these students take public transit. They're on the SkyTrains. For those students that aren't currently going to university, it's through that advertising that there are more opportunities available. And certainly, more would be going to school because of the fact that they're seeing the visuals, creative visuals that encourage them to go to school.

I think we'll be together on the fact that we do need to encourage, collectively, more students to go to universities or colleges and institutions.

D. Eby: On the issue of tuition, can the minister advise the amount of any increase in revenue from tuition fees that's included in budget documents, the assumptions of these budget documents, for the coming fiscal year?

[1655]

Hon. A. Virk: I've risen a number of times in this House and in public and talked about the fact that tuition rates in British Columbia are, indeed, the fourth lowest. I've read out the number of provinces that have higher tuition rates.

Tuition itself is at the institutional level and is capped at 2 percent, and tuition revenue is indeed included in the fiscal plan, with a 2 percent increase.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise the total value of that increase in tuition fees under the 2 percent cap?

Hon. A. Virk: I'll draw the member opposite's direction to the budget and fiscal plan book, the one I have in my hand here that you might have. On page 116, the post-secondary education fees noted in there include fees from domestic tuition, international tuition and services such as parking, cafeteria and bookstores.

[1700]

To get to the specifics of tuition alone, staff will have to do some homework and get back to the member opposite.

D. Eby: Can the minister advise: what is the global amount of money spent by PCTIA on legal fees in the last fiscal year, and what is the amount budgeted for the next fiscal year?

Hon. A. Virk: PCTIA has two legal staff as part of their staff contingent. They do, at some intervals, also engage outside counsel. If the member opposite wishes to have the specifics of the costing of outside counsel, we can endeavour to research that and provide that back to the member opposite in the appropriate course.

D. Eby: That's exactly the number that I'm looking for — the global amount spent on outside counsel. I appreciate the minister undertaking that.

Madame Chair, I invite the member for Vancouver-Fairview, who has a question.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister. I have a couple of questions that relate to training institutions in British Columbia, some of which are in Vancouver-Fairview, particularly with respect to international students. In December 2012 the federal government announced changes to the international students programs, and each province was to design regulations and issue a list of acceptable educational institutes within the federal framework that was established. These changes were supposed to come into effect in June 2013.

[1705]

After a year of uncertainty for these institutions, particularly in British Columbia, where the government took a long time in establishing regulations, the federal government extended the deadline to June 2014. Your government finally announced in February of this year "new, rigorous requirements" that all post-secondary institutions and language schools accepting international students for study programs of longer than six months will be required to have British Columbia's education quality assurance, or EQA, designation. Institutions have been given 18 months to comply.

The delay from the provincial government, to date, made it difficult for many schools, particularly in the language training sector — such as International House Vancouver in Vancouver-Fairview, with whom I've met — to promote their services. They didn't know, in fact, if they would be able to provide those services, if they would be accredited.

They couldn't promote their services. They had difficulty planning curriculum and giving assurance to their staff and instructors. Schools often plan student intakes
[ Page 1857 ]
many months in advance of course start dates for staffing and budgeting purposes as well as student recruitment. While International House, in my constituency, is already accredited under EQA, 162 career-training institutions in B.C. are currently not accredited for EQA.

Government is committed to increasing by 50 percent the number of international students by 2016. In 2011-12, 106,600 international students came to B.C., an increase of 13 percent since 2009-2010. This is a good increase, but in order for this to continue, the institutions will need to meet the new criteria and become accredited.

My question to the minister is: what assistance, specifically, does the government plan on providing to these institutions in order to meet the new — as government described — rigorous requirements?

[1710]

Hon. A. Virk: I very much appreciate the member's passion for education and support of the fact that in British Columbia we do have to keep a very high standard, which even makes our British Columbia brand that much more appetizing to all those that wish to come here.

The transition to the EQA standard will be phased in over 18 months. That alone provides all competent organizations a great deal of time to be able to look at what's effective and look at the new requirements. We talked about quality in education in B.C. It's certainly a priority for all British Columbians.

Our commitment is to make that brand of British Columbia education very high. By keeping that brand and that quality very high, it becomes the natural choice for international students, because they gravitate to systems where standards are identified as being high.

In the specifics, we want to make sure that there are clearly defined pathways. Some of those language schools, in terms of the kinds of areas where they have gaps in service, whether that be financial acumen, whether that be quality of education — we want to help identify those gaps with them. We are certainly working with some of their…. They have lobbying and/or consortiums, such as Languages Canada, that support these language schools. We're working with those.

In addition, PCTIA, the Crown corporation that manages private training in British Columbia on behalf of government, is providing info sessions for all these schools so that they clearly understand which parts of their standards they are meeting and which parts they have 18 months to continue to work towards to meet.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey and I had the opportunity to spend quite a bit of time with people at International House. We were excited by what we saw. We saw a full house, people working. They talked to us about the history of developing the school and how Vancouver is, in fact, a preferred location for foreign students coming to learn English.

It's good for B.C., because it attracts foreign students who may go on, and often do go on, to post-secondary institutions and help fill the talent pool in British Columbia. Many of them ultimately stay and work and contribute to building our economy. This all ties together. It's a very important part of the economy, as I'm sure the minister knows.

I will say that when we were there, the member from Point Grey and I, there was quite a bit of concern at that point, because the school administrators still did not know what the requirements would be. They now do know, and I'm pleased to hear the minister indicate that there will be some assistance offered to people in a changing regulatory landscape to help them adapt and do what they have to do to continue to be successful and to thrive.

There's no argument with ensuring rigorous standards, but obviously it is important, if these schools are going to continue to thrive, be successful, employ British Columbians and also bring in foreign students, that they're not unreasonably delayed in their planning — their course planning, their recruitment or the other things they have to do — to ensure that their reputation is maintained internationally.

I'm sure the minister knows that if there's a gap of a year or a couple of terms, in terms of a school being able to give assurance to a student that they can provide and that they will be authorized to provide the training that they need, that can be a significant inhibition to recruitment, and it can actually create a disconnect or an interruption in a school's reputation.

Some of the schools and institutions and their representatives have also said to me that they are quite concerned that there are many factors that need to be weighed in making decisions; that those decisions and factors may involve other ministries — perhaps Small Business, perhaps Labour — along with the various schools and colleges themselves that will be affected; and that this is important for the international education as a whole in the province.

Frankly, some of these institutions are concerned that to date the approach of the ministry has not been sufficiently consultative, that the decisions have not been based on consultation. They've just simply been made.

Could the minister tell me how the government plans to consult with stakeholders regarding the implementation of the decisions that have been made and any further regulations that may be implemented to which they will have to adhere?

[1715]

Hon. A. Virk: Let me start with perhaps a broader statement, that the quality of education in British Columbia will not be compromised. We're going to continue within that broader framework, with that state-
[ Page 1858 ]
ment in mind, to work with key stakeholders to ensure that those schools that meet their standards will become accredited.

We're working with representatives of the language schools — for example, Languages Canada — and representatives of theological schools as well, to examine what they have for quality standards, examine where they have the gaps. This is as a result of change in federal regulations requiring international student programs…. It's 18 months to do so.

In that process…. Many of these schools belong to associations such as Language Canada. Other ones that we've had contact with belong to theological associations. We're going to work with those associations to look at what quality standards they have in place, to see which part of their quality standards can be recognized and what other areas they have gaps in. We can advise them what those gaps are so that they meet the same rigorous standard, so that the quality of education is not compromised. The standard remains very high.

By that standard remaining very high, all those who meet that standard will have the ability to have internationals students come. If some don't meet the standards, then it's in the best interest of British Columbia to ensure that students do not go there.

G. Heyman: Thank you to the minister. We appreciate, on this side, that the quality of education should not be compromised, so obviously, we're happy to hear the minister make that statement. We'd be happy to hear the Minister of Education make that statement repeatedly as well.

Within the context that we don't want to see the quality of education compromised, I'm sure the minister, as we do, wants to see the government's goals of building the sector and increasing the number of international students, whether they be language students or other students, by 50 percent, by 2016 to take place.

We think growing this sector is important. Attracting skilled and talented young people to British Columbia, employing instructors and teachers is important. We appreciate, as sometimes we think members of the government in previous years have not appreciated, that sometimes a regulatory approach is important to accomplish a variety of goals to ensure quality and consistency.

Having said that, many people within the sector believe that there have been delays. There were periods of time where they lacked information or knowledge about what the government's plans or requirements would be. They became extremely nervous. Their business plans were interrupted.

[1720]

Now is the time, with the release of these plans for the government, I believe, to work with the sector to ensure, within the context that we want quality education, that existing institutions of training — whether it's language or other forms of training — that have been in operation for a while and are capable of transitioning to the new requirements receive every assistance to do so. Otherwise, it will become very difficult to reach the government's stated goal of a 50 percent increase.

My question for the minister is: can the minister tell us in detail, or provide in writing at a future date if it's difficult to provide us in detail today, the exact mechanisms or plan — the business plan, if you will — that the government plans to implement in order to assure that the goal of a 50 percent increase in international students by 2016 is in fact reached? When one sets lofty goals, one needs a plan to attain them.

Hon. A. Virk: As the member opposite from Vancouver-Fairview will recall, in 2012, as part of the Canada Starts Here: The B.C. Jobs Plan, there was embedded in that an international education strategy. Those documents are readily available on line, if one chooses to look at them. It promotes, indeed, the two-way global flow of students, educators and ideas between countries.

Just as an offshoot, I'll perhaps go off on a slight tangent. I just met with the Chinese Deputy Minister of Education, who oversees a contingent of 100 million students. In talking about operational things like that and increasing that two-way flow of students, our strategy indeed positions the province and residents to benefit more from the social, cultural, economic opportunities of international education.

I'll just speak to some success as well. The goal of increasing 50 percent is indeed, I believe, an achievable goal — some would suggest a stretch or a lofty goal. The benefits to our province in many, many ways are very, very positive. There's been a 13 percent increase to date.

[1725]

I'll use the example of Camosun College, which in September 2013 welcomed its largest intake of international students ever with a 35 percent increase over the previous year. One institution in one part of British Columbia had a 35 percent increase over the previous year.

Same time, September 2013, Thompson Rivers welcomed its largest-ever intake of international students as well. There are 1,725 international students studying at TRU from 75 countries — a dramatic increase. The total number of international students at Vancouver Island University increased from 1,179 in 2006-07 to an estimated 1,690 in 2012-13.

So you're looking at 30 or 35 percent increases at some select universities and overall a 13 percent increase to date. So very much so. The international education strategy is certainly available to the member for Vancouver-Fairview.

G. Heyman: While certainly I've seen some goals of the government that I consider somewhat wishful think-
[ Page 1859 ]
ing, I think an increase in the number of students by 50 percent should be achievable. I'll certainly once again review the document to which the minister has referred. But I would also request and enter in the record that if there is a more detailed business plan of exactly what measures the government thinks it will take to reach this goal, that that be provided in writing.

At this point, I would turn again to my friend from Vancouver–Point Grey.

D. Eby: The minister may be aware of the rather dire situation facing Canadian students, B.C. students, who study medicine abroad and then come back to complete their education through a residency in British Columbia. If they study with international experts in the United Kingdom, for example, they do not have the same access to residency placements in British Columbia as other students do.

In fact, there is an international graduate residency program in British Columbia by which international students can buy into a residency space in B.C. That program is not available to B.C. students. They can't even buy their way in. They're barred from that particular program because they're domestic students.

I wonder if the minister can tell me whether in this budget there are any plans to revisit that situation to ensure that these students, who are studying with some of the best schools in the world, certainly in the United Kingdom and in many other countries, whether there isn't a way that we can provide them with more opportunities to complete their education through a residency in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Virk: Perhaps the member already knows, but if he doesn't, I'll clarify that the funding for medical programs is indeed within my ministry. The funding for the residency program rests with my colleague, the hon. Dr. Terry Lake. I would suggest if he goes to the estimates for that ministry, he might be able to find out that answer.

D. Eby: Clearly, that was new information to me, so I thank the minister for that.

In the last estimates process I asked the minister about the school of traditional Chinese medicine. In particular, I asked about operational funding as well as capital funding for that project.

[1730]

In response, the minister said to me — this was seven months ago — that the minister is at the very initial steps of the consultation process and that the ministry required to complete consultations before they determined what a budget would be for the capital project and for the operational funding for the school of traditional Chinese medicine.

Looking for an update here. Can the minister advise about the capital allocation and the operational funding for the school of traditional Chinese medicine?

Hon. A. Virk: As way of an update, perhaps the member has followed the progress to date. But if not, perhaps for the benefit of this House and to put it on the record, we've made some incredibly good progress in our commitment to open a school of traditional Chinese medicine at a publicly funded post-secondary institution.

First of all, we did appoint a parliamentary secretary from Burnaby North, the MLA for Burnaby North, as Parliamentary Secretary for Traditional Chinese Medicine in December of 2013. Earlier this year I was very happy, very pleased, to announce that Kwantlen Polytechnic University will host the school of traditional Chinese medicine.

In terms of the funding, government will not be providing any new or additional funding for the school of traditional Chinese medicine.

D. Eby: I understand from the minister's answer that there will be no additional operational funding provided to Kwantlen to operate this school. In terms of capital investment, what is the minister's budget for this project?

Hon. A. Virk: Kwantlen Polytechnic University is developing the school's programming and budget over the next several months, and once these elements of the school are developed, Kwantlen Polytechnic University will determine how the school will be funded. At this time there is no allocation of capital funding.

D. Eby: Does the minister understand that Kwantlen will be coming to the ministry to ask for capital funding or operational funding once they've completed their budget?

[1735]

Hon. A. Virk: As I noted, Kwantlen Polytechnic University is in the process of looking at the parameters of the school and, at this time, have not come to the ministry for additional capital expenditures or requests for same. I won't speculate on the future.

D. Eby: I'm curious how Kwantlen was selected to be the location for this school if they didn't provide any budget or outline of the scope or scale of the programming of the school to the ministry. What was the criteria by which the school was selected? I assume that there must have been some budgetary consideration, but maybe I was wrong.

Hon. A. Virk: Following the government's announcement that there was a commitment by this ministry to open a school of Chinese traditional medicine at a publicly funded university, a request for expression of interest was put out to all public post-secondary institu-
[ Page 1860 ]
tions in the summer of 2013, and Kwantlen Polytechnic University was indeed announced as the host institution on January 24.

If the member for Vancouver–Point Grey requests, we can certainly send him a copy of the request of expression of interest.

D. Eby: I have to admit I'm very surprised by the minister's news that this school is going to be funded out of existing resources at Kwantlen University. I know that this a school that is struggling with the cuts to English-as-a-second-language programming, a basic building block of education for British Columbians to get the language training they need in order to enter the workplace.

I wonder if the minister can advise which programs at Kwantlen University he understands will be facing reductions in funding in order to reallocate that funding to the school of traditional Chinese medicine. And was that part of the application process?

Hon. A. Virk: The request for expression of interest in the summer of 2013 was quite clear — quite provocative to suggest, you know, what programs are going to be varied for that. The expression of interest was quite clear there is no additional funding that would be supplied, and this was supplied to all public post-secondary institutions across British Columbia. Kwantlen Polytechnic University, full well understanding the implications as such, applied. That was successful as well, and they did apply with those parameters.

[1740]

D. Eby: I note that this is a school facing a 28 percent increase in its B.C. Hydro rate. It's facing the same cuts as every other university and college across the province in this budget — a $17 million cut across the sector. They're being asked to do a core review to cut further by this ministry. They just lost their ESL funding from the federal government. Yet somehow the minister believes that at zero cost to existing student services at the school, the school is going to provide a brand-new school of traditional Chinese medicine.

Can the minister stand here today and assure the students at Kwantlen University that they will not see a reduction in services at Kwantlen University in order to pay for the minister's promise of a school of traditional Chinese medicine, given that he's not allocating any new funding for that school?

Hon. A. Virk: As the school will be offering an entirely new program, Kwantlen Polytechnic University may set the tuition fees in the first year of offering to whatever level they deem appropriate, keeping in mind cost recovery, competition, student retention, students coming in. However, once Kwantlen Polytechnic University has established program tuition fees, tuition fees will be subject to Advanced Education Ministry policy to limit annual increases to 2 percent, regardless of cost increases beyond that initial limit.

D. Eby: Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

I wonder, given that Kwantlen will surely be setting tuition at cost recovery rates, how this school will be different from any of the many private schools of traditional Chinese medicine that already existed, that were already presumably doing a good job in educating people. What is the reason for the minister allocating public school space to operate yet another entirely market-driven school of traditional Chinese medicine?

[1745]

Hon. A. Virk: East meets west. New meets old. It's about offering choices to the public on complementary health care and offering choices on complementary health care by accentuating that that complementary health care, those professionals, are going to be trained at a public post-secondary institution. It's respectful to do so. There's a demand as such.

But it's all about the public's choices of complementary health care. It's about offering choices to the public, and to suggest otherwise — I simply don't understand that line of questioning. British Columbians are looking for additional choices in managing their health care.

D. Eby: I'm sorry the minister didn't understand the question. I'd better move on before we spend the rest of the session on this, as time is dwindling.

Moving on to the core review. I've been contacted by a number of students and faculty who are concerned that they haven't had a chance to provide input into the core review process. I understood from the minister earlier in this session that he has received those core review documents from schools across B.C. If those documents do not clearly include feedback from students and faculty, will the minister be committing to get that feedback from students and faculty before approving any core review reductions?

Hon. A. Virk: Public post-secondary institutions in Canada and in British Columbia, being not much different than the rest of the country, operate on a bicameral governance system. In that bicameral governance system there are opportunities for student representatives not only to be involved in senate but also in the board of governors and elected positions of these universities. Through that process, the voice of students certainly comes forward, through the board, in terms of those draft documents from the administrative staff, approved by the board, coming as draft documents to our ministry.

In addition, each and every one of these institutions is represented, whether by associations or alliances of students that provide input to those students that are elected
[ Page 1861 ]
on those governing bodies and/or to the administration. So there's a robust opportunity — I say more than robust, ample opportunity — for students to engage with their institutions, and those draft submissions that are coming towards us from those different universities have certainly included those.

As they work towards a final document, universities, through their governance structure, certainly have an incredible opportunity for students at each of those universities to provide input as to core review items.

The Chair: Recognizing the member for Surrey-Newton.

Interjections.

H. Bains: The heart of Surrey, yes.

My questions are about the post-secondary education spaces available for students from south of the Fraser. Perhaps the minister could just…. The first question is: if any analysis has been done to compare the post-secondary education spaces available for south of the Fraser on a per-capita basis, compare that to north of the Fraser and the rest of the province, how many spaces are there on a per-capita basis?

[1750]

Hon. A. Virk: To the member for Surrey-Newton: British Columbia's institutions are indeed British Columbia's institutions, just by their very nature. It's one system, and institutions are available to every student from anywhere in the province. There are universities that draw from broader populations. Some may or may not draw from broader…. The Surrey locations are available to local and broader students. Funding is not by specific geographic area; it's by institution.

If I may, also to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, I do have the answers to about four of the questions that he asked earlier. Madam Chair, with your permission and that of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, I could read them now, in the interest of time, or, as he wishes, we could respond in writing after the fact.

H. Bains: I think the minister would well know that the participation rate of all those students coming out of high school depends, very clearly, on the number of post-secondary education spaces that are available in that region.

You don't expect that students from Surrey, Langley or North Delta would have the same easy access as the people who live around UBC or around SFU. I mean, we could go on by geographical area and note the time it takes for them to travel or incur extra costs to live at the dorm. All those things are considering that the tuition fees are already almost out of reach for most of the students in British Columbia, never mind south of the Fraser.

The minister did not answer the question, but perhaps for the minister's benefit, I could read some numbers. South of the Fraser we have 12.7 spaces available for every 100 students who are the age of 18 to 24. From 18 to 24, per 100, there are 12.7 spaces available. For the rest of B.C. it's up four times — 48.7 percent per 100, for the same population bracket, available.

[1755]

I mean, obviously…. I think the minister was also on the Kwantlen board, and I was on the Kwantlen board. This discussion continues there as well, that we have the least participation rate for students coming out of south of the Fraser compared to the rest of the Lower Mainland and the province. Clearly, there's a connection.

My question is, again…. So 5,000 spaces were promised for SFU Surrey campus years ago. There was a reason they were promised. We were the fastest-growing community. We have fewer spaces available on a per-capita basis. We have the least as far as the number, the participation rate is concerned. All those considered, 5,000 spaces were promised. We are still waiting.

To the minister, on behalf of all those parents, on behalf of all the students who are looking to upgrade their skills so that they can get to those jobs of the future, where 80 percent of those jobs will require a post-secondary education or some kind of post-secondary credentials, when can the minister promise that those spaces will be available so that it's easy access for those students from south of the Fraser?

Hon. A. Virk: To the member for Surrey-Newton: in terms of analysis, while we certainly have to keep in mind that there are different institutions in different jurisdictions, or slightly on the other side of the river, that do draw from a very large geographical region, much larger than local…. That aside, I'll respond to a similar question that I had from the member for Surrey-Whalley as well.

We certainly appreciate that there is an incredible growth rate in the South Fraser region. I live in that region. I've been on those university boards. An incredible growth, and I certainly acknowledge the work of Simon Fraser University, incredible institution that it is. It is my alma mater, and I've been there many, many times and seen the incredible work they do.

In terms of the current fiscal situation, it's not possible at this time to come to a specific, particular timeline. The member for Surrey-Newton may recall that in the balanced budget — I believe it was February 11 this year — it was announced that there was $750 million in three-year capital, for the next three years for capital expenditure. Certainly, that will be prioritized to labour market needs across British Columbia, including the needs for Surrey and fast-growing regions such as Surrey.

While I can't supply a timeline, that process is starting very shortly in terms of the allocation of that cap-
[ Page 1862 ]
ital spending for the next three years. The member for Surrey-Newton may also know that a strategic purchase of land has occurred for SFU Surrey in anticipation of future needs as well.

H. Bains: A minister being from that region, from that city, including the Minister of Education…. I think when we know that we are already behind in that region…. It's the fastest-growing community. I ask the minister if you will become the champion to have that investment for that region, so that the students coming out of high school, students who are still waiting to get into some of the programs they need to get into, to upgrade their skills and training…. Will you be the champion and make sure that the promise that was made many, many years ago to have an additional 5,000 spaces for SFU campus for Surrey will come and come soon?

Hon. A. Virk: As I said, the $750 million that the government committed in the next three years towards capital expenditures will include a broad range of priorities across British Columbia, looking at labour market needs, including the needs of places in my own backyard, like Surrey, that have a growing population and are asking for additional positions as well. That's certainly going to be forming part of that analysis I will be completing in due order in terms of prioritization of that money that we intend to invest in the next three years.

[1800]

As I said, the strategic purchase of land has already occurred for the anticipated expansion of SFU Surrey. In the next several years that process of investment is going to occur, and the needs of the South Fraser region will be part of that analysis.

D. Eby: I wonder if the minister has answers to the four questions that I asked before. I demand answers, and I will have them today. [Laughter.]

Hon. A. Virk: I really appreciate the good humour from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I certainly hope all his colleagues share in that good humour as well, as the session moves on.

First of all, the question that the member opposite had as to the members' basic compensation. My basic compensation is not much different from others. It's $101,859 as an MLA. As the member would know from the compensation website, I'm entitled to an additional 50 percent of basic compensation as a minister, which is $50,929.50. So total MLA and minister compensation is $152,788.50. The holdback is 20 percent of $50,929.50, or $10,185.90. Half is accrued to meeting government's bottom line and the other half by delivering on those accountables that are attributed to my ministry.

The second response is in terms of the Northwest Community College School of Exploration and Mining, in follow-up to the member opposite's question regarding it. The school has received various one-time grants from federal and provincial governments, and $150,000 was provided in 2013-2014 through labour market development to support the school. Jobs, Tourism and Skills had provided an additional total of $850,000 to the labour market agreement.

It's our hope the LMA will be renegotiated, as we anticipate, and we follow very carefully the negotiations that are occurring between provinces and federal government. We hope to continue to support this type of training.

Northwest Community College has chosen not to fund this through base operating funding. The program operates on a cost-recovery basis for funding from tuition, contract training fees and otherwise. The school has indeed been established as a headquarters for British Columbia as a B.C. centre for training excellence in mining.

It partners with private industries as well. An example is the Smithers Exploration Group, which has been operating since 2004. We certainly put it to our industry partners to be part of the equation in terms of providing training to their future employees.

In response to the member's question regarding the Deetken report, there were two contracts provided, for a total of $77,404. Contract No. 1 was for $68,683 for May 18 to December 31, 2012. It's an extensive review and analysis of current policy programs, cross-jurisdictional reviews, best-practice analysis, financial and scenario modeling. The second contract was for a period from February 4 to March 31, 2013, for a total of $8,721. That was for the development of the final report based on the ministry review of the analysis above.

The fourth question from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey related to the amount expended by PCTIA on legal fees. Following up on the question, in the year 2012-2013 it was $137,398 for legal and auditor fees, and in the fiscal year 2013-2014, $180,000 for same.

[1805]

Their internal staff…. There are two lawyers on staff. The budget for PCTIA for legal services for the year 2014-2015 is $184,000.

D. Eby: On that last question, is the minister able to break out the legal versus the auditor costs for PCTIA?

Hon. A. Virk: If the member so wishes, we can certainly seek that clarification and perhaps provide an estimate of same from PCTIA.

D. Eby: I thank the minister for that offer. I would take him up on that.

In the throne speech, there was mention of re-engineering British Columbia's school system. I wonder if the minister can provide clarification to us today about what re-engineering means in terms of the budget that's
[ Page 1863 ]
been presented for us and what portion of the budget, if any, is responsive to the suggestion of re-engineering. Whether that's an investment or whether that's a reduction, I want to know what re-engineering means and if it's in the budget.

Hon. A. Virk: A very good question. Thank you very much. I'm glad you actually asked that, to give me the opportunity to explain the re-engineering of post-secondary education and education as a whole. This is indeed a partnership of myself and the Minister of Education.

It's about a seamless transition from K to 12, of dual credit programs, somebody in grade 11 and 12 getting the first year or perhaps the second year of a university education, a skill and a trade done while they're right there in that high school environment.

It's about looking at innovation at every corner. How can we be more effective and efficient at how we do things?

It's the example of front-end-loading at Thompson Rivers University, where you take the current model of training for commercial transport mechanics and condense it to a 51-week, front-end-loading program where industry and the university recruit together. The toolbox for the students shows up. The students are trained in 51 weeks, and they go off to a guaranteed job somewhere. This is new and not done before. It's changing the way we do dual credits, as I mentioned.

It's appointing a superintendent of graduation and student transition between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Advanced Education so that there is a seamless flow. It's working more with industry. It's having industry have a stake in training their future employees. It's having industry coming to schools and speaking about the skills and the technicians and the benefit of individuals coming there.

It's about talking to parents. It's encouraging parents to send their sons and their daughters to occupations that are in high demand in the job market. It's investing. It's investing in the short term. It's investing in the medium and long term — $60 million in expanded trade facilities at Camosun and at Okanagan College. It's aligning with jobs and new degrees — for example, the degree in technology and trades at Thompson Rivers University.

[1810]

It's also looking at administrative savings to make sure that we're spending the tax dollar in the best way we can, stretching that one dollar and making sure that we use collaborative purchases and joint procurement to make sure the tax dollar goes as far as possible.

There's much more to come. Perhaps I'll leave with a slight hint of anticipation for the member opposite. The details of the ten-year skills training plan will become public in due order, and therefore, there will be more details that the member opposite can look at fairly shortly. There are a lot of positives coming.

The Chair: Noting the hour, we'll maybe have this as the last question.

D. Eby: Madam Chair, I'll take your advice on that.

The last question relates to the first item that the minister listed in that catalogue of initiatives he's working on. The Ministry of Education, I take it, then, would be the place to look for any budgetary allowance for funding for increased trades programming and/or university programming in high schools. Or would it be the minister's budget here where I would find funding for that initiative?

The Chair: Minister, and noting the hour.

Hon. A. Virk: I'll be very short, Madam Chair.

The dual-credit programs are funded through the Ministry of Education.

D. Eby: Madam Chair, I rise to move that this committee rise, report its progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:11 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada