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 25, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 8, Number 8

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

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. Trevena: In the gallery this morning I have two guests from my constituency — Kelly and Antonia Bellefleur. Kelly is a firefighter in Campbell River, but today he has travelled to the Legislature with his daughter Antonia, a grade 11 student at Carihi High. Antonia is considering a career in politics and wanted to get a taste of how we do things here in Victoria, so I hope we won't disappoint them and that the House would make them both very, very welcome.

Also in the gallery this morning is George MacPherson, the president of the B.C. Shipyard General Workers Federation. I, along with some of my colleagues, will be meeting with Mr. MacPherson after question period to talk about shipbuilding in this maritime province of ours. I hope the House would also welcome him.

V. Huntington: I'm pleased to introduce today Kathleen Gibson and Linda Geggie. Kathleen and Linda are members of the ALR team of the B.C. Food Systems Network.

[1005]

The Food Systems Network represents thousands of citizens and over 20 food-focused regional and local organizations across British Columbia that are concerned about community food security in this province. Will the House join me in welcoming them to this place.

D. Plecas: I'm hoping the House will join me in giving a great welcome to my friend and former colleague, Tim Croisdale. Tim Croisdale was born and raised in Abbotsford South, my riding. He went off to SFU to get his PhD and went to California. He's a professor at the university of California, Sacramento. He spends his time studying crime in B.C. I tell him there's nothing going on here, but please make him feel welcome anyway.

J. Rice: I would like to welcome Joan Sawicki. As many people here might recall, she was an MLA and the Speaker of this House in 1992 to '94. Outside of Joan's political career, she worked as a land use consultant with her husband, Gary Runka, who we know recently passed away, this summer. I'd just like everyone to make her feel welcome. Yeah, I just….

Interjection.

J. Rice: What's that?

Interjection.

J. Rice: We're happy to have her here sitting with us in the House.

K. Corrigan: I have to stand up and welcome Joan Sawicki as well. She was also Minister of Environment. I think everybody here knows that environmental issues were a passion, a calling, for Joan, and she did many, many things to improve the awareness of British Columbians about the importance of environmental issues. She also was my predecessor in what was then called Burnaby-Willingdon, a two-term MLA. Previously to that she was on Burnaby city council. She has a long history of service to this province.

Again, please make her very welcome in this House.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

REMOVAL OF INVASIVE PLANTS BY
VOLUNTEERS AT PACIFIC SPIRIT PARK

D. Eby: Last Saturday at one o'clock 23 volunteers gathered in the pouring rain at Pacific Spirit Park on Chancellor Boulevard just west of Blanca at a small clearing on the north side of the road. Wearing boots and rough-and-ready clothes, they gathered around a tool bin to discuss their simple and straightforward agenda to kill as many invasive holly plants as possible in a three-hour period.

Every Saturday afternoon this entirely volunteer work crew, directed by 12 experienced team leaders and a biologist, fearlessly heads down Chancellor Trail to drive a spade into the heart of Vancouver's holly invasion. From plants that are just a few inches tall to the big one — which, if you're buying drinks, the old haulers will tell you they brought down at 43 feet tall — no holly is safe at the hands of these warriors.

Many members here will surely have heard of the Ivy League, a volunteer crew founded and headed by octogenarian Tom Nichols. Tom and the Ivy League have been making life miserable for invasive ivy in Pacific Spirit Park for the last 40 years, starting before the park was even a park.

Together, the Ivy League and the Holly Haulers have removed 13 metric tonnes of invasive species from Pacific Spirit Park last year and 11 metric tonnes the year before. Their crews jointly made up a big chunk of the 1,175 volunteers who helped remove invasive plants and restore Pacific Spirit Park last year.
[ Page 2334 ]

The whole operation is volunteer, coordinated by a part-time employee with the Pacific Spirit Park Society, Shelagh Dodd. If you're thinking of stopping by to try your hand at holly hauling, ask for Ed or Steven Chessor. They have been undecking the park of boughs of holly almost every Saturday since the group's start in 2004. They'll likely tell you about co-founding Holly Hauler Denis Underhill, who has passed away but who was so feared by invasives that the holly would literally haul itself out of the ground rather than face his shovel.

If you're on the fence about joining the Holly Haulers, it may not help to know that the whole operation is done with manual hand tools. However, it may help to know that snacks are always served punctually at 2:30 p.m. On behalf of the salal, the ferns and everyone who loves B.C.'s native plants, thank you, Holly Haulers and the Ivy League. Your volunteer work makes B.C. a better place.

PHILANTHROPY OF
DJAVAD MOWAFAGHIAN

R. Sultan: About 10 percent of those who live on the North Shore are Persian. Should this not be noteworthy to us politicians, on Saturday night I attended one of the many celebrations of Nowruz, the Persian new year, where a speaker reminded us that a famous Persian, Zoroaster, was commemorated in a stained-glass window of this very Legislature.

[1010]

One of our most distinguished Persian citizens is my constituent Djavad Mowafaghian. Of humble origins in Tehran, he moved to the North Shore many years ago, devoting his life to the contracting business and to philanthropy.

For example, $4 million from his foundation will provide UBC medical school space at the new mental health and addictions building at Lions Gate Hospital. For example, $15 million from his foundation helped fund the new UBC brain health centre, opened just a couple of weeks ago, researching dementia under the leadership of another constituent of mine, Dr. Max Cynader. For example, his foundation has funded much-needed daycare space at Children's Hospital. For example, he has built 30 schools in Iran, including special schools for very young women and the disabled.

In recognition of these and similar accomplishments, Dr. Djavad Mowafaghian was recently named to the Order of B.C. Thank you, Dr. Mowafaghian, and thank you to the many Iranians who enrich our communities.

HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL TEAMS
IN NORTH COAST AREA

J. Rice: I'd like to take a moment to offer my congratulations to several high school basketball teams from the North Coast constituency. They've recently returned to their home communities after outstanding play in recent tournaments.

The Queen Charlotte Secondary Saints had a great showing at the 4A senior boys provincials, despite coming from a Single A school. They are quite possibly the smallest school to have ever played at this level, the highest level of B.C. high school basketball. The team's efforts were recognized with the most inspirational team award, while Nathan Vogstad was presented with the most inspirational player award. Many members of the team then went on to compete in the junior all-native tournament in Kamloops.

The Charles Hays Secondary senior boys placed second at the triple-A provincials in Langley last week, while the senior girls finished their provincials with a 15th-place finish. The Charles Hays Secondary School junior girls also competed in their respective provincial tournament as well. In a sneak peek of what's to come, both the boys' and the girls' grade 8 teams from Prince Rupert Middle School won their respective zone titles in February as well.

In the words of Desi Collinson, the coach of the Queen Charlotte Secondary Saints: "Basketball teaches you discipline. How you're supposed to carry yourself. The strong history that we have, the storytelling and how you should have a sense of pride. But just because you inherit something doesn't mean you have an automatic right to it. You have to work. A sense of who you are is going to make you a better person and a better basketball player."

Basketball is, in many cases, the lifeblood of the north coast, particularly for First Nations, which make up almost half of the north coast population. I stand here today and salute those young players who have worked so hard and represented their families, schools and communities so well.

BRANT WILDLIFE FESTIVAL

Michelle Stilwell: I'm very pleased to be able to turn the spotlight this morning onto a unique event happening in Parksville-Qualicum, the Brant Wildlife Festival.

My community is blessed to have some truly spectacular beaches. In March and April those beaches are popular not just with people but thousands of our feathered visitors, the Brant geese. Like thousands of tourists who visit Parksville and Qualicum every year, these birds seem to know a great vacation spot when they see one. Huge flocks are migrating now from the Baja to the breeding grounds in Alaska. Some of them break on their journey in Parksville-Qualicum, enjoying the abundance of our ocean and beaches and attracting birdwatchers from across the province.

In 1989 a pair of dedicated birdwatchers decided it was time to recognize the importance of this annual migration. Oceanside residents Neil Dawe and Bashir El-Khalafawi decided a festival would be a great way
[ Page 2335 ]
to accomplish many goals, and they were right. They brought together people with diverse interests to collaborate on a single project, the Brant Wildlife Festival. Business leaders, tourism groups, environmentalists and multiple levels of government have come together to get the project off the ground.

[1015]

The Brant Wildlife Festival now runs in Oceanside from March 1 to April 21 every year. It has truly grown to become a celebration of nature, far beyond just Brant geese.

There are guided birdwatching tours as well as boat tours to watch the amazing herring fishery and hiking adventures. There are eagle release events and opportunities to learn about everything from cougars to whales. This event has grown to provide not only a welcome economic boost but a valuable awareness tool about the abundance of nature. I think the only ones who don't love the Brant Wildlife Festival are the dogs, who are banned from the beaches to avoid disturbing the wildlife.

I am proud to support the Brant Wildlife Festival, and I encourage my colleagues to visit.

REC FOR KIDS SOCIETY

H. Bains: I had the opportunity last December on Christmas to attend the presentation of bicycles, helmets and soccer equipment to two young boys and their father. I was invited by Mr. Ian Lagasse, vice-president and director of REC for Kids. REC for Kids is a non-profit organization that collects, restores and donates used sports equipment to children and youth in need.

REC for Kids' vision is that every child in need will have the supports and recreational equipment required to stay healthy and active and have fun. REC for Kids has a fully functional repair shop in their club, located right in my constituency, and a house that is staffed by bicycle repair persons who donate their time to restore the bicycles donated to the organization.

They work with local schools to identify and recommend children in need for sports equipment. Originally set up by Rotarians of Surrey, White Rock, Cloverdale and Semiahmoo to assist children in need, REC for Kids is also sponsored by the city of Surrey, Canadian Tire, Options, Rocky Cycle and Surrey Firefighters Association.

It was the best Christmas present anyone could ask for, to see these two boys' faces as they were given a bicycle, a helmet, soccer cleats and shin pads just days after arriving in Canada. Their family came from Tibet with little more than the clothes they were wearing. Sponsored by individuals and private sector businesses, they have come to our country to establish their lives.

It was so gratifying to have witnessed such a special moment, and I'm sure these two boys will remember forever. Thank you to Ian and thank you to all the volunteers at REC for Kids for making such a huge transition easier for families — this family and many other families — every year to integrate into Canadian society and become good citizens.

HEALTH IMPACTS OF ANGER AND STRESS

N. Letnick: In my position as Chair of the Standing Committee on Health, I'm always looking for a great health article. So imagine for a moment that someone says something to you that you don't like, or someone has done something to you that you take exception with.

Under normal circumstances, given human nature, the tit-for-tat can soon lead to an exchange of angry words and elevated emotions. Heaven knows that even in this august place, on rare occasions this can lead some — without naming names — to heightened emotions, heated debate and fiery exchanges, some even genuine.

But I'm here today to share with hon. members and all British Columbians that succumbing to these heated moments on these rare occasions that can truly make your blood boil can have a terrible dire and fatal consequence.

Researchers at Harvard School of Public Health have determined that anger and other high emotional states can increase your chances of fatal heart attack or stroke by as much as 20 percent within two hours of an angry outburst. Individuals who have no history or exhibit no high-risk factors usually associated with heart disease or stroke can have five angry outbursts in a day. They are at 5 percent increased risk for a cardiovascular incident.

But if you have prior cardiac history or a lifestyle that puts you at greater risk — like, for example, being in a high-stress job — you are 20 percent more likely to have a fatal heart attack or stroke within two hours of an angry outburst.

Therefore, I urge all British Columbians in those moments, when tempers flare and emotion run high, to take a deep breath and think of the happy moments with their grandchildren, present or future. Let's put what troubles us into perspective and live to disagree, debate, argue, display outrage — fake or real — and live to love for another day.

[1020]

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: Can the Attorney General confirm that Kwantlen Polytechnic University and the Minister of Advanced Education, in his former role as the government-appointed vice-chair of the KPU board of governors, are under investigation over allegations of irregular payments made to executives at Kwantlen University?
[ Page 2336 ]

Hon. A. Virk: The member opposite, as I understand, is and was a member of the bar. Surely the member opposite understands that there's an amended notice of civil claim in B.C.'s Supreme Court. As this is an ongoing legal matter, Kwantlen certainly will have an opportunity to respond to these unproven allegations. Certainly the member opposite wouldn't be suggesting that we get involved in the sanctity of the court.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The government is already involved. I have a letter dated March 18, 2014, from an assistant deputy minister whose recent appointment was vetted by the Premier's office. The letter says an investigation is underway. Can the minister tell the House what the terms of reference are for this investigation and when its findings will be made public?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, certainly, as the member opposite may certainly know, Mr. Mingay, an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Finance, has indeed been delegated to do that analysis. I'll read off a paragraph, perhaps, for the member opposite's information: "Once complete, you are to provide your full report to me as the Minister of Finance and chair of the Treasury Board. Your report will include your findings and any recommendation relating to examination of the specific transactions as well as any general conclusions you are able to draw from your review of this matter."

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a further supplemental.

D. Eby: The minister has a letter that none of us have seen. I wonder if he can tell us…. In the B.C. Supreme Court filing from March 13, a former senior administrator at Kwantlen alleges that the board's human resources committee, while the minister was still the chair, was asked to make a secret payment of $18,000 to the former president. Can the minister confirm whether this is part of the investigation in that letter that he has?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, I'm certainly willing to table this letter. Certainly, perhaps I appreciate more this week than last week the need for public funds to be expended properly.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Opposition.

A. Dix: One would have hoped that the minister would have thought that important when he was the vice-chair of the board of Kwantlen Polytechnic University. The issues before the court are issues of harassment. The issues before this House are the expenditures of those public funds.

When the member for Vancouver–Point Grey raised this issue with the minister, issues that the minister was fully aware of from his time on the board of Kwantlen Polytechnic University, he responded to the member on March 5, saying that the questions were "outlandish." Subsequent to that, his colleague the Minister of Finance didn't find them so out outlandish. He launched an investigation.

What are we talking about here? We are talking about schemes to deliberately ignore the government's wage policies for senior executives. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about government documents that show that those payments were misreported under the watch of the now minister. So I think it's reasonable for us to ask the terms of that investigation and to ask and to ensure that that investigation be independent.

[1025]

Hon. A. Virk: As I have just noted, I am more than willing to table a letter, and I have a copy of the letter with me. That can certainly be tabled. It lays out the scope of the review that Mr. Rob Mingay is doing: what payments were made and pursuant to what contractual arrangements; what was disclosed; did disclosure occur consistent with the applicable guidelines, including PSEC requirements; and was the total compensation received by the employees consistent with the compensation guidelines? And as I said, he is going to provide a report, a report that provides general findings and recommendations and general conclusions.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: It's fairly simple. It is, for example, the $100,000 in contracts the senior executives…. We asked the minister about this weeks ago. He never came back to this House and corrected what he said, which was that those questions were outlandish. He never came back here. The Minister of Health takes questions on notice and never comes back either. The fact of the matter is we have concerns around vendor contracts. Specific question were asked. Doesn't the Minister of Advanced Education think there should be an independent review of this matter?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, perhaps the member of the opposition has no faith in a senior public servant and assistant deputy minister, Mr. Mingay, who I believe, at one time, perhaps, worked for that side of the House as well.

B. Ralston: Will the Minister of Finance commit to release the Mingay report publicly when it's completed?

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes.
[ Page 2337 ]

IMPACT OF
FERRY SERVICES REDUCTIONS ON
HORSESHOE BAY–NANAIMO ROUTE

C. Trevena: Communities around the coast are getting details of how the government's cuts to ferry services are going to impact them in the coming days — cuts made with no economic studies and which ignore pleas from people and businesses up and down the coast.

Next in line, we hear, are cuts to the Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo run. At least, that is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transportation, the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, is telling his constituents. Could the Minister of Transportation confirm whether that's the case?

Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for North Island for her question. As I have stated consistently for many months now, this government is committed to a sustainable, affordable and efficient ferry service, a ferry service that will be there for generations to come.

That is why last November we announced a new vision for B.C. Ferries, which, in part, includes a number of service reductions but also includes a number of other strategies that are being actively pursued — strategies such as converting to LNG propulsion; strategies such as embracing alternative technologies, including the $15 million cable ferry which was awarded to Seaspan, a North Vancouver shipbuilding company.

We are going to leave no stone unturned as we move forward in working with B.C. Ferries and the Ferry Commissioner to ensure that we're doing everything we can to ensure that B.C. Ferries is there for generations to come.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: I guess that means that the cuts are going to go ahead. The president of the Horseshoe Bay Business Association was told by the member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky that it is an option. She said it would kill Horseshoe Bay as a village and that there would be "few of us left standing." It's also going to impact tens of thousands of B.C. businesses and travellers who use the Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo route. It will have direct impacts on Horseshoe Bay and the city of Nanaimo and the central Island.

[1030]

I wonder if the minister could give a categorical commitment to this House that the link between the Island and the mainland will not be affected on either this round or the next round of cuts?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, this government is going to continue to do everything we possibly can to ensure that the ferry service is sustainable and affordable over the long term. That means being open to change, which I know is very, very difficult for the member for North Island and her colleagues in the opposition. It is difficult for them to embrace change. We get that.

But on this side of the House we are prepared to make the tough decisions. In fact, we were elected ten months ago, again, in part, to ensure that the ferry service is there for many more generations. That means embracing all kinds of strategies, which are currently being explored.

IMPACT OF
FERRY SERVICES REDUCTIONS ON
ABORIGINAL TOURISM INDUSTRY

D. Donaldson: Aboriginal tourism in B.C. earned $45 million last year, up from $20 million in 2012. This is a growing sector with enormous potential, but this government is undermining aboriginal tourism operators with its unthinking cuts to ferry services.

The chief executive of B.C.'s Aboriginal Tourism Association, Keith Henry, sent a letter to the Premier saying that the cuts would have "an immediate and significant negative financial impact on aboriginal market-ready businesses and product development work currently in the regions of Vancouver Island, Vancouver coast and mountains, Cariboo-Chilcotin coast and northern British Columbia." That's because of these ferry cuts, like the elimination of route 40.

We're talking about existing jobs now for First Nations and aboriginal peoples. Will the minister responsible tell us why he is prepared to put this $45 million industry in jeopardy?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I will reiterate what I have said many times, and that is that we are prepared to make the tough decisions to ensure the ferry service is there for generations to come.

Now route 40, the route which the hon. member has specifically referenced in his question and which serves the Discovery coast circle tour — there are going to be some significant changes to that route. There is no question. But as I have said consistently, the Discovery coast circle tour will remain intact post these changes.

Further, B.C. Ferries is committed, as this government is, to continuing to work with First Nations — in particular, First Nations tourism opportunities around British Columbia. That is why, as one example, B.C. Ferries will be working with the Heiltsuk First Nation to accommodate a very large festival which they are hosting in July. They're expecting 5,000 visitors. B.C. Ferries has committed to ensuring that the capacity is there to ensure the visitors can get to and from Bella Bella.

That's one example of how B.C. Ferries and this government are going to continue to work with our partners in aboriginal tourism.
[ Page 2338 ]

CORE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL IMPACT
ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

V. Huntington: In the past decade the province's Pacific gateway initiative has cost south Delta 1,000 acres of prime agricultural land — the best soil in the country lost to rail yards, overpasses, highways, access roads and rights-of-way, with a lot more to come. And hundreds of acres were removed from the ALR for treaty settlement purposes.

My riding endures unrelenting pressure from Port Metro Vancouver to turn agricultural land into an industrial land reserve. Development companies, with the backing of the port and this province, option the best soil in the nation to build intermodal logistics yards on agricultural land.

Meaningful public participation in the core review process was promised by the Minister Responsible for Core Review and then again by his parliamentary secretary. That was last year, and still no consultation. Will the minister please tell this House when and how the government will be conducting meaningful provincewide consultation on the agricultural components of his core review?

[1035]

Hon. B. Bennett: I thank the member for the question. I think most of us should know, and hopefully the public is aware, that the various ministers in government have mandate letters from the Premier of the province that were published on the government's central website. They've been there since June. Anybody can go there and see what each minister has been tasked with doing.

In the case of the Agricultural Land Commission, I'll quote from the Minister of Agriculture's letter. It says to ensure the Agricultural Land Commission is working for British Columbia, balancing farmland protection with responsible economic development opportunities and the stability of farm families in the farming industry. That's been there since June.

When the core review committee decided that it was going to look at all boards and commissions and agencies this past summer, as the chair of the core review committee I made several public statements about wanting to look into all of those agencies. Nothing was off-limits.

I went so far on a few occasions to even say very specifically that we were going to look at the Agricultural Land Commission. We certainly haven't been trying to hide anything. I can tell the member that since I made those comments back in July, we have heard from literally thousands of British Columbians about how important the commission and the reserve are to them.

Madame Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.

V. Huntington: Let me just say that a one-way consultation process doesn't mean anything to the people of this province, Minister. This government has consistently refused to oppose industrial speculation on farmland in Delta. It has leaked proposals to weaken the Land Commission. Ministers have openly defied the ALC by supporting exclusions from the land reserve. It is a government whose Minister Responsible for Core Review openly targets the ALC, saying that as far as he's concerned, nothing is sacrosanct.

Last month 1,000 people stood outside this building to protest the minister's musings. Thousands more citizens have signed petitions telling this government to get its hands off the ALR. The people of B.C. don't want to see the minister's pet project unfold across this province.

The minister won't say what changes he is considering. He won't even tell the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, who was forced to issue a public message in an effort to get the commission's latest policy work before the minister, in an effort to let the minister know that work has already been done on the ALR boundary adjustments. How shameful is that?

Will the Minister Responsible for Core Review tell us what's going on behind his closed doors? Will he release the core review discussion papers and invite public consultation on potential changes to the agricultural land reserve in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Bennett: When you are a minister of government, you have choices to make about whether you decide that you're going to speak early in a process and alert the public that you are looking at something or to wait. I decided last summer that the best thing to do, the fairest thing to the public, was to make sure that people knew that the core review committee was going to look at all agencies that use tax dollars.

Any agency of government that receives tax dollars from the people of the province should be open to some scrutiny by the democratically elected government of the day. There shouldn't be any public commission or board or agency that is off-limits to the democratically elected government of the day.

What I can say to the member, and I hope this will provide some peace of mind to the member, is that the original purpose of the agricultural land reserve will remain, and I've said that consistently for months and months and months — "to preserve agricultural land and to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities." That will not change.

[1040]

LANDSLIDE RISK ASSESSMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS

K. Corrigan: I'm sure all British Columbians want to extend their deepest condolences to the friends and
[ Page 2339 ]
families of those who have been lost to the Washington State landslide.

They are also deeply concerned that yet another tragedy similar to this landslide and the one that happened in the Kootenay community of Johnsons Landing in 2012 could happen again in B.C.

My question is to the minister responsible for public safety. What plans are there to improve the assessment and monitoring of the risks of deadly landslides in British Columbia following this tragedy?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Certainly, on this side of the House we share in the sadness and the shock of the situation in Washington State. I know our thoughts and our prayers go out to all of the families, the communities and the emergency responders that have put themselves, at times, at very serious risk personally in responding to this. Our thoughts are certainly with those families and communities.

We have, as a ministry, many geotechnical experts within the ministry. We have offered those experts to the state of Washington to assist in the response, if needed and if required. So far, they haven't taken us up on that offer, but the offer remains there, if required.

Madame Speaker, we have been working across ministry and a cross-ministry team, knowing that given the terrain in British Columbia, there are many risks. In 2011 the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists published guidelines around terrain stability assessment. That was developed in consultation with local governments.

We continue to work with communities and local governments in assessing risks, creating awareness. We recognize the risks that the unique nature of our province provides, so we continue to work cross-ministry with our ministry, with public safety, with local governments in ensuring that communities are aware of risks and are prepared. We have a robust emergency response system in place in the event that something does happen.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, we have a 2008 coroner's report, prepared after a tragic slide in North Vancouver that took a life. It made nine recommendations to the province to help mitigate the risk of deadly landslides in the future. Yet five years later a report into the Johnsons Landing slide that took four lives noted that many of the recommendations made after the North Shore landslide had not been implemented.

It has now been a year since the Johnsons Landing report was delivered. I know there was an internal report done for the minister that again recommended, made 16 recommendations. Many of them are the same recommendations that have not been implemented to date.

The question for the minister is: will the B.C. Liberal government fully implement the provincial recommendations from both the Johnsons Landing report, the North Vancouver slide report and the minister's own internal report, and if not, why not?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the situation in Washington and the situation in Johnsons Landing were very tragic events.

With respect to Johnsons Landing, we provided significant disaster financial assistance. We worked with the assessment authority to reduce tax assessments. It has been an unprecedented level of support in that area.

In terms of the recommendations, as I indicated, we are continuing to work with local governments in a cross-ministry team and across ministry in terms of response to this. Local governments, as you know, need to be aware and ensure that any new subdivisions take into account those terrain stability assessments and guidelines that were developed in cooperation with them.

[1045]

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure considers landslide risks and takes mitigation measures when they are planning road routes. In the Ministry of Forests, terrain stability assessment is taken into account when planning forest activities. We continue to work on a cross-ministry process to ensure that we have the risks identified, that communities are aware of those risks and that we have systems in place to respond when those risks become very apparent.

We are responding to all of the recommendations, both from the coroner's report and from recommendations arising from the Johnsons Landing report.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Attorney General, who deals with emergencies. There are 16 recommendations, since 2008, that have been made. We have similar geology and terrain as in Washington State where these slides have taken place.

Can the Attorney General tell us how many of those 16 recommendations have actually been implemented and what is the timeline for the implementation of the ones that have not been implemented?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I've indicated, we are working with a cross-ministry interagency team that is working on assessing the risks, developing the guidelines for terrain stability assessment. Those have been produced and tabled in cooperation with local government.

We continue to look at how we have our emergency preparedness systems in place, developing a provincial standard for minimum-acceptable-risk thresholds and a comprehensive plan to guide staff who deal with terrain stability issues on Crown land; developing standards for landslide mitigation works, design, maintenance owner-
[ Page 2340 ]
ship and operation. So there is a comprehensive process across ministries to address the risks.

We recognize that in this province we have a unique province, many varied terrains. We know that we need to work in close cooperation, between ministry and local governments, in assessing the risks and ensuring that communities are prepared.

AVAILABILITY OF BEDS AT
FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

S. Hammell: Earlier this year a 24-year-old man suffering from bipolar disorder was locked up in jail for nearly a month. A judge had ordered his transfer to a psychiatric facility for assessment, but that facility had no beds available. Instead, he was kept 23 hours a day in a cold isolation cell. He was shackled and chained around the waist.

This young man languished in jail because there is a crisis in our mental health system. There are not enough beds available to people who need them, and this case proves the devastating consequences of this failure.

Will the minister responsible please tell us whether he thinks jail is an acceptable place to treat mental illness?

Hon. T. Lake: The answer is no, I do not consider jail an appropriate place to treat people with mental health.... Unfortunately, across North America, in many jurisdictions that is in fact the case, and it's not acceptable.

I understand the challenge that the Provincial Health Services Authority is having in terms of recruiting forensic psychiatrists. That's why they are working hard with Doctors of B.C. to close the gap in remuneration for the forensic psychiatrists to address the recruitment and retention challenges.

That has resulted in an 11 percent increase, about $30,000, for full-time-equivalent psychiatrists. We are hopeful that that will address the needs in the short term, but we will also work on long-term solutions to ensure that we do address the needs for this very vulnerable part of our population.

[1050]

S. Hammell: This young man should have been transferred to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, but this hospital, like so many others in this province, was facing an acute shortage of beds. In a letter dated January 29, Dr. Johann Brink, vice-president of the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission, wrote that the facility faced "a crisis situation."

Unfortunately, the hallmark of this government is to wait for a crisis before acting. Twenty-one mentally ill men were waiting to be admitted to the hospital. Of these, 13 were in jail waiting to be assessed. Their crime was to be mentally ill.

It is now March 25. Can the minister tell this House that this issue has been addressed and that people with mental illness are being treated in hospitals and not being kept in jails?

Hon. T. Lake: I've acknowledged the challenge that we are facing. I have outlined the steps we are taking to respond to that challenge. But I won't be lectured to by opposition members that, when they were government, promised a mental health plan, a $125 million mental health plan, for seven years. It was never financed, Madame Speaker.

On this side of the House we are spending a record $1.3 billion on mental health and substance use. We've increased the number of adult community mental health beds by 95 percent since 2001 and increased the number of community substance use beds by 196 percent since 2001.

We on this side of the House stand up for the vulnerable population of British Columbia. We will continue to do that and respond to the needs of that population each and every day.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Krog: I rise to table a petition prepared by the Canadian Federation of University Women calling on the provincial government to implement and adopt a comprehensive poverty reduction plan with legislated targets and timelines to significantly reduce the number of children and families living in poverty.

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Virk: I seek leave to table a letter assigning an assistant deputy minister in the public sector employers council secretariat to look into public sector compensation in a university.

Leave granted.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report, Catastrophic Earthquake Preparedness.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development; and in this chamber, second reading on Bill 25.
[ Page 2341 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — PORT METRO VANCOUVER
CONTAINER TRUCKING SERVICES
CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. S. Bond: Madame Speaker, I move that Bill 25, the Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act, be read a second time now.

[1055]

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 25 today. I want to begin with some of the comments that I made yesterday, and I want to reiterate them. We want to stress that we introduced Bill 25 reluctantly yesterday. However, government does believe that this legislation is necessary to ensure that goods are moving through the port of Metro Vancouver. This legislation is about the economy, and it's not just the economy of British Columbia. It is also about the economy of our country.

Before proceeding too far, I want to note that the container trucking sector in the Lower Mainland is a very complex industry. It involves over 100 trucking companies and almost 2,000 trucks and drivers. Some of these drivers are employees driving company trucks, and others are independent owner-operators. As well, some of the employees are unionized, belonging to several unions in the sector, while others are not unionized.

The Port Metro Vancouver is not an employer of the truckers. Rather, truckers are either self-employed or they work for a trucking company whose work includes the movement of goods to and from the ports. The issues are further complicated by the fact that Port Metro Vancouver itself is a federal port, subject to federal jurisdiction. However, short-haul truckers who serve the port within British Columbia are under provincial jurisdiction with respect to matters of labour relations.

I think it's important to consider all of that context, because I think it's helpful as we further discuss the legislation in the days ahead.

As I described in first reading, this legislation will introduce a cooling-off period for the approximately 250 truckers who are members of the union Unifor. These unionized truckers are currently engaged in a strike against seven trucking companies and are involved in the current job action affecting Port Metro Vancouver.

The collective agreements between the seven employers and Unifor expired in the summer of 2012. Since that time, the parties have been unable to negotiate renewal agreements. Beginning on March 10, 2014, the Unifor truckers engaged in strike action against their employers and, in doing so, joined other non-union truckers in protests at Port Metro Vancouver. Thus, the collective agreement dispute between Unifor and the certified employees is now heavily intertwined with the complex issues and disputes related to the overall system of container trucking at the Port Metro Vancouver.

I said yesterday, and I will reiterate today, that our preference for resolving collective bargaining disputes is always through a negotiating process. The cooling-off legislation is, as I said yesterday, the least interventionist approach of all of the options available. We believe that a 90-day cooling-off period is a reasonable approach that will require the parties to return to the bargaining table.

Government at this level, the federal level and also at the port has been monitoring the dispute closely and has worked hard. We were very hopeful that all of the parties would resolve this matter without even this level of intervention. Much has been done to try to resolve the issues of concern to the truckers.

After the truckers began their protests and work stoppage in late February of this year, Transport Canada appointed Vince Ready on March 6 to conduct an independent review aimed at resolving the truckers' concerns. Two days later, though, the truckers rejected Mr. Ready's recommendations and announced their intention to continue the work stoppage despite the endorsement of union leadership for Mr. Ready's recommendation.

On March 13 the Hon. Lisa Raitt, Canada's Minister of Transport; the British Columbia Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure; and Robin Silvester, president and chief executive officer at Port Metro Vancouver, announced action to end the trucking dispute at Port Metro Vancouver.

[1100]

A 14-point action plan was collectively agreed upon to return the port to normal operations. This plan did address issues of concern to truck drivers. The plan included measures to ensure that truck drivers are paid fair compensation, something all of us in this House agree is important to consider.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It also includes the rapid implementation of pilot measures to help reduce wait times — again, another issue of significant concern to truckers. We agree that the issue of wait times needs to be dealt with. There was also the offer of a creation of an industry oversight committee.

Despite the offer from Canada, British Columbia and Port Metro Vancouver to work on the 14-point action plan once workers had returned to work, workers, truck drivers, chose not to return to work. At this point, it has become increasingly apparent that anything the province can do to limit the disruption at the ports and facilitate longer-term stability is critical.

Accordingly, this legislation is part of the immediate and coordinated action that we are taking to address work disruption at Port Metro Vancouver, which is, as I would remind everyone in this House, Canada's Asia-Pacific gateway.
[ Page 2342 ]

Specifically, this legislation imposes a cooling-off period of 90 days. During that cooling-off period, the unionized truckers covered by the act and Unifor must not go on strike or declare a strike and must terminate the existing strike. The truckers must also return to work and resume their duties and work schedules. To ensure balance and labour stability, the employers must not lock out the employees or declare a lockout.

During the cooling-off period, the last collective agreements in force between the seven employers and Unifor are in effect until the parties have concluded a new collective agreement or the cooling-off period ends, whichever occurs first.

The legislation also considers financial penalties for truckers and for employers. If a court finds that they have contravened the core requirements of this legislation…. As I said yesterday, we would hope to be in a position not to have to apply those fines.

The fines, as they are stated in legislation, include: for employees, not more than $400 per day; for the union, not less than $10,000 per day; for an officer or representative of the union, not less than $2,500 per day; for an employer, not less than $10,000 per day; and for an officer of an employer, not less than $2,500 per day.

The goal of legislation and our efforts is to have the truckers return to work while we discuss the short-term and long-term issues. While those are discussed, with the assistance of Mr. Vince Ready, we hope that we do not reach a situation, as I said earlier, of seeing the imposition of fines.

Finally, this legislation directs the employers and Unifor to continue or commence bargaining in good faith, to make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement.

Using legislation to suspend a strike, even temporarily, is not our preferred route. It is, at this point, a last resort. However, after this prolonged disruption to the flow of goods in and out of the ports, it is critical that the Port Metro Vancouver return to normal operations while issues involving the truck drivers are addressed. We are committed to working to ensure that that happens.

The economic importance of Port Metro Vancouver operations cannot be understated. Every day that Port Metro Vancouver is unable to move goods, there is a significant impact on British Columbians and, in fact, Canadians.

[1105]

The port, Canada's largest, handles about $126 million in containerized goods every single day. Each container generates $450 in wages, $550 in GDP and $1,200 in economic output.

Importers and exporters are fundamentally challenged by the interruption of this service. In many cases, it has resulted in manufacturing and other facilities having to institute or potentially institute temporary closures due to their inability to ship goods through Vancouver.

We have heard public statements from forestry stakeholders that further continued disruption at the ports is bringing us closer and closer to shutdowns at mills, not just in British Columbia but in Alberta. We have also been receiving letters from producers, shippers, importers and exporters who want their goods moving. So do we.

We simply have to look at some of the sectors in British Columbia who have spoken up and have expressed their concerns about the situation they find themselves in, whether it's companies like Hyundai who are worried about product sitting on the dock or whether it's small businesses, medium-sized businesses or large businesses. The impact is growing. The potential for the economic impacts increases every single day.

One of the most significant concerns we have is the impact on our trading partners. Certainly, as someone who has participated in trade missions to Asia, one of the most significant and frequent questions is about the logistics chain. It is about certainty. It is about the port of Metro Vancouver.

Today as we stand in this House I am hoping, as the members have the chance to express their views today, that in the back of all of our minds we will remember that every hour, every day that we continue to see goods not flowing at maximum capacity, there is impact and potential future impact not just to our economic circumstances in this province but to our reputation in Asia.

Certainty at the port and the ability to convince those people who would choose to invest and flow goods through the port of Metro Vancouver that they can move their goods is absolutely essential. If trading partners around the world use ports to the south of us, we face very real risks that their temporary fix will become a permanent change.

As I have said and other members on this side of the House have said, we came to this place today reluctantly. We want, as others do, for there to be a successful conclusion through a bargaining process.

But the stakes are high. It is now time for us to concentrate on the potential economic impacts to British Columbia and to Canada. Sector after sector is coming forward. Whether it is barley, whether it is meat, whether it is fresh product, all of those, the ability to ship containers is currently being stymied.

The request is straightforward. We are asking workers, truck drivers, to go back to work. We understand that there are issues to be dealt with. We need to ensure that there are not only short-term issues to address but that there are longer-term, more systemic issues that must be addressed at the port. No one in this House disagrees with that. But what we need to do is to balance that with the impacts and potential future impacts on the economy in British Columbia.

We have made a commitment, and we are very, very appreciative of the federal government's commitment to
[ Page 2343 ]
ensure that Mr. Vince Ready, mediator, is available. When workers return to work, there is a basis for discussion and ongoing negotiation about the issues.

[1110]

As this background that I've provided explains, the full operations of our Lower Mainland port terminals are absolutely critical to British Columbia's economy and to Canada's economy. But almost as important, and perhaps more important, is British Columbia's international reputation.

The service disruption is affecting shippers and customers of both import and export goods. British Columbian importers are facing significant financial impacts with lack of access to their cargo, which in many cases is here in Vancouver but cannot be delivered to them because of this action. Those same companies are now facing storage fees, which also will impact their business.

As we start to hear the stories and the tally of impacts in British Columbia, we're talking about companies considering laying off individuals. We are hearing about the potential of pulp mills closing. This is a matter of urgency.

It is not — and it's important, because I know that we're going to hear for the next number of hours that it is — that we don't understand that the truckers have a right to have their issues dealt with. That would be simply incorrect. We understand, recognize and acknowledge that there are issues that need to be dealt with at the port, both in the short term and the long term.

That is precisely why we agreed vigorously with the government of Canada and the port about the involvement of Mr. Vince Ready. It is critical that he is at the table. He is available. He will be here.

The critical point is we must get goods flowing again through the port. We contemplated and took very seriously this introduction of legislation — very seriously. As I said, it was introduced reluctantly.

The impact does not end there. We are hearing concerns daily from British Columbia's producers about their inability to flow their goods back out through this same supply chain. This means they have or will soon down tools. They cannot continue to invest in the manufacture of products that cannot be moved to their market. That impacts small businesses, medium-sized businesses and large-sized businesses.

As real and as harmful as these impacts are to our province, there is an even more fundamental risk to us as the preferred gateway for Asian trade. We are hearing daily about ships being diverted to other North American ports, often to U.S. ports. Those shippers are beginning to contemplate permanent rerouting because they are concerned about our reliability as a result of this disruption. We have to act now.

It is important to understand that as labour relations legislation, this bill — and I will repeat it again, because I'm sure we're going to hear about the heavy hand of government — is the least interventionist option available to us.

All we are imposing, and we should be clear about that, is a cooling-off period on the unionized truckers and employers who are currently involved in a collective agreement dispute under the labour relations code. This means our legislation applies to the approximately 250 unionized truckers who are on a legal strike under the labour relations code, out of the approximately 1,900 who access Port Metro Vancouver.

However, while this bill does not apply to the truckers who are non-union or who are not currently in a collective bargaining dispute, it is an important signal to all truckers. If they are ready to go back to work, mediator Vince Ready is available to the parties.

Government knows this legislation does not by any means completely address the dispute at Port Metro Vancouver or the underlying reasons for it. The cooling-off period is a reasonable measure intended to reduce the number of truckers protesting and try to increase the supply of truckers to service the Lower Mainland ports while the issues underlying the dispute…. We, again, acknowledge, recognize and are committed to working together with the other jurisdictional parties to ensure that those underlying issues are addressed.

[1115]

To address the underlying issues, the federal government, Port Metro Vancouver and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure are taking other immediate actions to attempt to restore normal operations at the ports and to address the issues underlying the broader dispute.

These steps are all addressed in the 14-point plan that was released on March 13. This plan reflects the concerns we have heard from truckers, it reflects the feedback from other supply chain partners, and it directly builds from interim recommendations that were sought by Canada from Mr. Vince Ready.

While B.C does not have a major role here — and we've had a debate about the degree of our jurisdictional responsibility — we have shown our commitment to being part of this conversation and to getting the problems solved, and solved for the long term. A major component of the long-term action required, for example, is the reform of the truck-licensing system, and the Port Metro Vancouver has signalled already that it will begin.

For our part, the government of British Columbia, along with the government of Canada and Port Metro Vancouver, are committed to implementing the 14-point plan with the help of Vince Ready. But again, the critical piece is: once work resumes. Everyone involved in this issue — everyone, including the province — has a desire for the same outcome: a port that continues to work effectively and efficiently, fair compensation for truck drivers and address of those issues that have been a concern to truckers.

As we look at the breadth of the impact, we continue
[ Page 2344 ]
to receive more and more letters of concern. You look at comments made, for example, by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce recently: "With only 10 to 25 percent of the port's normal capacity currently moving, these recurring disruptions that lay up 75 to 90 percent of inbound and outbound cargo cost business and the economy significantly."

Yesterday the questions in this House were about small businesses and the economy. We have the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce saying that we need to find a resolution now. We need to get the goods flowing because it is impacting our ability to operate in British Columbia.

I give you a quote from the chamber: "Any ongoing uncertainty will result in these companies continuing the shift to other ports, such as Seattle and Tacoma, in order to deliver their clients' products in a timely fashion. We all know that after shippers make this switch, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get their business back."

This isn't about simply the government of British Columbia introducing a 90-day cooling-off period. We have business leaders across British Columbia, and in fact in other jurisdictions, reminding us that we need to find resolution now. The Retail Council of Canada:"The thought that the dispute would go longer is scary to our members. We want to see the ball rolling faster." The Vancouver Board of Trade: "The cargo must find its home. If it's not leaving through Port Metro Vancouver, then it will leave through Los Angeles, it will be through Seattle, it will be through San Francisco."

I can go down the list. The Canadian Meat Council, the Barley Council of Canada. Forestry — Aspen Planers, Conifex, the B.C. Wholesale Lumber Association, the Council of Forest Industries. Urban Impact, a small to medium-sized business in Vancouver. Capital Iron, Dodd's Furniture, Holland Imports, Viceroy Homes — the list goes on.

It is essential that today in this House we grapple with this issue, and the best of all outcomes would be for both sides of this House to ask truckers to go back to work, knowing that Mr. Vince Ready is available. He will work through the 14-points. He will address the issues that the truckers have brought to the attention of British Columbians, and in fact we, too, want to see resolution to those issues.

The cooling-off period for unionized truckers will be in place while initiatives are moving forward. Ninety days allows Canada, B.C., Port Metro Vancouver and the industry stakeholders to come together to look into the longer-term solutions to the issues of concern to the truckers as well as the short-term issues.

[1120]

I want to reiterate today, on behalf of the government, that we introduced this legislation reluctantly. We hear the voices of truckers in this dispute. But at the end of the day, all of us — every single member in this House, whether it's the government of Canada, the port of Metro Vancouver, the truckers, UTA, Unifor — need to be concerned about the impacts of this job action today, tomorrow and, more importantly, in the future.

As I indicated at the beginning of my comments, Bill 25 is a necessary step. We must ensure that future economic impacts are mitigated now — not a week from now, not two weeks from now. I've laid out the financial benefits that the port brings to British Columbia. I could go down this list — small businesses, medium-size businesses, large businesses, associations, organizations — all of them saying that the first and most important step is to get goods moving.

They also reiterate, and I share those comments as well, that there are issues at the port. There are issues with the system. We are committed to working to do our part, to hear those concerns of truckers and to ensure that these issues are resolved once and for all.

As we move forward, I'm sure the debate will be vigorous. We will hear very divergent views, which should be a surprise to British Columbians, because a growing and strengthening economy is essential to this province.

It is essential to ensure the long-term stability of jobs not just for the truckers involved in this dispute, but if you live in Merritt or Prince George or Vanderhoof, if you live in the Kootenays, if you live on Vancouver Island — all of us need to ensure that goods move through this province. We need to have the ability to continue to say to the investors and the shippers and the people in Asia who are looking to British Columbia, to look them straight in the eye and say: "Yes, we can guarantee that there will be certainty at our ports."

That matters. I have been there. I have met face to face with the largest steel makers in the world. One of the first questions is, and we're hearing it day after day: "Can you guarantee us that we will have certainty at the ports?" If the answer is not yes, the impact will be felt for generations in British Columbia. That is the significance of the issue today. It is economic.

As I close and allow for others in this chamber to share their views, I want to say it once again. There are important issues to be addressed — issues of wait times, of compensation. There are issues related to the way that truckers are treated with respect and dignity at the port. All of those things matter as much to this side of the House as they do to the other side of the House. We are simply saying that it is time now for there to be a cooling-off period where parties will come together and work their way to a negotiated settlement.

But the stakes are high. There would be no stronger message to the rest of the country, to Asia, to global investors than both sides of this House standing up to say: "We hear the truckers' concerns. There is a plan that would bring Mr. Vince Ready back to the table." There would be nothing more powerful than to say: "Come back to work. Move the goods through the port, and let
[ Page 2345 ]
us work to resolve these issues over the next 90 days."

That is the urgency of the situation. That is what brought us to reluctantly introduce a 90-day cooling-off period, which most people would see as a reasonable approach to trying to bring resolution to something that has the potential to impact our reputation for a very, very long time.

With that, I will take my seat and wait to hear the comments of other members in this House.

[1125]

H. Bains: It is with honour and pride that I stand here. Right at the outset, I would say that I stand here to oppose Bill 25. Bill 25 is named Port Metro Vancouver Container Trucking Services Continuation Act.

I stand here to oppose this for many reasons. The government, through the minister, when she stood up, said that they came to this position reluctantly when they said that they are trying to get the port working again.

If that was true, and if it was the intent to have a 90-day cooling-off period to sort things out, this government and Port Metro Vancouver had many 90 days leading up to the disruption at the port — many 90 days. They had months. They had years to deal with this issue.

The minister can't just stand up here today and say: "Oh, by the way. There is a disruption at the port. There's the urgency that the customers are hurting, and that our reputation abroad is hurting, is damaging." If they had taken that seriously….

It reminds me of the teachers dispute. They were talking about trying to settle with the teachers, because they wanted to stand with the students. It was all about education of the students. Well, what did we find out? Under oath, their chief negotiator said, "Our main objective was to create a strike," so they could use that for their political reasons.

That reminds me why we are in the turmoil that we are at today. When I look at the previous Minister of Labour's letter to the Port Metro Vancouver in 2010 saying that they are serious, that they are really concerned about the seriousness of the issues raised during their audit…. They knew, going back to 2010, that there were serious issues. There is a serious undercutting going on. There are 350 owner-operators on whose behalf that audit collected over $650,000.

A serious problem. This government did nothing.

Unifor. The area director, under his signature, wrote letters — in September, November 2013, and I'll get into those letters in more detail — reminding this government that the way things are, the concerns are serious, and if they do not address those concerns now, there is imminent — this is the word he used — disruption just about to occur.

What did this government do? Ignored that.

Now the minister stands up: "Well, we are so concerned about thousands of jobs that are being lost. We are so concerned about all those businesses losing their business. We are so concerned about all the businesses writing letters that their product is stuck behind picket lines."

If they were serious about that, they would have acted. When the previous Minister of Labour wrote a letter to the Port Metro Vancouver, they did nothing. They just wrote a letter, did nothing. Port Metro Vancouver did nothing.

When the union wrote a letter — "There is imminent danger of disruption" — and listed four or five of those points where the work needs to be done and address those concerns, the government did nothing.

[1130]

Even coming to the day of the disruption, they refused to sit down and meet with the truckers. Finally, they were forced into, by withdrawing their services, the only tool that the working people have to make employers and these governments listen — the only tool. They used that tool, and now the government is out there to trample their democratic right. I say that's wrong. That's why I'm opposing this motion.

Now the minister stands up here, and Mr. Ready is available. Well, when the port was shut down, they asked for Mr. Ready to be at the table as a mediator. What did this government do? It brought him in as a consultant, as someone to look into the situation — not as a mediator. The minister knows that. This government knows that. The federal government knows that — not as a mediator. It just shows their intention. It just shows how genuine this government is when they talk about how concerned they are.

Mr. Ready came in, put a few points together and said: "You folks should go back to work, and I need until" — I believe it was — "June 30 to look into this situation."

The truckers said: "We have given you not months but years to look into the situation. The port did not do anything. We don't trust you. We don't believe you. What are you going to do?" They rejected that proposal for good reasons.

This is how bright this government and their cousins in Ottawa are. This is how bright they are in dealing with negotiations and collective bargaining. They put a 14-point back-to-work paper together — 14 points. When both parties went to the table…. "Can you explain what these 14 points mean, how they will affect us and how they will address our concerns?"

What did they do? No clarification. No negotiations. Take it or leave it. That's not how you negotiate. The minister stood up here and said: "We prefer negotiations." Is that what you call negotiations — a 14-point plan, take it or leave it, no explanation, no negotiations? That was your position.

Then they continued to sit and wait by the telephone so that somebody could come in, sit down and negotiate with them. Guess what. The union was showing leadership. They approached their companies that they certify
[ Page 2346 ]
their members with. They said: "Let's talk about it, because the government isn't going to do anything. The federal government isn't going to do anything. Port Metro isn't going to do anything, because we've seen the history behind their actions. Let's sit down and try to negotiate, because you need to get your business going. We need our workers to go back to work."

So they were negotiating, according to the chief negotiator for the union. Then this bright idea came from this bright-thinking government. They came back: "Well, we will send them back to work." Guess what. At that time, all of those companies, one by one, left the room, and they broke off negotiations. This is how bright the negotiating tactics are this government is using. This is how great they are. "We will send you back to work" — when they were close to concluding a collective agreement.

That's not how you negotiate. This government has shown it time and again. When it comes to workers and workers' rights, they show — always, without exception — contempt and disrespect towards working people.

This is the 11th time under their watch. For the 11th time they have sent working people back to work without negotiating a collective agreement.

Interjections.

[1135]

H. Bains: They take exception to this. They take exception to when I mention their own actions, which is true and proven in the court. They have no respect for the working people. They have no respect for children. They have no respect for the teachers. It was proven in the court. Under oath, it was proven in the court. That's why I oppose this bill.

This bill clearly shows incompetency and the bad faith of this government towards negotiations — towards truckers in this particular case. Once again, this government has decided to engage in a heavy-handed, shameful act to trample on workers' rights, the workers' rights that are enshrined in our constitution. How many times has the Supreme Court ruled this government actually violated our constitution through their actions? How many times has the International Labour Organization cited this government for putting us in an embarrassing situation by bringing anti-labour legislation? Here is another example.

I just want to talk about how we are here now. What brought us here? If you look at, going back to 1999, the first time there was a labour dispute at the ports, it lasted a few days. No legislation was brought in at that time to send them back to work. A memorandum of agreement was negotiated, and they all went back to work.

Again, Port Metro Vancouver, with the help of this government, failed to enforce those agreements. That led to 2005. In 2005, again, the port was shut down because the truckers were not making a decent living. They were actually losing money by working, as they are now. They're losing money to go to work. The minister says: "Go back to work. We will deal with these issues."

Well, one trucker put it: "Why would we go back to work to be in a deficit?" These are all small business people. That's not how you help small business people. To continue to work to lose money — that's what this government is forcing them to do under this bill. That's what they're doing. I'll go over in detail how much money they're actually losing every day by going to work. This government knows that; Port Metro Vancouver knows that.

The minister acknowledged that those are serious issues that we need to deal with. But she failed, and the Minister of Transportation failed. The previous ministers failed, when it was brought repeatedly to their attention that there were some serious concerns that needed to be addressed — and addressed now. They continue to ignore. Now the only thing that they are good at is trampling on workers' rights. They are using their majority to do the same thing again.

I want to reiterate again: yesterday the Minister of Transportation and today the minster talked about the $126 million a day in activity that takes place at the port. She talked about how thousands of other jobs are in danger. She talks about what we need to do to make this work.

Like I said yesterday, whose responsibility is it that got us in the mess that we're in today? Why did they not act, when they were warned time and again that there are serious issues at the port, that truckers cannot continue to work under those conditions? Port Metro knew; this government knew. It's on record. They knew that there were problems, and the federal government knew, and no one did anything. We are in the mess that we are in today because this government was sleeping on the switch. That's what happened.

[1140]

If I was to look at their past actions, maybe, again, there is a move to force truckers to go on strike so that they could take some political advantage, as they did during the teachers strike. I wonder if that's the case right now. I hope that's not true. Looking at their past record, it clearly showed that I will not run anything past this government, because they are known to do that, it has been proven that they can do that kind of stuff, and they have done it.

I want to give a bit of brief history of what happened so far and try to summarize this. This legislation affects only about 250 Unifor union members, who are also known as Vancouver Container Truckers Association members, back to work for a 90-day cooling-off period. Unifor-VCTA members voted unanimously in favour of a strike on March 1, 2014. The government did nothing.

There has been no collective agreement in place since 2012. Since 2012, no collective agreement there. Where was this government? Why were they not talking to Port
[ Page 2347 ]
Metro Vancouver? Why were they not concerned at that time about our reputation, loss of jobs and product being behind stuck behind picket lines? There was that danger coming. Why did they not act at that time? Because you want to be on the side of the Port Metro Vancouver, not on the side of small businesses, not on the side of the businesses that are worried today. That's what happened.

But members continued to work since 2012 with no collective agreement. They continued to work. This just shows how the members and the union were responsible in their action, trying to draw to the attention of this government and Port Metro Vancouver and those companies that they work for that the work needed to be done, that those concerns needed to be addressed and that a collective agreement needed to be concluded. Nothing happened.

So they began their legal strike on March 10. From March 1 to March 10 they still had ten days, when the strike vote was taken. Again, government was sleeping through the crisis.

Interjection.

H. Bains: You were sleeping through the crisis, and you created a crisis.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, through the Chair.

H. Bains: Through the Speaker.

Now you're creating another crisis by sending 250 unionized workers…. There are over 1,900 truckers out there registered to work at the ports — 1,900. This bill will only affect 250. What happened to the other 1,700? Where will they be?

Interjection.

H. Bains: The minister says 1,650. Where will those 1,650 be? I wish that the other members of this government were as aware of the problem as this member is.

Where was the government during those ten days? Then the strike occurred. The issue at the heart of the current dispute had been brought to the government's attention, as said before, repeatedly before the strike vote was held in March 2014 and stemmed largely from the failure of the port to uphold the agreement reached to end the 2005 dispute negotiated by Vince Ready. The government has had ample time to deal with the issues at hand but has failed to do so. That is a fact.

On at least three specific occasions, as I mentioned briefly earlier, the province and the federal government failed to deal with the issue at hand.

On June 3, 2010, the previous Labour minister, Murray Coell, wrote to the port expressing concerns that recommendations made by the container truck dispute resolution program were not being dealt with in a timely fashion. This says June 2010. What did they do? They acknowledged there's a problem, wrote a letter to the Port Metro Vancouver and then again went to sleep and did nothing.

On December 20, 2010, a VCTA-CAW representative met with federal minister Stockwell Day to discuss complaints over port authority operations regulations introduced in 2007 and ineffective rate enforcement by the port. Again, nothing happened.

[1145]

On November 7, 2013, a representative of Unifor-VCTA wrote to the port, outlining concerns and calling on the province and the federal government, along with the port, to come together and appoint Vince Ready to resolve issues before a large-scale disruption. What happened? Nothing.

Then in a letter Unifor called for, November 7, 2013…. Again in that letter they asked for Vince Ready's appointment as a mediator.

The minister stands up here today, saying that the mediator is available. Well, they asked for a mediator on November 7, 2013. What did this government do? Nothing. November 7, 2013, they asked for Vince Ready to come in as a mediator. What did the government and the port do? Nothing.

Now it's so convenient for the minister to justify their ill-conceived idea here, to throw those workers back to work. When they had opportunity, when those parties were asking for Vince Ready to come as a mediator, they refused to act on that. That's why we are in the mess that we are in today. That's why your reputation across the globe is being tarnished. It's because of lack of action by this government leading up to this dispute.

Like I said, it only applies to the unionized truckers. There are 1,200 more sitting out there protesting, and they will not be affected by this legislation. So again, this bill will not bring normalcy, as the minister says, at the port. What are you going to do to the remainder of truckers who are sitting outside? Their issues are still not addressed.

Then the minister comes in and the government comes in with threats and ultimatums through their friends at Port Metro Vancouver. "You don't come to work tomorrow? Your licences will be suspended." How do you negotiate under threats and ultimatums? I've been engaged in collective bargaining most of my working life. I've never seen ultimatums and threats successfully conclude bargaining negotiations — never. It doesn't work.

Obviously, there are some other intentions behind this government, what they were trying to do here — not to conclude a collective agreement. It was not one of them. That's where the big issue is.

The issue is they failed to allow negotiations to progress. They failed not to interfere with negotiations. When negotiations are progressing with the union's leadership
[ Page 2348 ]
and the company sitting at the table, what does this government do? It didn't leave them alone. It didn't encourage negotiations. It didn't help them conclude the collective agreement. They actually came in and pulled the rug from underneath those negotiations.

As a result, those companies walked away one after one. No negotiations, no more. That's what Mr. McGarrigle said.

Well, the companies felt that this government is going to do their dirty work, so why would they sit around the negotiating table and conclude a collective agreement? Why would they? I don't fault those companies. This government is on their side; they will do the dirty work for them.

In the meantime, the economy is hurting because of your inaction. Our reputation is tarnished across the globe because of your inaction.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, those thousands of jobs are being lost, or they are threatened to lose those jobs, because this government is sleeping at the switch. This government knew this disruption was imminent. It was brought to their attention not once, not twice, not two days before, not a week before, not a month before. It was November 2013, and then it was 2010. Repeatedly, it was brought to their attention that there was imminent, imminent danger of disruption at the port; do something. They did nothing.

[1150]

Well, if you can't do something, step aside. Let somebody do what they can do to negotiate a collective agreement. Don't stick your nose in there when the negotiations were progressing. That's not how you conclude collective agreements.

They asked. In November 2013 the minister said: "Vince Ready is ready." Well, on November 7, 2013, through a letter, Unifor asked for a mediator, and this government and the port did nothing. They slept through the crisis. Again, they're creating another crisis by sending and forcing 250 unionized workers, but there are another 1,300, 1,400, 1,500 workers out there who are also participating in job action.

The port will not be normal unless this government comes to their senses, Port Metro Vancouver comes to their senses, those companies come to their senses that the negotiation is the only way to resolve the current dispute and that negotiation is the only way to find a long-term solution so that our reputation is maintained across the globe, all across our trading partners.

That's what's needed, but that requires the leadership which is lacking from this government. If anybody needed back-to-work legislation, it's this government when they were sitting around for 200 days, did nothing, when they were warned time after time that there is a crisis happening at the Port Metro Vancouver. They should've been sent to work at that time — but no, because they want to be on the side of Port Metro Vancouver.

Then they start to point fingers at the federal cousins: "It's their jurisdiction." How much time have they wasted? Now they talk about economy. The minister talks about economy. When they were asked to intervene, when they were asked to help, what did they do? The Premier said: "Oh, it's not my jurisdiction. If it was up to me, I'd settle it tomorrow."

The federal government minister said what? "Well, it's not my jurisdiction. It's the provincial government. They should do something about this." The Premier went on to say: "Well, the minister is in Saskatoon, a two-hour flight. She should come down here and settle the dispute." Remember that quote? That's what the Premier said. What happened?

You are sitting right here now, only 30 minutes away. Why don't you go down and settle and negotiate the collective agreement? Put Port Metro Vancouver on the table, all those companies on the table, and settle the dispute through negotiations. Don't use a heavy-handed approach. As you always know, this is the easy way out for this government. Because you have majority, you could do that. That's what you do.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I understand you're the designated speaker?

H. Bains: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on.

H. Bains: I'll continue, and I'm so happy that I'll continue.

What's needed? Again, leadership, which is lacking from this government, which is lacking from minister after minister. They had 200 days when they were sitting around, doing nothing, on their idle hands. This was a time…. They were warned time and again that we needed some solutions. We needed those issues to be solved.

This was the time when Unifor, the union, was asking.... They were pleading: "Bring Vince Ready, who knows the issues, who worked through 2005. Bring Mr. Ready as a mediator so that we can solve the problem, so that we could actually avoid thousands of jobs that are at risk, so that we could avoid all those businesses whose product will be stuck at the ports, who will not be able to conduct their business." It will be all those merchants who are waiting for their product so they can serve their customers.

We could have avoided all that, but that requires leadership. This government has shown no leadership.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 2349 ]

First, they were pointing fingers at each other. Then, when the negotiations were progressing, they got themselves in there in the middle of those negotiations and pulled the rug from under those negotiations. Guess what. It broke off negotiations.

There's a lot more to say, and I've just started. I've got a lot more to say, and I'm noting the clock, and I'm reminded. I move adjournment and reserve my right to continue after the break.

H. Bains 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.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, SPORT AND
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); E. Foster in the chair.

The committee met at 11:01 a.m.

On Vote 17: ministry operations, $210,718,000 (continued).

S. Robinson: I thought we would start with sport this morning. I have a couple of dozen questions. Then they can go, and we can carry on with the rest and pick up where we left off yesterday, if the minister doesn't mind.

The question I have relates to the service plan letter that the minister received about making investments in preparing for the Prince George 2015 Canada Winter Games through Hosting B.C. Can the minister detail what these investments have been to date and the cost of these investments?

Hon. C. Oakes: To date the province has invested $11.12 million, which is our full funding obligation for the games. So $3 million of that goes into capital, and $8.12 million goes into operating, with the federal government matching that amount.

The city of Prince George and the host responsible are responsible for the remaining $24 million. In addition to the $11.12 million, the province has also committed $416,000 through the community recreation grant program for upgrades at the Otway Nordic Centre. As well, we've provided $540,000 for northern sport strategy aimed at increasing participation, coach and athlete development, equipment for northern communities, and access to sport schools. We've also committed $125,000 to support games test events.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for those specific numbers. I was writing madly. I'm wondering: when the minister speaks to commitments, what commitments have already occurred? What moneys have already been spent? What moneys are being spent for this current fiscal year, and what's for the following fiscal year in terms of tracking?

[1105]

Hon. C. Oakes: The numbers that I previously read into the discussion have been spent to date. Ongoing on the sports strategy, we're looking at an additional approximately $100,000.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for that information. I'm curious now about the budget for advertising in order to increase sport engagement and activity. I'd like to know from the minister how much money is budgeted. How much is in the budget to advertise in order to increase sport engagement and activity in our province?

Hon. C. Oakes: The ministry doesn't have a budget to support advertising for these types of events. Again, when we looked at proposing and putting the bid forward, a significant portion of the Canada Games bid is ensuring that you have a host committee and a municipality that is responsible.

In this case, it's a unique northern bid that we've put forward, as well as a First Nations'. To total, the Prince George budget is $46 million. The host society and the city of Prince George are funding $24 million, of which a portion for advertising is out of their budget.

S. Robinson: If I'm to understand correctly, this ministry doesn't actually do any direct advertising to increase sport engagement activity. That's left to the host city to figure out how to do that within the context of their budget. If I understand correctly — and perhaps the minister can direct me on this — there might be a portion of provincial money that may be used within that context, in terms of operating, so that it gets blended in as part of their operating plan. I just want to see…. Or are the provincial funds strictly more for capital?
[ Page 2350 ]

Hon. C. Oakes: We don't have a directive for that. We don't apportion that for advertising.

Again, this is a significant event to British Columbia. The Canada Winter Games Society, in partnership with the provincial host community, is ensuring that this event will be well promoted and well advertised to ensure that we get the best results for British Columbia, to gain that economic edge.

S. Robinson: If I'm to understand the minister correctly, if we see any TV advertising or radio advertising about the Canada Winter Games, none of that will have come from the provincial coffers. That would be from the Canada host, the city that is promoting it. There is no budget from this government to promote the fact that we are hosting the Canada Winter Games.

Hon. C. Oakes: No, that is not what I said. I said that we didn't approach…. Of the $11.12 million that we put forward to that, there isn't a direct formula. But of course there's Canadian federal funding that goes in and provincial funding, and you know how marketing works on all of our advertising. There will be that expectation. We will be a sponsor of this event, and we'll ensure that we're promoted as well, because of the $11.12 million — and value for taxpayers.

[1110]

S. Robinson: I certainly do understand what the minister is saying. There's no additional money anywhere in her budget to do additional promotion outside of what gets promoted out of this $11.12 million. That will be going into the budget to host these games. Some of it absolutely will be used for advertising and promotion, but there are no additional funds outside of this that will be going into promoting these games.

Hon. C. Oakes: This ministry doesn't have additional funds that we're putting in that. That's not to say…. This is a huge economic benefit to British Columbians.

We are currently working at attracting multiple partners, whether it's TSN, different news stations, as well as, you know, Destination British Columbia. This is an excellent opportunity. We would like to showcase British Columbia to the best and encourage all of our partners. There will be other ministries, of course, that may have the opportunity, whether it's through Tourism and their partners, to ensure that we're promoting to gain the best economic benefit for British Columbia.

S. Robinson: That's very helpful information. Thank you for that to the minister.

What is the total budget for supporting the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup of soccer?

Hon. C. Oakes: As part of our contribution to the host society, we provided $2 million to women's FIFA in 2011.

S. Robinson: I think it's really exciting that we're going to be hosting FIFA. I look forward to it. I'm also really excited that we're going to be hosting the 2014 Special Olympics Canada Summer Games. I would like to know how much we are contributing to those Special Olympics.

Hon. C. Oakes: Like the member opposite, I'm very excited about the fact that Special Olympics is coming to British Columbia, specifically coming to Vancouver. If I possibly may: to everyone out there, that will be taking place July 8 to 13 in Vancouver, and I hope that we get lots of people out to support that.

We provided $300,000 to the Special Olympics over two years, and we've got one additional payment to make.

S. Robinson: Thank you to the minister. We've got $2 million for FIFA and $300,000 for Special Olympics. I'm curious about how the ministry determines how much support to offer to these international sporting events. What are the criteria, and how is that determination made?

[1115]

Hon. C. Oakes: Hosting British Columbia is an application-based program that provides grants for international, national, regional and provincial levels of sporting events that promote sport, economic, social and community development. Grants typically range between $2,500 and $10,000 — again, depending on what type of program that is.

Since the inception of Hosting British Columbia we've granted over $4.3 million and awarded to 513 events in more than 65 communities across the province. There is a different formula for each of the three levels of those types of hosting programs.

S. Robinson: The minister mentioned $2,500 to $10,000, but we're talking about millions of dollars, and these are different kinds of events. So I'm wondering if she can get a bit more specific about….

We have Special Olympics — which is the Canada Summer Games, so it's Canadian games — at $300,000. We have the Prince George Canada Winter Games. That's $11.12 million. Then we have the FIFA international women's World Cup soccer, at $2 million.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how those distinctions are made and how determinations are made to these varying levels of support around these international and national….

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question. One of the ways that we do look at it when we do the analysis is what the return on the investment will be to the province. For example, one of the things that was looked at when
[ Page 2351 ]
we put in our bid to host the Canada Winter Games….

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

First of all, I should note that it is an FTP obligation, so it's a set amount that is required if a province wants to bid on the package for the Canada Winter Games, and it's matched federally. But one of the things that is looked at in the bid package is how much the host community is able to also contribute to that. For anything over $100,000, we have to go through a separate process to look at the return on the investment on that particular piece and what that obligation looks like.

[1120]

For example, on the Canada Winter Games, I think the important catalyst for us to recognize is that when we were looking at that bid and making that decision of if this was a good investment for taxpayers of British Columbia, we noted that the return on investment to British Columbia would be $70 million to $90 million. That's a really significant piece of information that went as part of the analysis of why that bid would be a good, positive decision point for British Columbians.

As well, when we looked at the FIFA bid, it was a very similar type of operation that was put forward. We did the analysis of what type of contribution or economic return that would have on the province of British Columbia, not only showcasing sport — and specifically showcasing women in sport and the great opportunity that is — but from an economic piece. That's going to be attracting people from around the world to come and to make sure that they have to be at these games. It's going to be a fantastic opportunity for British Columbia.

On the Special Olympics request, it fit into the mid-size community hosting request. That was an ask from the Special Olympics. That was done several years ago, and they put in that amount as part of that hosting package.

S. Robinson: I'm pleased to hear that the minister finds that it's important to make a business case before making some of these decisions. It's a substantial amount of money, so I'm glad to hear that a business case is made before commitments are made.

What is the budget for strategy development to attract more marquee sporting events? I'm pretty confident the minister would agree that there is value for money in bringing these things on side, so I'm very interested in finding out what sort of commitments we make to continue to attract more of these events.

Hon. C. Oakes: I would like to introduce our new assistant deputy minister on the sport, art and culture file. Melanie Stewart is new.

I'm glad that you raised this question — because this is actually something I'm very passionate about — on what kind of marquee events. I agree with you that it's a huge opportunity for return on investment for communities. I've seen the benefits of things such as the B.C. Games and different things and how it builds the community, brings volunteers and has a huge economic opportunity to drive that.

We have one staff dedicated to working on the hosting strategy and pulling that information together. The very first meeting I had with Melanie was on what we can do, based on the fact that we're very focused on ensuring that we can promote and have a strong vision of what marquee events are going to look like. We are putting together a comprehensive package of what the five-year or ten-year plan should look like so that we can all, as communities, be working collaboratively together.

I've been meeting with a lot of other partner organizations out there, as well, to listen to what their ideas are. I think it's really important that when we look at sport-hosting and everything around that, we work collaboratively with partners out there to see what kind of work they're doing on the ground. Again, I believe we should be working with communities, with other sport-hosting communities. I know there is a great Canadian association of sport tourism that's happening in April. We're excited to get information on that and see how we can showcase British Columbia to the world on what a great place it is to host sporting events.

S. Robinson: I, too, agree that collaboration is important. No one can pull these off…. They're quite complicated events, and you need to be working well with a whole bunch of other people.

[1125]

I'm just wanting to know what the budget is around this particular strategy on, again, return on investment so if we don't get any marquee events, then we can better assess whether or not that was money well spent.

Hon. C. Oakes: Currently we have $1 million for hosting the event, so $500,000 for the hosting and $500,000 for mid-size to large events. With that said, we have the ability on these types of marquee events…. The province has the opportunity to put a bid in to go to the Ministry of Finance. We build our business case for that — the return on the investment to the taxpayers, to the province of British Columbia. We go to the Ministry of Finance and ensure that all of us can be supporting what a great opportunity this is for improving the economy of British Columbia.

S. Robinson: It sounds like the minister has to get all of her ducks in a row to make a case and appeal to the Ministry of Finance. I'm going to assume that that would come out of some sort of a contingency that is set aside, recognizing that there is going to be value in investing in these events, that there isn't some sort of big jar of cash
[ Page 2352 ]
available to do this. So if the minister could just confirm that this would come out of contingencies as opportunities present themselves, I'd be grateful.

Hon. C. Oakes: Yes, they would come out of contingencies, because it would be an unplanned event.

S. Robinson: I appreciate that confirmation.

I have a couple of questions specifically around the Games Society — just two or three questions. I'm interested in what the current staff complement is for the Games Society and just their current budget.

Hon. C. Oakes: If I may, I would like to introduce Kelly Mann, the CEO of our Games Society. We had a very successful B.C. Winter Games in Mission. It was a great opportunity for the community to pull together — great volunteers, great event and, of course, great athletes. Kelly's team has ten staff on it, and the grant that we provide through the province of British Columbia to the organization is $2.013 million.

S. Robinson: Can the minister confirm if that grant has changed between last year and this year?

Hon. C. Oakes: The funding to the organization is consistent.

S. Robinson: I just want to make sure I understand. "Consistent" means it hasn't changed; it's been the same as last year, this year. I'm getting a nod from the minister. That's great, thank you.

In preparing for these estimates, I was taking a look at some websites. I noted that there is going to be the relocation of VolWeb and Hosting B.C. from the Games Society — taking them out of the society's purview. I'm wanting to understand what the rational was for that, where it's going to be living and what that means in terms of this grant. Will money be moved somewhere else to manage these two programs?

[1130]

Hon. C. Oakes: Thank you for the question and for researching different things that we're doing to make sure that things are moving efficiently. Based on consultation with our stakeholders, a couple of things. The VolWeb program that was set up was a model that was underbuilt, so it is currently not serving the needs of sport. We're looking at partnering with national organizations to look at how we can get better value and a better system in place.

One of the challenges too, of course, is that a lot of these tools were set up to lead up into the Olympics. A lot of these programs…. That's where they were built. Now what we have found — same as the Hosting B.C. piece — is that the Olympics was a great opportunity for us to really develop within our communities.

A lot of municipalities have done some really great work on pieces that they've put in place. You've got a lot of examples across British Columbia of municipalities and communities that have taken pieces of that, and it's really empowered them to do some outstanding work.

What we have found is that Hosting B.C. was somewhat redundant, but we are looking at the scheduling piece of that, which was in those programs, to make sure we continue with that.

S. Robinson: My understanding, as the minister explained, is that these are being phased out or morphed into something else that would provide some of those services. But my understanding is that they're no longer going to be in with the Games Society.

I'm just trying to, I guess, track the money. If part of the grant was to support these programs and these programs are being changed — and I can certainly understand the rationale for changing them — but they're no longer under the Games Society purview, who is going to be responsible for these sorts of things? Is the money going to be following those programs in that context?

Hon. C. Oakes: On the budget there will be no impact, because it's just a matter of staff time. So it'll free up staff time to work on other projects.

S. Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, who knows I'm going to jump right up. It's great. He says "Member" faster than I can get up.

That's great. Will these programs come into the ministry — this idea of volunteer management and Hosting B.C.? Will that be coming back into the ministry? Is that where it's going to be living?

[1135]

I'm anticipating next year's estimates, so I want to be able to find out what's happening with these sorts of programs.

Hon. C. Oakes: The short answer is no, but I guess more specifically, what we've found, again, is that the value on things such as VolWeb is that really it's being done by national and provincial organizations that are well funded and are doing an exceptional job — and a lot of the other programs, like the Hosting B.C. You see a good example in Victoria, with the sport-hosting group that we've met with. It has evolved. The sport community is really changing and evolving because of the Olympics. I think we're seeing the great opportunities on the ground in communities.

S. Robinson: If I'm understanding correctly, they're not being relocated. They're being phased out because there are other programs that already do that, so it's not a relocation. They're just going to cease to exist. Thank
[ Page 2353 ]
you. That's helpful.

I also understand that there is a review of the Team B.C. program. I think it's currently underway — again, just sort of picking up information where I can. I just want to know if this review is completed or when it will be completed.

Hon. C. Oakes: The B.C. Games inherited Team B.C. in April. One of the first things that they looked at is they did a SWOT analysis, which is now completed, to look at how…. They consulted sports stakeholders and the community to identify what things are working and what things aren't. For example, they found that the website was convoluted and needed to be fixed. That was one of the things that came out of the analysis.

The other piece that came out of the analysis was that greater education for coaches and officials may be required.

We'd be happy to share the report if anybody is interested, but that was the process for that.

S. Robinson: I'd like to thank the minister for that. She anticipated my next questions, which were: what have you learned, was a report generated and can you share it? She anticipated my question. I would love to see that report.

Those are the only questions I have for the Games Society, but I do want to actually take a moment to congratulate the Games Society for a fabulous Winter Games. I've heard wonderful things about it. I was quite ill and unable to attend, and I would have made everyone else quite ill. I did hear really great things. Congratulations to Mr. Mann and his team for a fabulous opportunity for that community.

[1140]

I have another set of questions for the athletic commissioner. This is also a new program. I'm very interested in what the budget is for this office and how many paid staff are in this office.

Hon. C. Oakes: If I may take a moment as well to introduce our athletic commissioner, David Maedel, who's doing an outstanding job.

The budget for that is $250,000, and it currently consists of two people.

S. Robinson: I thank the minister for this.

Can the minister just outline a little bit about what this office is responsible for doing? There are two people, $250,000. It would be helpful to get a better understanding of what the responsibilities are for this office.

Hon. C. Oakes: This is a good opportunity for us to talk about some of the great work that the British Columbia athletic commissioner is currently doing. Maybe just a little bit of background, though, because this is new to government.

It oversees the conduct of professional boxing, MMA, amateur MMA, kickboxing, Muaythai, pankration events throughout British Columbia. Really, I think what is very, very important is that it is committed to making sure that the sports are safe and the integrity of professional boxing, MMA, amateur MMA, kickboxing, Muaythai and pankration. It's around safety and integrity.

If I possibly may, just to give you some ideas of what we have seen since this has been put into effect. This is about marquee events and return on investment for taxpayers. It's the safety piece, which is always so incredibly important, but on the economic piece, we've had 12 events since May of 2013. One of the things that I think is a great news story for this is that they have been in locations all across the province of British Columbia.

They've happened in Vancouver, Kamloops, Castlegar, Duncan, Merritt, Coquitlam, Penticton, Richmond. It's great to see it throughout British Columbia. Approximately 200 athletes will participate in events this fiscal year. From May 2013 to January 2014 an average of one event per month, the number of events increasing in the coming months to approximately three per month.

S. Robinson: I want to thank the minister for a very thorough response. She anticipated a whole bunch of my other questions, which had to do with how many events had occurred. My understanding is that the intention is to host 26 events in fiscal 2013-14. It doesn't sound like we're going to get to 26 because we're almost up, but it sounds like we're well on our way.

I'm very interested to find out if things got up and running in August of 2013. My understanding is that the athletic commissioner was to start attending events in August of 2013. You said May, so I just wanted to track the months.

[1145]

Hon. C. Oakes: Perhaps just to kind of outline what has happened, under the former structure that we had with the former commissioner, as we were waiting for section 83 of the Criminal Code of Canada — that conversation…. We knew that was coming. In May the office was set up in response to preparing for the change in the Criminal Code, which happened in August last year, just to put that time frame in perspective.

One of the other things that I was reluctant in and didn't talk about was the fact that on June 14 of this year, we have the UFC coming to Vancouver, a significant opportunity again when we talk about building the economy of British Columbia.

These types of events, five million plus to Vancouver…. But it's all of the periphery, whether it's the accommodation, the restaurant sector…. It's going to be a tremendous opportunity for the province to benefit from that.

I should also point out that we don't provide funding
[ Page 2354 ]
for these kinds of marquee professional events, because the ability to attract that by having a professional commissioner ensures that these organizations are able to put that on through their organization.

S. Robinson: Thank you for that answer. The minister again anticipated some of my questions. I was very interested in the UFC — not personally, necessarily. I'll be riding my bike in the Ride to Conquer Cancer that weekend. If I wasn't, then I would certainly go to see my first UFC fight. Probably not.

I'm pleased to hear from the minister that true to the commitment that there will be a UFC event…. I know there are hordes of people who find great pleasure in this kind of activity, and I'm pleased that they'll be able to do that safely.

I have just a couple more questions. I'm also keenly aware of the time, so I'm hoping we can just get through this. I'm curious about how many requests for licences the office has received since it started. I did get the information that there are 12 events, really probably August to January, given that we weren't able to do this until August. So I know how many were granted.

I'll ask the third question, and that would be it for this round. Does the athletic commissioner actually attend these events?

[1150]

Hon. C. Oakes: Of those 12 events that we had licences for, from August to January…. If I may, just to give you an approximation of how many people were involved in those events, we had approximately ten promoters/matchmakers on the professional side, 12 promoters/matchmakers on the amateur side, 70 officials, 169 amateur contestants, 46 professional contestants and 74 second-level contestants.

To the question on how many specifically were declined by the commissioner — approximately, it's less than a dozen. We could get you a better sense, an accurate number.

If I may give you an example of one of the reasons, the commissioner declined to license an applicant as a promoter because the individual had no previous experience. Instead, the commissioner facilitated an arrangement with a currently licensed promoter for the original applicant to work with and eventually be in a position to reapply with experience.

I think that's a really important thing as we move forward this process for ensuring that integrity and safety of the sport is handled. The question of: does the commissioner attend the events? Yes, the commissioner does or has a representative from his office in attendance.

Based on the time, I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.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