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, April 1, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 9, Number 6

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

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2014

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

N. Letnick: Good morning. Joining us in the member's gallery this morning is His Excellency Nicolás Lloreda, the Ambassador of Colombia to Canada. The ambassador will be meeting with myself and several members of this House today to discuss issues of great importance to our two governments, including aboriginal relations, education, mining and trade.

Buenos días, Señor Ambassador.

Hon. T. Lake: I rise in the House today to introduce representatives from the B.C. and Yukon division of the Canadian Cancer Society visiting the Legislature on the first day of Daffodil Month. The society continues to be one of the leaders in cancer research, cancer prevention, advocacy and, of course, support for people living with cancer and their caregivers. They help lessen the impacts of cancer through their collaborative approach, working with organizations and communities.

[1005]

Would the House please welcome Brian LeFurgey, regional director, Vancouver Island; Nancy Falconer, health promotion, Vancouver Island; and Lyz Gilgunn, who is with health promotion here on Vancouver Island as well. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to have a friend in the gallery today who is known by many here. I'm very pleased to introduce George Chayka. He is the vice-president of business with the B.C. Lions, an organization that I know all British Columbians are very proud of.

One of the things that I am always impressed by with the Lions organization is their willingness to work with children on files like environment and literacy. One of the things that I think all of us in this House are proud of is their partnership with the Ending Violence Association of British Columbia on the Be More Than a Bystander program. B.C. Lions players speak out about how women need to be treated and respected. It's an excellent program. George has been a key partner in making sure that happens. I'm sure every member in the House today will want to make George Chayka very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CANCER SOCIETY ACTIVITIES
AND DAFFODIL MONTH

G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to join the Minister of Health in welcoming the representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society B.C. and Yukon, which just happens to be headquartered in Vancouver-Fairview along with so many advocacy and research organizations in the health field.

April is in fact Daffodil Month, and the daffodil was chosen as the symbol of hope in the face of the threat so many face from cancer. It's been used since 1956.

The pins we are wearing today in the House remind us all of the importance of cancer research and cancer prevention initiatives. It also shows support for those in the community living with cancer, that there's a community around them joining in the fight against cancer, and also to give them hope, give them strength, give them courage and give them a sense of community.

The Canadian Cancer Society is a national organization that works within a model of smaller community-based groups. There are 140,000 volunteers across Canada working with the society. Among the many things the Canadian Cancer Society does is raise money and fund research on cancer, advocate for public policy and prevention initiatives to improve the health of Canadians, engage Canadians in awareness of action on cancer, provide those living with cancer resources and support, and also provide a summer camp program for children and teens living with cancer.

The B.C. and Yukon region was started in 1938 in B.C. Among local priorities are increased tobacco control measures and advocacy to raise awareness of and eliminate exposure to environmental and occupational carcinogens. For many years now the society in B.C. has advocated for a ban on the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides. Forty B.C. municipalities have in fact introduced local restrictions, but municipalities cannot control the sale of cosmetic pesticides.

I know that we all want to join members of the society this evening to learn more about their work.

M. Dalton: I, too, want to rise in the House today to recognize the first day of this year's Canadian Cancer Society British Columbia and Yukon division's Daffodil Month campaign. Our government has proclaimed April as Daffodil Month. This campaign improves awareness of the impact of cancer and encourages individuals, organizations and communities to support the Canadian Cancer Society in its mission to eradicate cancer and help people living with the disease, as well as their caregivers.

The daffodil symbolizes strength and courage and reminds us not to give up in the fight against cancer. This
[ Page 2616 ]
society continues to be a leader in funding cancer research, cancer prevention, advocacy and support for those battling cancer. They consistently demonstrate a collaborative approach, working with individuals, organization, communities and governments to lessen the impact of cancer.

Part of the advocacy work is in assisting the public to take steps to reduce their cancer risk through prevention initiatives and by advocating for healthy public policy for all people.

[1010]

You can also show your support by making an on-line donation, volunteering, using social media to spread the word or getting involved in local events. Many people across our province help out cancer patients and their families by giving up their time. The Canadian Cancer Society has about 15,000 people in British Columbia and the Yukon who volunteer to help those living with cancer. The society has branches everywhere, including in Mission, which just saw its grand reopening.

One of the services that volunteers provide is transporting patients from home to their treatment centre and back. I know this has been a great help to many coping with the disease. Thank you to all those who volunteer their time to help cancer patients and their families.

BURNABY NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

K. Corrigan: I'm very pleased to have a moment to discuss the great work that the Burnaby Neighbourhood House does in my community. I couldn't describe it better than their own self-description.

"The Burnaby Neighbourhood House is a place where families and individuals can come to get support and services, a place where new immigrants become connected and can find information and resources that will help them settle into their new community, where seniors and youth can gather, and where all these groups can come together in activities and events that aim to link generations and cultures and create a stronger community."

It's a hubbub of activity at the house and throughout the community. Burnaby Neighbourhood House runs eight child care facilities, friendship clubs, preschool programs, wonderful youth leadership programs that are developing young leaders who are becoming active volunteers and participants in our community, drop-in programs, community dinners and kitchens, ESL, free legal advice, an income tax clinic that last year assisted more than 2,500 individuals with their returns, seniors programs, literacy programs, computer classes, and far more.

In fact, the Burnaby Neighbourhood House has been so successful that it has far outgrown its present location. But it is moving soon to a brand-new and much larger space in a new highrise in Metrotown. The city-owned, non-profit office space is being built by the developer, Intracorp, at no cost to the city in exchange for a density bonus.

I want to congratulate chair Sue Cheung and all the board, dynamic executive director Antonia Beck, program director Kimberly Barwich and the rest of staff — and, of course, the hundreds of volunteers. Thank you for being such a warm and welcoming place to all who walk through the doors of the Burnaby Neighbourhood House.

PIONEER LOG HOMES IN WILLIAMS LAKE

D. Barnett: It is a great pleasure to rise in the House today and speak about a wonderful locally owned business in Williams Lake, Pioneer Log Homes. For decades Pioneer has been known throughout the Cariboo for building beautiful log homes made from quality locally sourced products. However, as of late Pioneer gained a whole lot of attention around the world thanks to their new hit reality show, Timber King, airing Sunday nights on HGTV Canada and on Discovery Channel in the United States.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't love the show just because it showcases Williams Lake and the Cariboo-Chilcotin. I love the show because it tells a B.C. success story.

For over 30 years Pioneer Log Homes founder and owner Bryan Reid Sr. spent years building a business from the ground up through hard work, using his incredible skilled craftsmanship in developing the process to design, assemble and construct some of the most magnificent homes you could ever imagine. Every step of building a log home requires hand craftsmanship and taking the time to build a quality product, using natural products that will last for decades withstanding the elements of Mother Nature.

I will also mention that Pioneer Log Homes is a great job creator in Williams Lake, creating cabinetmakers, carpenters and designers. Now with a TV crew, producers and support staff that come along with this reality show, the local Williams Lake economy is already seeing a boost.

If you haven't been able to watch the show yet, be sure to set a reminder to your PVR and watch the Timber Kings crew tackle their next project using their incredible skills and talents, building magnificent log homes for buyers around the world.

[1015]

50th ANNIVERSARY OF
NANAIMO AND DISTRICT MUSEUM SOCIETY

L. Krog: Tomorrow in Nanaimo we're going to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Nanaimo and District Museum Society. Five men and three women — an almost gender-balanced first board — moved into its original building in 1968, which was a 1967 Canadian centennial project. That building now is presently occupied by the Vancouver Island Military Museum, showing Nanaimo's commitment to the preservation of history.
[ Page 2617 ]

In 2008 the museum moved into its wonderful new facility in the conference centre downtown. It hosts many permanent exhibits, including a wonderful coal mine experience, First Nations, Educating Nanaimo, The Harbour and the Chinese collection as well. Every year they host three or four special exhibits, which are fascinating and often involve cooperation with national museums. In addition, it is also home, since 2008, to the Sports Hall of Fame, recognizing Nanaimo's extremely important and significant contribution to sporting in Canada. It also hosts and is now the permanent home for the Wally Buono Award.

In addition to all of that, Nanaimo's museum is also the guardian of the historic Bastion, the former Hudson's Bay Company trading post built in 1853. I want to remind all the members here that Nanaimo is the third-oldest city in the province of British Columbia.

It started with one employee, Barry Hardcastle. He was the first professional staff person hired back in 1979. Up until then it was volunteers. Unfortunately, he was killed by a drunk driver in 1981.

Seeing significant growth, the museum now has a wonderful staff headed by Debbie Trueman. Parker and Tilly Williams, in particular, deserve mention. They're the only active charter members of the society. Parker is the longest-serving volunteer. He served on the board as director and president. He's a life member. He's given tours, led the restoration of the No. 19 locomotive and has done several presentations.

Thanks to John Manningand the board. Thanks to the volunteers. Congratulations to Nanaimo and District Museum on your 50th anniversary.

MUSICAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
OF CHARLIE YOUNG

J. Martin: I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a musical legend in the Chilliwack community. Last month Charlie Young passed away, after a brief illness, at Chilliwack General Hospital just shy of his 95th birthday.

Charlie grew up in Sutherland, U.K., where at the tender age of 14 he joined the Archies Juvenile Band as a clarinet and saxophone player. He continued to play until his last gig at the weekly meeting of the Chilliwack Rotary Club, five days before he passed away. Eighty — eight-zero — incredible years of music.

Charlie served as a military musician during the war, entertaining the troops in France and Holland and Belgium after D-Day. Following the war he toured Scotland and England with his own band.

In 1955 Charlie and his family departed for Camp Chilliwack, seizing an opportunity to join the renowned Royal Canadian Engineers Band as their lead saxophonist. Shortly thereafter he helped form the Copper Room Orchestra at the famed Harrison Hot Springs hotel. Charlie played with the military band during the day and the Copper Room in the evening six days a week until midnight right up until his retirement in 1985.

Although Charlie retired, he still had many more sweet notes to blow, so he joined the Rotary Club of Chilliwack and brought his music with him. Unique to the Chilliwack Rotary Club, of which I'm privileged to be an honorary member, musicians in the club play in a band during the regular Friday lunch meetings. Charlie was instrumental in starting the Rotarians in 1985. He kept playing the music ever since.

I had the final opportunity to greet Charlie and listen to his sweet notes at the Robbie Burns luncheon at the last Rotary meeting.

The legacy of who we call in Chilliwack "Forever Young" Charlie Young is commemorated by a beautiful statue in the Chilliwack Cultural Centre. But Charlie's music will live on in our hearts and minds forever.

Oral Questions

CALL FOR INDEPENDENT
INVESTIGATION INTO EXECUTIVE
COMPENSATION AT KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY

D. Eby: In response to concerns brought forward in this House about executive compensation at Kwantlen, the minister has wondered why the opposition doesn't have more confidence in the investigation of this matter by an assistant deputy minister.

Here's one red flag. Yesterday the Minister of Advanced Education said that the so-called independent review would be reporting directly to him, one of the key witnesses. "That review will come forth and provide the information to myself and to the Minister of Finance."

[1020]

Here's another red flag: nobody in the official opposition was on the board or staff at Kwantlen at the time, but we've received two letters and two phone calls from the ADM with questions. Yet the minister, who was on the board of Kwantlen, chaired their human resources policy committee and was one of three board members with the bright idea to take student scholarship money and use it for a secret $100,000 payment to the president…. That same minister told the media yesterday he hasn't received a single question from investigators since the review started 22 days ago, on March 10.

Will the minister acknowledge that this looks a lot like a government investigation of what the official opposition knows instead of an independent investigation of what's happening at Kwantlen University?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, once again I rise to answer these questions, very much like Eddie Murphy in that TV show that I referred to last week. It's repeating the facts.

The facts. A document has been tabled. The ADM for the public service sector employers council secretariat
[ Page 2618 ]
has some work to do: to examine the payments and how they're made in terms of the contractual arrangement, what was disclosed, what was the total compensation received by the employees, and is the manner in which they reported it…? They reported it under a supply and services contract. Is that consistent with the compensation guidelines?

I'd be more than happy to have that conversation with the ADM. In fact, I will be having that next week. I encourage the opposition that if they have any additional information they wish to put forth, they could certainly table that information.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The minister and the government are responding to this issue as if they are Eddie Murphy and this whole thing is a big joke — not like it's hundreds of thousands of dollars coming from students going to secret payments and executive salaries at Kwantlen University, deliberately hidden from government.

Surely the minister agrees that an ADM reporting to him and the Minister of Finance is not an independent investigation and that the Auditor General, with forensic accounting expertise and whistleblower protection, would make sure that this whole investigation isn't a big joke.

Hon. A. Virk: The facts as have been presented…. Let me clarify. The president of Kwantlen Polytechnic University had an employment contract, and the supply and services contract that he had was outside of that employment contract and was reported by that university as a supply and services contract.

It's the nature of that contract and the proper reporting — or the reporting that they felt was proper at the time under the Financial Information Act — that is the subject that Mr. Mingay is going to examine to ensure that those contracts are consistent with the compensation guidelines.

Those were reported by that university. It's the fact they were reported under the Financial Information Act that is why we are having these questions here today. That's going to be examined. They were reported. Those were the facts.

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

D. Eby: Another troubling e-mail chain has surfaced. Months after leaving Kwantlen University, former president John McKendry requested an $18,000 payment from the school. The board decided there was no basis for the payment, and a refusal letter was drafted.

The day after approving the refusal letter, the chair of the board, Gordon Schoberg, became aware of a pending lawsuit against the university alleging harassment. Mr. Schoberg was named personally, and the former president who had requested the payment was identified as "a key witness" whose testimony might be needed to defend the school, the board and senior executives. Based on that information, the chair instructed staff to hold the letter, refusing the $18,000 payment "until further notice."

To the minister, his human resources committee held a meeting to discuss this very $18,000 payment. Is it true that the only reason this payment request wasn't immediately rejected was that Mr. McKendry's friendly testimony might be needed at trial?

[1025]

Hon. A. Virk: Certainly, if the member opposite has additional e-mails or documentation, I ask that he table those that would assist in the investigation, then.

N. Macdonald: The minister was there for all of this, so maybe he could assist in the investigation. I think that's what we're asking him.

The e-mail chain shows that the refusal of an $18,000 payment to John McKendry, the former president of the school, was put on hold based on the fact that Mr. McKendry could be a witness against Kwantlen, the board chair and even the Minister of Advanced Education in a lawsuit.

Breaking government's salary cap rules and hiding payments from regulators — these are serious matters. Using the position of authority to influence the testimony of a witness is even more serious.

The question to the minister: can he confirm that this $18,000 payment that everyone agreed had no basis was reconsidered simply because the former president was going to be a witness against the board chair and the minister himself?

Hon. A. Virk: At the risk of sounding repetitive, there are e-mails that the member opposite has in his possession. I ask that he table those e-mails that would assist the ADM in doing his review. The opposition looks like they're on a fishing expedition. They present their e-mails and await the findings of the report.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: We have provided all sorts of information to government. The minister says something, and then we provide information that contradicts what the minister has said here in the House. Let's go through a few of these contradictions that we've heard here in the House over the past 22 days.

The minister was presented with information. He said the questions about excess salary payments were, in his words, "outlandish." But the very next day we found out
[ Page 2619 ]
that he and the Minister of Finance had quietly appointed an ADM to investigate those same questions. That's No. 1.

Number 2, he told us to have faith in the investigation. But after 22 days the minister himself, who is central to this, has not been asked one question. We've been asked lots of questions to provide further information. But the person at the centre of it — not one question after 22 days.

He insisted that the investigation was independent of the Ministry of Advanced Education. But yesterday we found out that the ADM is reporting to the Minister of Advanced Education — him. These are the contradictions that we've seen.

Isn't it well past time that he serves the interests of Kwantlen University, the students, the faculty and the people of British Columbia and turns this investigation over to a truly independent investigation by the Auditor General?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the member opposite chooses to ignore the facts. At the risk of sounding repetitive, the report is quite clear. The report will include any findings and any recommendations relating to the examination of the specific transactions as well as any general conclusions he's able to draw from the review. That report is due sometime in mid-April, and it will be available for the public to see.

B. Ralston: Clearly, the assistant deputy minister is in the process of asking questions on behalf of the government in this matter. But the investigation seems to be headed off in the wrong direction. It seems more focused on trying to find out what the opposition knows than what the minister and Mr. Schoberg did. Clearly, an objective person would reasonably suspect the goal is to craft a report to let the minister off the hook. Serious questions are unanswered yet deserve attention.

[1030]

My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has a unique and well-recognized constitutional role in cabinet. She acts in a dual capacity — one, as a political member of cabinet and two, a second and distinct role as the independent law officer of the province. Obviously, the toughest decisions concerning the exercise of that role concern the investigation of fellow members of cabinet.

In her independent capacity, will the Attorney General join with the opposition and together ask the genuinely independent Auditor General to investigate the issues raised here and elsewhere about the financial and governance practices at Kwantlen Polytechnic University?

Hon. A. Virk: It appears that the members opposite are calling into question the ability of the assistant deputy minister in the Public Sector Employers Council Secretariat to do his job. The assignment of the assistant deputy minister is quite clear. He is to report back to the Minister of Finance with his findings and his reports. As I said, he has four areas that he has to report on, and he will provide that report accordingly.

CONDITIONS AT
ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

J. Darcy: Over the last two weeks I have spoken many times with doctors, nurses and admitting staff who work in the emergency room at Royal Columbian Hospital about the continuing crisis there. Overcrowding and congestion have become so bad that doctors describe it as "unacceptable" and "a ticking time bomb." Working conditions have become so intolerable that ten nurses have quit in frustration.

The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians has now spoken out as well, citing major research studies that show that long waits in emergency result in increased health risk for up to 30 percent of patients. Yet this minister chooses to believe that it is not his problem. He says: "I won't be meeting with the doctors, because I don't feel that's my role as Health Minister."

Will the minister take responsibility for what absolutely is his problem and commit to fixing the problems at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. T. Lake: I've had the opportunity to travel to many hospitals throughout the province of British Columbia, including Royal Columbian Hospital. I must say the men and the women working in that hospital, like all hospitals around British Columbia, are working tremendously hard to look after the patients.

There are times, particularly in the winter, in flu season, when congestion is a concern. It has been a concern every winter since we have had health care.

I know that the men and women of Royal Columbian and other hospitals work very hard to make sure that their patients are well looked after. I know that Fraser Health, the authority that runs that hospital, is working very hard and working with the doctors and nurses to make sure that they are addressing those congestion issues.

As Health Minister, I think it's important to allow the health authorities to run the health system under their purview, working with colleagues in the Ministry of Health. That is my collaborative approach to managing the health care system. We have the best health care system in Canada, and I want to commend the people of Fraser Health for working so hard to deal with a very challenging situation.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: When patients are going into cardiac arrest in hallways and when there is nowhere to properly isolate patients with infectious diseases and when patients
[ Page 2620 ]
are routinely waiting up to seven days and often more to be admitted to hospital, the minister's platitudes just don't cut it. Two years ago the then Minister of Health announced a 150-day action plan to reduce congestion and hallway medicine and bring down infection rates, but today the crisis continues.

Will this minister continue to put patients at risk, or will he listen to patients, doctors, nurses and other people on the front lines who he just praised so highly? Will he listen to them and take action to fix the crisis at Royal Columbian Hospital?

[1035]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned earlier, there are times during the year when congestion is a challenge for every hospital in Canada, particularly when flu season strikes. We know that the men and women working in those emergency departments work extremely hard to manage those situations, as do the administrators on behalf of the health authorities.

The administrators of Fraser Health worked with the doctors and nurses at Royal Columbian to put strategies in place. The situation was relieved remarkably after a few days due to their very hard work. I want to thank the people who work at Royal Columbian, and all the hospitals around British Columbia, for managing challenging times while delivering excellent service to the patients of British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PLAN
AND MISSING WOMEN
INQUIRY RECOMMENDATIONS

M. Karagianis: In the Premier's throne speech she promised British Columbians a violence-free B.C. Yet today, as the government moves forward with its three-year plan on domestic violence, it's increasingly evident just how far we have to go to make that a reality. The Representative for Children and Youth has said that it "isn't much of a plan at this point. It's a bit of an empty shell." She also states the plan is "short on funding, short on details."

To the Minister of Justice: if the government is serious about ending violence in our province, why have we seen almost no action on the 63 recommendations coming out of the Missing Women Inquiry?

Hon. S. Anton: I appreciate the question, because it gives me the opportunity to report to the House another significant step which has been taken in delivering on the recommendations from the Missing Women Inquiry. That is the issue of compensation. I'm pleased to be able to report that the other day there was a settlement reached in court and, indeed, a compensation fund for every child of a woman identified in the missing-women report — $50,000 per child — the ones who went to court, the ones who did not go to court. We have identified 95 children.

Nothing, nothing can compensate for the loss of a parent and loss of your mother. However, this compensation will help those children with education, with housing, with other things that they need to put it for. This was a very strong recommendation of the Oppal Inquiry and one that I am, as I said, gratified — I think that's the right word — to be able to announce to this House today — that that settlement has been reached.

M. Karagianis: Well, the government delayed the plan by almost a full year. Now the plan lacks both funding and details. We have to wait until 2015-2016 before we even see any funding begin to flow. How does the minister expect to actually tackle domestic violence in our province when the plan is underdeveloped and underfunded? What are the steps that the minister is going to take on this?

Hon. S. Cadieux: This government takes the issue of domestic violence incredibly seriously and, in response to a very tragic circumstance, recognized the need to set up the provincial office of domestic violence to coordinate all of the services and programs across government that touch, from police intervention and hospitals right through to our child-serving services and our victim services for women and children who are victims of domestic violence.

We commit more than $70 million a year to programs and services around the province that support victims of domestic violence. We have continued with work through that office and delivered a three-year plan to further address issues of domestic violence.

[1040]

After consultations with the community, with the anti-violence sector, with our cross-ministry partners, a $5.5 million plan was announced, targeting four specific areas of the highest need: $1 million to help with this implementation of additional specialized domestic violence units; $2 million to develop and deliver specific programs for aboriginal men, women and children; $1 million to provide support and intervention for perpetrators, to hold them accountable but also to support changes in behaviour; and $1.5 million in direct supports to women and children for housing and transportation in rural and remote communities.

I have said from the beginning that this is a modest additional investment, but we are pleased that it will support the most targeted and challenged areas. And I will report that the anti-violence sector has responded with gratitude for our efforts.
[ Page 2621 ]

GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PLAN
AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS

K. Corrigan: The fact that we have two ministers sharing responsibility, and we apparently don't know who should be answering what question, shows the lack of coordination on this.

There are children and families in B.C. whose lives could be vastly improved if domestic violence courts were created. The government said it would consider these courts in its three-year plan on domestic violence, yet we've heard nothing of substance actually being done.

What we have heard, however, is how little has been done to improve the role of the justice system in tackling this issue. The Representative for Children and Youth has said: "There has not been governmentwide commitment, and there isn't sufficient justice system ownership of the issue."

To the Minister of Justice: when can we expect to see real leadership on this issue, and when will we hear about this government's plan for domestic violence courts?

Hon. S. Cadieux: In October of 2012 the province released a plan taking action on domestic violence in British Columbia. It was developed in consultation with other government partners and ministries, as well as the Representative for Children and Youth. Under that Taking Action plan, we've developed new courses and training for responding to domestic violence and delivered that to more than 24,000 workers in the province.

We've launched the first two phases of Safe Relationships, Safe Children, which helps front-line staff in a variety of community and health settings to better respond and consistently manage situations where mental illness and substance abuse put women and children at risk.

We've introduced and enhanced the flagging system for the justice information database, called JUSTIN, to improve the identification of files involving children victims.

We've amended the Child, Family and Community Service Act to clarify that domestic violence is a relevant factor in the protection of children. We have also introduced changes to the Family Law Act, which is now a year old, which create protection orders designed to deal with high-risk situations before domestic violence occurs.

There is more work to do. We've announced more of that work in our three-year plan, and we will continue.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I'm speaking very specifically about domestic violence courts. I guess I would repeat what the representative has said: "There has not been governmentwide commitment, and there isn't sufficient justice system ownership of the issue."

I think it is very clear when it comes to these very significant changes specifically within the justice systems — changes that would make victims of domestic violence a priority within the courts — that the plan has failed. The representative has been calling for their implementation since 2009, and what is missing is leadership from this government.

My question again is to the Minister of Justice. When can British Columbians expect to see substantive action on the issue of domestic violence courts?

[1045]

Hon. S. Anton: We are, in fact, doing a study of specialized courts in British Columbia. The new plan for five new courtrooms in Surrey does give an opportunity to take a very specific look at the city of Surrey and how it may be best served by its new courtrooms.

That being said, justice transformation and justice innovation includes not putting everything into courtrooms. It includes access to justice perhaps outside of a courtroom. I know that the members opposite do believe that everything should be in a courtroom, but we do not, on this side of the House.

That is why the Family Law Act emphasizes mediation. It emphasizes keeping cases out of courtrooms. That's why we have Family Justice Centres and justice access centres.

There comes a time when matters do need to be in courtrooms. Indeed, there are criminal processes or protection orders. Whether or not those need to be a specialized court — that is being studied right now. But there is no question that there are many forms of access to justice in British Columbia, including better access to courtrooms right now in British Columbia.

TRUCK OPERATORS LABOUR DISPUTE
AND STORAGE FEES FOR BUSINESSES

H. Bains: Madame Speaker, 28 days or so — a truckers strike caused by this government's inaction….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

Please proceed.

H. Bains: I understand truth hurts.

It was this government whose attention it was brought to for up to a year the problems that existed at the port. Port Metro Vancouver ignored all those concerns from the truckers. This government's inaction brought the strike on. The small businesses and big businesses paid a big price and suffered heavy losses during that period. They had nothing to do with the dispute.

First, they could not access their product. Secondly, now they are told that they will be asked to pay heavy
[ Page 2622 ]
storage fees. It had nothing to do with them, and now they are paying twice.

My question to the minister is this: what is the minister doing to make sure that those businesses do not get hit twice because of the inaction of this government? What is he going to do to make sure they don't pay these storage fees?

Hon. T. Stone: I cannot tell the member for Surrey-Newton how much I appreciate his question. Last week was a great week for thousands of British Columbians. It was a great week for our economy. As a result of the leadership of our Premier and the government of British Columbia, we were able to sit down with Unifor, UTA, the port and the federal government and bring this dispute to a resolution.

Now, indeed, I would like to specifically thank Jerry Dias of Unifor. I'd like to thank Manny Dosanjh and Meeka Sanghera of the UTA. I'd like to thank the ports. I'd like to thank the federal government. Thousands of British Columbians are working because of the hard work of all of those parties to bring the dispute to an end.

Now, the specific question, the question of container fees. The hon. member knows very well — in fact, we've talked about it over the last couple of days — the matter of container fees is a matter between the terminal operators and the owners of cargo. That is a fact.

[1050]

But I will report to this House that just yesterday, again I had a conversation…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: …with Robin Silvester, the CEO of Port Metro Vancouver. I strongly urged Robin to do everything he possibly can to encourage the terminal operators to do right by those who, through no fault of their own, were caught in the middle of this dispute. At the end of the day, the dispute is over.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Michelle Stilwell: Madame Speaker, I present to you a petition signed by 36 women of the Canadian Federation of University Women in respect to the adoption of a poverty reduction plan.

Tabling Documents

D. Eby: I seek leave of this House to tender e-mails from Kwantlen University alleging an $18,000 payment.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. McRae: In the main chamber here I call Bill 14, intituled Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2014; and in the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — JUSTICE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 10:55 a.m.

On section 37 (continued).

K. Corrigan: I wanted to ask a couple more questions with regard to the makeup of police boards. This section would increase the number of provincial appointments to municipal police forces potentially to seven persons, changing the wording from "not more than 5 persons" to "not more than 7 persons" that would be appointed by the provincial government.

I'm wondering why it was that the minister made the decision that if there were going to be more people appointed to a municipal police board, why it was that the appointments would not be ones that are controlled and made by the local government, who in fact are the ones that are paying for the police forces almost entirely by themselves.

Hon. S. Anton: The request to increase or allow a greater maximum number of persons — let's put it that way — on the police board was made in a response to the B.C. Association of Police Boards. They expressed no wish around who the appointment process was made by, and in fact, when this was taken to UBCM for consultation, again there was no issue around how the appointments would be made.

The reality is that the appointments are made in conjunction with the head of police services, and there is consultation around those appointments. But as I said, there were no specific requests put in to us when this request was made to increase the maximize size, so we have gone with this model.

[1100]

K. Corrigan: Did the ministry, in discussions with the police boards or the UBCM, raise the possibility that municipal councils or other local government might want to have increased representation and make their own ap-
[ Page 2623 ]
pointments to police boards? Was that raised as a discussion item at all?

Hon. S. Anton: This was the model that was put forward. The Association of Police Boards was asked if there were any concerns, and none were raised.

K. Corrigan: The Association of Police Boards, I would imagine, because the vast majority of police board members in British Columbia are appointed by the provincial government, not by local governments…. Therefore, I would assume that the vast majority of representation on the association are provincially appointed members. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: I don't think I can add any more to what I have said about the consultation. I've given the details of the consultation. The B.C. Association of Police Boards: it may be that there are more cabinet appointments to that — LGIC appointments — but I do not have the breakdown, so I could not answer that question accurately.

K. Corrigan: Perhaps the minister could — it doesn't have to be in a real big hurry — with the assistance of staff, give me the breakdown. I'm not sure whether it's easily available, but I'm sure the minister could find that out.

I guess the point that I'm making is that we have municipal police forces being paid for almost entirely by municipalities. In addition, any money that is put into municipal police forces is being put in by the federal government, not the provincial government. It seems fundamentally non-representational to have police boards that are almost entirely, and now more completely, appointed by the provincial government as opposed to by those local municipalities.

I'm wondering if the minister could explain exactly how much input local municipalities have, and I guess one specific question. That question and, in addition, very specifically: do the people who are appointed to local police boards have to live within the municipality that they are serving?

[1105]

Hon. S. Anton: The qualifications for prospective board members are on our website. I'll read some of them out. "Prospective board members should meet the following qualifications: residence and/or business interests in the municipality served by the board," a criminal records check, knowledge about and interest in the community, ability to understand the complexities of policing, fairness, working, and so on. I think those first couple are the ones that the minister is interested in.

K. Corrigan: I'll finish my questions about this section. Just to point out…. It's not a question, actually. It's just a concern. There's an opportunity here to increase representation. In fact, there could well be in municipalities. It seems to me it would have been a good opportunity to hand back local control. Obviously, it was not the model that was considered by the ministry. I think that that's unfortunate.

I guess I'll ask one more question about the numbers. There are various sizes of police boards in various municipalities. Not all municipalities, by any means — my understanding is — have the full five-person provincial contingent, and not all municipalities have both a mayor and a councillor, I don't believe, although I haven't looked at all of them.

What would be the factors that would cause them either to go with what the present contingency was or up to this larger potential board of nine persons? Is it the decision or the request of the local council? Is it a decision by the director of police services? Who makes the decision?

Hon. S. Anton: It is ultimately the minister's decision. Obviously, that is done in consultation with the local municipality and the mayor in particular. As I have mentioned a couple of times, we have had a very specific request from the police board of Vancouver to increase their size. If this goes through, we will obviously be in conversations with them. It is a workload issue. Bigger municipalities do probably need more people, and some of the very small municipalities do have much smaller boards.

K. Corrigan: I'm sorry. I wasn't going to ask many more questions, but I'm curious. In terms of the makeup of the board itself, the minister has read off the list of qualifications. I think last time we were talking a little bit about the process. More specifically, for example, who would come up with the names? Would it be the local municipality coming up with the names of prospective police board members, or would that be the provincial government? What would the process be in order to determine who the police board appointees would be?

Hon. S. Anton: The vacancies are posted on the board resourcing website of government. Names are put forward by recommendations, referrals by the mayor, referrals by councillors and numerous other means. The persons are vetted before their appointment, and the appointments are made by the LGIC, except for the ones made by the city council itself.

[1110]

K. Corrigan: When the minister talked about various other ways that peoples' names would come forward, would that include the possibility of the ministry submitting names to that process, independent of what the mayor and council had suggested or other sources?
[ Page 2624 ]

Hon. S. Anton: These come through the board resourcing office and go to the director of police services, who brings those recommendations to myself and, through me, to cabinet.

Section 37 approved.

On section 38.

K. Corrigan: My understanding is that this doesn't really have any substantive implications at all. It's a section that deals with the jurisdiction of municipal constables. It essentially provides that if a constable performs duties outside their municipality, they should notify the force they work for in advance, but if they don't manage to do that, they "…must promptly after performing the duties notify the provincial police force or municipal police force."

My understand is it's just changing those very last three words. Is that correct? And if that is correct, then are there any substantive or any implications at all or any change that that would mean in a practical way?

Hon. S. Anton: Correct. It's a housekeeping matter. So "municipal police force" is not used in the act; "municipal police department" is used in the act.

Section 38 approved.

On section 39.

K. Corrigan: This has to do with changing the sections that talk about the functions of the director of police services with respect to establishing standards with respect to the police. It looks to me like subsection (a)(vi) has…. Essentially, the only real change here is that the director can set standards respecting the added part "investigations into the whereabouts of missing persons."

Would the minister confirm that this is in fact, even though there's been a bit of a rewording, really essentially what is going on in this section?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the member is referring to subsection (vi) only in her question, and that is correct. The only change in subsection (vi) is a reordering change, and then I shouldn't say "only," because it's an important change. Subsection (A) adds "investigations into the whereabouts of missing persons." The standards as to cooperation and coordination among the police departments can be made in regard to those investigations. That is in response to recommendation 10.1 from the missing-women investigation.

K. Corrigan: That was my understanding, so I'm glad to have that confirmed.

Then I'll go on to subsection (b), which deals with the same thing, the functions of the director with regard to setting standards. This is the new part: "(b) by adding the following subparagraphs…." That's so the director can set standards respecting "principles, practices and strategies to be used in investigations…." Those are the investigations we just talked about previously. And "the promotion of unbiased policing and law enforcement services delivery" and "community consultation regarding the priorities, goals and objectives for policing and law enforcement."

I would assume, and perhaps the minister can confirm, that these additions are intended to fulfil some of the recommendations with regard to establishment of police standards that were made in the report of the Missing Women Inquiry.

[1115]

I'm wondering if the minister could first confirm that and then give me a little bit of background about which recommendations we're talking about that seem to be fulfilled as a result of this change.

Hon. S. Anton: There are three new subparagraphs here.

Subparagraph (vi.1), which is new, allows for standards relating to the "principles, practices and strategies to be used in investigations" which were referred to in the earlier paragraph — missing persons, complex investigations and serious crime investigations. This is in response to recommendation 7.2 and recommendation 8.2 in the Missing Women Inquiry.

Subsection (viii): "the promotion of unbiased policing and law enforcement services delivery." This was a very specific recommendation in the Missing Women Inquiry, recommendation 4.2.

Subsection (ix): "community consultation regarding the priorities, goals and objectives for policing and law enforcement." I'm not pointing to a specific recommendation in the Missing Women Inquiry, but there was a general desire throughout that inquiry for greater accountability to a community, and subsection (ix) there allows for creating standards in that regard.

K. Corrigan: With regard to the latter comment about subsection (ix), setting standards for "community consultation regarding the priorities, goals and objectives for policing and law enforcement," would the minister say that this standard, this change, will satisfy recommendation 4.10: "That police forces integrate into training, performance standards and performance measurement the ability of police officers to develop and maintain community relationships, particularly with vulnerable members of the community who are often at risk of being treated unequally in the delivery of public services"?

Hon. S. Anton: The different standard-making authorities in this section — there's a number of them, of
[ Page 2625 ]
course — will take into consideration the other pieces of the Missing Women Inquiry, including the recommendation referred to by the member.

[1120]

K. Corrigan: Well, that's a good thing to hear. I was going to ask specifically for that, to ask a question about whether or not that was going to be the case, because these sections, as written, could contemplate, really, most of the various recommendations with regard to the setting of standards.

I do want to get it onto the record that I agree. I think it's very important in setting the standards under this change to the legislation that the director of police services in that work refers back to the specific recommendations, which are sometimes more detailed and more specific. I just wanted to get it on the record that that would be my hope for the setting of police standards. There are a lot of really good ideas and important recommendations. I look forward to that.

Section 39 approved.

On section 40.

K. Corrigan: This is a major addition or a fairly large addition to the Police Act. This essentially provides for audits of major case investigations. I'm wondering if the minister could give me an outline and confirm whether or not this is to satisfy recommendation 8.3 of the recommendations of the Missing Women Inquiry and give me a little bit of background about how we ended up with this piece of legislation.

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is yes. This is a response to recommendation 8.3. Certainly, one of the themes through Commissioner Oppal's report was that the missing-women investigations in some cases had become inactive. This establishes a process in the Police Act for the audit of major case investigations should those investigations become inactive.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could just confirm the definition of a "major case investigation." What will fall under the umbrella of these audits?

It says in the definitions, section 45.01, that "'major case investigation' means the following: (a) the investigation of a murder or an attempted murder; (b) an investigation into the whereabouts of a missing person, if foul play is suspected;" and then "(c) a prescribed type of investigation…."

I'm wondering. First of all, with that third subsection, what is it that is being contemplated in subsection (c)?

[1125]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, in the definition section, the first (a) and (b) are fairly straightforward. The third one, subsection (c), does refer back to the earlier section — the section we were just dealing with — which allows additional kinds of investigations to be defined as a major case investigation once standards are developed under the previous section — section 40.

K. Corrigan: I found this one a little bit confusing. It almost was circular, to me. If you've set the standards, therefore it can be a prescribed type of investigation. I'm just wondering: is it just simply a timing thing — that you can't then prescribe something to be a major case investigation until we have the standards in place?

Hon. S. Anton: This whole part, part 8.1, does require that standards be in place. That's why we do need to go back to section 40 and develop those standards before we can then add the prescribed types of investigations into the definition of major case investigation.

K. Corrigan: Well, would it not have been…? I'm just wondering why that has to be there. It's not going to be prescribed, I guess, until the standards are in place. But the same is true for attempted murders and investigations about missing persons. I'm just wondering why it's specific to subsection (3). I'm having a little trouble getting my head around that.

Hon. S. Anton: Let's see if this makes it a bit clearer. What an audit would be determining is if there was a non-compliance with standards. It can only determine there's non-compliance with standards once the standards have been set. So that's why we have to go through the process of setting the standards, and then that would later enable an audit.

K. Corrigan: Would that not be true, though, of subsections (a) and (b) as well? And why is that not in those two subsections?

[1130]

Hon. S. Anton: All three subsections, (a), (b) and (c), do require the development of standards. So (a) and (b) are set out specifically because, of course, they were a large part of the focus of the missing-women investigation. And (c) gives a broader authority, should it be needed as time goes on. But all of these things will require standards, because an audit is an audit of the standards of investigation — whether or not they're properly applied.

K. Corrigan: I just want to go back to subsection (b) and ask a quick question. So "major case investigation" means the following: "(b) an investigation into the whereabouts of a missing person, if foul play is suspected."

Would this be the line, to some degree, that is drawn between the coverage of the Missing Persons Act versus
[ Page 2626 ]
a criminal investigation? Would the assumption be that if foul play is suspected, it means that it is a criminal investigation, and therefore, the provisions of the Missing Persons Act, which we've dealt with recently, would not apply?

Hon. S. Anton: The answer is yes. This refers to a criminal investigation.

K. Corrigan: I want to go to the definition of "police service." Police service under these definitions means the following: "(a) the provincial police force; (b) a municipal police department; (c) a designated policing unit that is prescribed as a police force under section 1.1 (c)."

I don't have section 1.1(c) in front of me. Are those all set out in 1.1(c), or are we talking about possible future designations? I guess I specifically want to know about the RCMP as well.

Hon. S. Anton: The provincial police force does include the RCMP, including the local detachments. A designated policing unit — there are not very many of them. TransLink police is an example of a designated policing unit.

[1135]

K. Corrigan: I assume when the word "prescribed" is used, it could potentially…. I'm not thinking there is anything in particular, but if there were any future police forces set up, then for the purposes of an audit of a major case investigation, that would be brought into the ambit of this section by the fact that it's added to the list under 1.1(c).

Hon. S. Anton: That's correct.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to go on to the next section under section 40 here, the next section that will be added to the Police Act. Overall, I guess the main idea of this is that where there is a case that basically has been inactive — has gone cold, I guess, would be the colloquial expression — for the period of a year, there's been no activity on a file and it fits this definition of a major case, then automatically what would happen would be an internal review of the case and then a report of that.

That internal review would be done in-house, basically within the department. Then it would go to the head of the police force — the chief, I guess it would be. From there the chief would forward that report to the director of police services, and then the director of police services would have the discretion to audit that major case, that cold case, to make sure that the standards had been followed.

Would that be a fair encapsulation of what the intention of this part is?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, the police chief must conduct an internal review and provide a written report on the results of the internal review to the director of police services.

K. Corrigan: To be inactive in order to trigger the audit of this review process and then the report going to the director of police services, as part of the provincial government, it says:

"…a major case investigation is inactive if either of the following applies in relation to the investigation: (a) no investigative steps have been taken for one year and no criminal charges have been recommended to Crown counsel; (b) criminal charges against an accused person were recommended to Crown counsel but the charges were not approved and no investigative steps have been taken within one year after the date on which the charges were not approved."

Essentially, that means that if you have that one-year period, then there will be a review. But I'm wondering if the minister contemplates any problems with the interpretation of "no investigative steps have been taken" — what that means.

Hon. S. Anton: The question as to what an investigation step is — that kind of issue will fall under the standards that are developed, so that the steps taken as an investigation will have to meet the standards. In other words, you can't just do some trivial thing and say that you're meeting a standard. There will be standards set, and they will need to be followed in order to draw the conclusion as to whether or not an investigative step has been taken.

[1140]

K. Corrigan: I have a great deal of respect for the various police departments, including my own: the wonderful RCMP detachment that we have in Burnaby that looks after the safety of the citizens very well, in a proactive way. However, I just wonder whether there's any danger….

This triggers a fairly onerous set of steps in terms of review and then forwarding and then perhaps being required to have an audit. The investigative steps could fall within the standards but nevertheless could be relatively trivial, could they not? I'm just wondering how we would prevent that, where you could get to…. I'm not suggesting any police force would do this. I'm just looking at worst-case scenarios.

We get to 11½ months of no activity. It comes forward in a department that: "We just had nothing on that major case. This is going to trigger an audit. Maybe we should rethink and go back at this and do a couple more interviews or relook at our cold case."

I'm concerned. Probably often it's in really good faith — it would be a reminder almost — saying: "Wow. We've gone almost a year, and nothing has happened. Why don't we go back and start again and do a bit more?"
[ Page 2627 ]
There could be a bit more, and that would trigger another whole year. The result would be, particularly if the Crown council was brought in and then there were no charges, months more. Is there a concern that this process could potentially drag on — for two or three years even — without the review that is contemplated by the act?

Hon. S. Anton: The police, of course, have discretion in how they conduct investigations. We do structure their discretion through our police standards. In this case the police standards will set out the best practices, which must be followed.

K. Corrigan: I look forward to seeing those standards. I love reading police standards in my spare time, and I'm looking forward to reading these. Often the devil is in the detail.

I know I'm sounding a little facetious. But actually, when I was sitting on what we called the Taser committee, the establishment of standards for the investigation and the use of Tasers and the training for people with Tasers…. The standards were integral — a really important part of it. Certainly, that was something that Justice Braidwood recommended, and it was well done by the province.

I've complimented the province many times for the work on that. I'm looking for loopholes and problems that could occur, so I look forward to seeing what those standards are.

Subsection 45.02(2) says, essentially, that "within 60 days after a major case investigation becomes inactive" — so a year, essentially — "the chief of the police service that conducted the investigation must (a) conduct an internal review of the major case investigation." Then they must give a written report on that review "to the director, in the form and manner required by the director."

I'm just wondering if the minister or staff have thought about how comprehensive that review would be and also the time that might be expected to be spent.

[1145]

One of the things that I expressed concern about during second reading was the fact that the costs associated with the audit — with the review first and then an audit, if one takes place — are all going to be borne by the municipalities. I'm wondering if the minister and the ministry have taken a look at what they expect this internal review to include and how much time that might take.

Hon. S. Anton: It would be hard to generalize as to how long and how complex that report might be, because I think it would be very dependent on the particular investigation. Subsection (3) does list two things: that it "must include a description of (a) the investigative steps and actions…and (b) the principles, practices and strategies used in the investigation." That, of course, will include a description of the current standards and how the investigation met the standards.

K. Corrigan: It's one that I will watch closely for. I remember, again, on the Taser committee that one of the recommendations was that there should be training for de-escalation by police. That was a really important component. A lot of confrontations between police and citizens perhaps could be avoided if there was good de-escalation training as well as reporting about incidents where Tasers were used or any kind of bodily force was used.

One of the concerns we had there was that the report that was being used, incident reports…. Basically, it was a tick box: "Did you talk to the person," not "did you try to de-escalate." One of the recommendations made was that there should be more comprehensive reporting. I think it's important, whether it's a one-page report, a three-page report, a ten-page report or a report that takes weeks to put together.

I appreciate what the minister is saying. When you have a major case investigation, it can be a whole range of scenarios, I guess. I'm just a little concerned that suddenly police forces are going to be required to do this, and we don't really have any idea how comprehensive that report is going to need to be. I'm wondering if the minister has any response to that observation.

Hon. S. Anton: I don't think I can add anything more to what I said, which in summary is that it will depend on the complexity of the case, and it will require a demonstration in the report that standards have been met in terms of the major case investigation.

K. Corrigan: Just a final question on that. Does the ministry contemplate that the director of police services would set up a template, possibly, that would be a reporting form for these types of reports?

[1150]

Hon. S. Anton: The director does have the authority to set the form and manner of report. We will indeed have a look at that.

K. Corrigan: I believe that earlier there was reference — I can't remember; maybe it was in a briefing — that many municipal departments actually do this type of internal review as a normal part of their processes. Could the minister confirm that, and do we have any idea of how many departments already do this type of review in a major case investigation that's gone cold?

Hon. S. Anton: The goal here is to have consistent standards across British Columbia. It is the case that major case management practices have changed in British Columbia recently, certainly making them more robust. But as I said, the goal here is to make sure that we have consistent practices across the province.
[ Page 2628 ]

K. Corrigan: With regard to subsection (4), once a police force has provided a report on the internal review in a major case investigation that's gone cold and they send that to the director, the chief "is not required to conduct another internal review and give another report on the major case investigation unless (a) further investigative steps or actions are taken in the investigation."

I wonder if the minister has any concern at all that this provision that another review and report would have to be generated…. Is the minister concerned that there might be a bit of a tendency to not want to reopen an investigation because of the paperwork that would be associated with redoing that? I don't think there is, but I'm just wondering if that was a consideration at all.

Hon. S. Anton: The police have a statutory and common-law duty to both conduct investigations and enforce the law. As the member observed about her own local police department, that's what police departments do. We're fortunate in British Columbia that we are well served by our police departments. If they find more information, they will investigate it. They're under a duty to investigate it.

K. Corrigan: I'm sure the minister is absolutely right.

I wanted to go on to the actual audit section of this additional part to the Police Act. The police chief has sent an internal review report on a major case investigation that has not had activity, essentially, for the last year.

[1155]

Upon receipt of that report the director of police services "may require an audit of a major case investigation" if the director considers that the police force, or whoever it was, "did not ensure compliance with the director's standards…."

I believe this is to satisfy recommendation 8.3 of the report on the Missing Women Inquiry, where Justice Oppal said that if there is a report like this, there should be an audit. The difference here is that in the legislation we are considering, "The director may require an audit," and the recommendation from Justice Oppal was that there would be an audit, that it would be mandatory: "The director will appoint another police department to conduct an independent audit."

I'm wondering if the minister could explain why there's discretion under the legislation proposed, as opposed to the mandatory audit proposed by Justice Oppal.

Hon. S. Anton: The requirement to development the report by the police chief is a requirement. It's mandatory. Delivery of it to the director of police services is mandatory, but at that point, yes, the director will have discretion as to whether or not to require an audit.

With that answer, I move the committee rise, report progress and request permission to meet again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:57 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. J. Rustad moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 10:59 a.m.

On Vote 44: ministry operations, $812,293,000 (continued).

A. Weaver: I have a number of questions that I'm hoping to provide via written form to the minister that could be answered at a later date by written response, if the minister so agrees.

[1100]

I'll just ask a couple here on a topic that will not be covered by the critic. The first is with respect to the government's second condition for heavy-oil pipeline projects — namely, that there be a world-leading marine oil spill response prevention and recovery system. Should that not be met, the government has said it will not support the northern gateway or Kinder Morgan pipelines and that it has mechanisms at its disposal to significantly impede these projects.

This criteria is in place, of course, to protect the B.C. coastline. Does the minister have any similar powers to prevent heavy oil from coming by rail and being transported by tanker off our coast? If so, what are these mechanisms?
[ Page 2629 ]

Hon. T. Stone: First off, I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question and for the fact that he provided a number of questions ahead of time. I want to provide him with the assurance that if we aren't able to get to all of the questions here in estimates, we will be certain to provide you with a written response in as much detail as we can on each and every one of your questions.

With respect to the specific question that the member has asked, the jurisdiction with respect to the railways in British Columbia is federal. They are federally regulated railways. That being said, we certainly collaborate as closely as we possibly can with the federal government and the railways when it comes to a spill response or disaster response. Those efforts are led through the Ministry of Environment, as the member knows so well.

We are also engaged at many different levels with Transport Canada and right through to the minister's office federally, Minister Lisa Raitt. I have had a number of conversations about rail safety and other transport of hazardous materials, so we certainly express, as forcefully as we can, British Columbia's concerns related to rail safety. But at the end of the day, the levers are within federal jurisdiction.

A. Weaver: Does this budget allocate any funding to the development or expansion of port infrastructure that will be used directly or indirectly to support increased coal exports, including ports at Ridley Island, Texada Island and Fraser Surrey Docks? If so, how much?

[1105]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question.

With respect to whether or not there are any dollars in the budget to support expansion of any of our ports with respect to the export of coal, I'm going to say very clearly that the budget does not allocate any funding for this — the development or expansion of port infrastructure at Ridley Island, Texada Island, the Fraser Surrey Docks or other facilities — but may directly or indirectly support increased coal exports.

A. Weaver: My final question is with respect to events that happened at Lac-Mégantic and reports from the past year about plans to transport heavy oil by rail from Alberta to the B.C. coast. The question is: what plans does the minister have for ensuring the safety of communities along rail routes in order to prevent a similar disaster here in B.C., and is there any money in the budget to assist with such planning?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, as I mentioned a moment ago in response to a question previously, the regulation of our federal railways is federal, so there are no levers that the province of British Columbia has directly in legislation or within jurisdiction to regulate the railways.

That being said, obviously the tragedy that took place at Lac-Mégantic is one that has been seared in all of our memories and one that we want to make sure doesn't happen again, not just within British Columbia but, I think, anywhere in Canada. To that end, we are having discussions at many different levels with the federal government — at the staff level, the Ministry of Transportation to Transport Canada and certainly at the political level as well. I've had a number of conversations personally with federal Transport Minister Lisa Raitt about the transport of hazardous materials, and she certainly knows where we stand on that and the expectations that we have on behalf of British Columbians.

I will say that I think, although it may be in inches as opposed to feet, there is progress being made. The federal government has been tightening up regulations. There are now, for example, much more stringent requirements on the railways — federal requirements for the railways to consult and engage with the communities through which they pass.

I represent a community in Kamloops that has both CN and CP travel through varying parts of the community, right through our downtown in the case of CP and through residential neighbourhoods in the case of CN, so, obviously, this is an issue that's near and dear to my heart. We will continue to advocate strongly on behalf of British Columbians for the federal government to continue to further strengthen regulations and requirements related to the transport of hazardous materials.

V. Huntington: I apologize to the minister. I do have a question on the SFPR, and I don't know if your staff wish to change.

I'm not sure that Mr. Freer needs his entire binder system with him for it.

[1110]

Again, I'd like to thank Mr. Freer for the time he does spend with myself and my staff on our multitude of questions that are ongoing with regard to the unfolding of the SFPR. We really do appreciate it.

This question has to do with the deer kills along the highway. As the minister and his staff will know, there have been a number of deer killed, ten to a dozen — the bulk of them around the Burns Bog area, so in my riding. While the minister has been fond of saying — and I know Mr. Freer has also said the same thing — that we have 50 wildlife crossings on the SFPR, until these deer kills were evident, the number that were referred to as wildlife crossings was certainly not up in the 50s.

I think we're talking about now that every single culvert or bridge that is on the SFPR has become a wildlife crossing. Until that point where the deer kills became so significant, there were, I think, two bridge overpasses on ravines in North Delta, and there was at least one culvert, if not two, in south Delta that I'm particularly referring to.
[ Page 2630 ]

I know that my concern and the concern of others has been that the culverts were never properly designed for efficient wildlife movement. We were looking into what the studies out there have said about appropriate crossings for deer, and it turns out the Wisconsin Department of Transportation conducted a review of all the wildlife studies that looked at deer crossings. They have reached the conclusion that deer prefer open crossings, because they avoid spaces where there is no obvious avenue of escape. When you have a four-lane culvert, they tend not to enter it.

They have realized that a height of eight feet and a width of at least 23 feet is the recommended minimum for wildlife underpasses intended for deer. The culvert-style underpasses that were intended for deer on the SFPR appear to be about nine feet by two metres — two metres wide or so.

I'd like, first, to ask what the dimensions are of the culvert underpasses intended for deer on the SFPR. What information or experts did the ministry staff consult when choosing the design of these underpasses, and did they ask for data from the experts on the design of these?

[1115]

Hon. T. Stone: It's a very good question. We're all concerned about the wildlife part of the safety review that I launched a number of months back looking at our rural highways across the province. One of the four things we're looking at is wildlife collisions. Obviously, it adds a significant cost to the claims. People die, and it's obviously not good for the wildlife in question as well.

On the SFPR, again — I want to just reiterate for the record — one of the largest environmental and agricultural mitigation programs in the history of the province, if not the largest, $100 million has been invested. This included cleaning up landfills and contaminated sites and improving the water management system for Burns Bog and over 40 environmental areas. It also included 80 fish habitats and, indeed, 25 wildlife crossings.

Specific to deer, we did install a number of large culverts. There were also smaller culverts for smaller mammals, but there were a number of large culverts. These large culverts have a diameter of approximately two metres.

We are in the process also of installing about two kilometres of additional wildlife fencing along the SFPR. My understanding is that about half a kilometre has been installed. The other 1½ kilometres of fencing should be installed over the next six weeks. That will make a difference. We also upgraded the signage for motorists so that we can increase the awareness of the driving public.

All of these measures, all of these wildlife mitigation strategies, have been based on wildlife data provided by wildlife biologists. It's all based on science that well-recognized wildlife biologists have provided us.

It's still a bit early to see if all of these mitigation efforts have made the difference that we hope for. The collisions were down in February. We don't have the March numbers yet. We'll see how we did in March. But we're going to continue to do what we can to mitigate and, hopefully, not just reduce but eliminate collisions with wildlife on the SFPR.

V. Huntington: Firstly, I think our research is showing that your biologists were incorrect in their advice, unless their advice was overruled by the engineering staff. Fencing is standard when dealing with wildlife underpasses. It was not put in place in the beginning. What makes the ministry now feel that fencing will direct deer to these culverts that they are refusing to use in the first place? And how is the fencing taking into account the normal forage patterns of the deer?

[1120]

Hon. T. Stone: Certainly, as I said a moment ago, all of the wildlife mitigation measures that were included as part of the initial build of the SFPR were based on recommendations of wildlife biologists.

The member may have other individuals that she believes are reputable, and maybe they are. We certainly stand by the wildlife biologists that we have used on this project. They do terrific work not just on the SFPR but across British Columbia and are recognized for that great work.

The mitigation efforts that were done on the SFPR were based on their recommendations. The additional mitigation that is being done now, including the inclusion of this two kilometres' worth of wildlife fencing, is also based on the recommendations from the wildlife biologists.

If these mitigation measures do not work, if we do not see the desired result materialize as a result of these additional mitigation measures, then we will be all over that. We're going to watch this very, very closely, and we will take further measures if necessary. But we're confident that these additional mitigation measures are going to make the difference that's intended here on the SFPR.

V. Huntington: Just quickly on a different subject. I wonder if the minister could provide me, at a later date, with the total cost to date of the property tax subsidy for Port of Vancouver and the cost to the province so far of its subsidy of the GPS installations, which the minister said the province was supporting one-third of the cost. That is another cost to the port that the province is basically subsidizing. I'd like to know the full cost of that.

That completes my questions.

Mr. Chair, they're welcome to provide that information at a later date, if they prefer.

The Chair: Minister, the member has said that if you wish to provide that information at a later date, that'd be
[ Page 2631 ]
fine. We can go on to the next question. It's up to you — unless you're almost there.

Hon. T. Stone: We'll answer the question.

On the first part of the member's question, the port of Metro Vancouver does not actually receive any property tax subsidy from the province of British Columbia. There is none.

On the second part of the question, with respect to the GPS program that is being implemented by the port of Metro Vancouver, again, this is a program that the port is about 50 percent of the way through in terms of installing it on trucks. We expect the port will be at 100 percent by the end of the year.

[1125]

The member quite correctly indicated that the provincial government's share of this…. We're cost-sharing in this — one-third, one-third, one-third — with the federal government and the port itself. The approximate total cost of the program is about $1 million, so the province of British Columbia's share would be approximately $300,000.

The program, as the member knows well, is one of a number of initiatives that are targeted at reducing congestion at the port. Certainly, it's making a difference, with just 50 percent of the fleet having it in place today. We look forward to the entire fleet being engaged with GPS by the end of this year.

C. Trevena: We're switching now to B.C. Transit. While the staff rearrange themselves, I'll put the first question, though, which can be started to work on. There were very clear targets to increase ridership on B.C. Transit which are not being achieved. I wondered how that is being dealt with.

I have some more specific questions about the B.C. Transit service plan, but I just wanted to get an overview of how they're dealing with the fact that current rates of transit ridership goals are not being met.

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to B.C. Transit, I guess we'll start off at the highest level. We continue to be committed to the targets set in the B.C. Transit plan. I think, as the member is rightfully asking or pointing out to us, the targets if nothing are ambitious. There's no question about that. We do believe that progress is being made towards achieving the targets.

We are seeing, for example, a tremendous uptake in a number of communities across the province. Take, for example, intercommunity transit. The new rapid bus service in Kelowna–West Kelowna is vastly exceeding its initial projections. Similarly, there's a service from the Cowichan Valley to Victoria — very, very well received by the public and is exceeding its initial projections.

In my hometown of Kamloops transit ridership is up yet again this year over last year. The city, in partnership with B.C. Transit, is expanding capacity even further, which is good news. We're seeing that in communities across British Columbia, and demand for more intercommunity transit is also on the increase.

[1130]

Again, while not specific to B.C. Transit, certainly, we're seeing ridership increase in the Lower Mainland as well, as part of TransLink. I know we'll get to TransLink later, but certainly the rapid transit bus over the Port Mann Bridge, which moves 50,000 people every month, the Evergreen line, when that comes on line….

From a provincial transit perspective, when we look at the targets in the provincial transportation plan, of which B.C. Transit is a big part — so is TransLink — when Evergreen is completed, not only will British Columbia have the longest rapid transit system anywhere in Canada, but we will also be much, much closer to achieving the overall provincial transit targets. Certainly, much more work to do in terms of striving to achieve the ambitious targets.

I will end on this note. This is, in part, why we are moving forward and why it was announced in the throne speech to move forward with a refresh of the ten-year transportation plan. The provincial transit plan is over five years old now and is in need of being updated, and will be within the context of the ten-year transportation plan.

C. Trevena: There was going to be, as well as a ten-year transportation plan, a whole new transit plan. We have heard a lot of reports on the transit plan, that it was going to be a whole new plan. That's just as an aside question.

A couple of areas I'd like to follow-up on…. One is, specifically, the intercommunity transit that the minister is talking about. I know it's separate, but we have seen Greyhound scale back its service, particularly, which is impacting rural communities and isolated communities. Yet there is this commitment, a spoken commitment, to increasing the ability for people to move from community to community. I'm wondering if the minister can respond to that and what suasion he can use to keep other operators on the road, if it's not through B.C. Transit.

The other question that I have on intercommunity, the one that keeps coming up, obviously, is the bus that was recommended for Highway 16, which seems to be a perfect use of an intercommunity transit system — whether the minister can comment on whether that is in the cards. I'll leave it with that for the moment and then continue with the transit plan.

[1135]

Hon. T. Stone: First, the first part of the member's question, with respect to Greyhound. As the member knows well, Greyhound, as a private operator, is actually in the end-to-end business, not the intercommunity business.
[ Page 2632 ]

Certainly, I've had discussions with them, and they have indicated a willingness to collaborate with B.C. Transit where it makes sense. An example of that could be Greyhound following through on their commitment to make their facilities in various parts of the province available to use at nominal costs by B.C. Transit, to facilitate B.C. Transit's efforts at building out more intercommunity transit. Perhaps there could be some opportunities there. We'll continue to explore that with Greyhound, in partnership with B.C. Transit.

Back to the intercommunity transit question. I do think that this is an area that represents tremendous opportunity in all corners of British Columbia. There are some really good models. I spoke a moment ago about what's happening in West Kelowna. There is certainly Cowichan Valley to Victoria.

The other model, which probably is amongst the best, is in the West Kootenays. I'm sure the member knows well that the communities of the West Kootenays have actually come together and made a very strong statement within their region. While they have not formed a transit commission similar to what we see in Victoria, they're certainly operating like one. They certainly, from a user's perspective, are trying to operate like one.

There's a tremendous amount of potential for improvement of service for people who live in those West Kootenay communities. I think there are lots of lessons that can be drawn from in various parts of the province, moving forward.

With respect to the member's question about Highway 16 and the potential for provision of some sort of a bus or shuttle service along that corridor. As various colleagues of mine — most notably the Attorney General — have repeated a number of times, we certainly are committed to following through on Wally Oppal's recommendation in terms of identifying and implementing better transportation options for those who live throughout that corridor.

To that extent, certainly the Ministry of Transportation…. Although, there has also been collaboration with a number of other ministries — community services, Justice and so forth, we have had a wide range of different types of meetings with local government officials, other stakeholders and communities throughout that corridor in an effort to try and come up with a solution that makes sense.

At this point I'm not able to be more specific than that in terms of any specific decisions that have been taken, but we certainly are committed to continuing to work with communities throughout that corridor on identifying safer transportation options for those who need them.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for his answers. I know we have only a short time this morning. I wanted to start going through some of the service plan for B.C. Transit.

It really doesn't make very rosy reading. There are a lot of concerns. For instance, going through the risks and opportunities, we have the comment: "Increasing operating costs and infrastructure replacement requirements will place increased pressure on long-term financial sustainability…. This could result in a high impact to the success of future transit operations."

On the ridership question, which we touched on earlier, "Decreased ability to assist the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in meeting the ridership targets identified in the provincial transit plan, increased pressure on local governments to fund revenue shortfalls…. Ridership is trending relatively flat; therefore, there is a high risk of not reaching the ridership targets," identified before, as we've discussed.

On infrastructure replacement: "Replacement or expansion of an operations and maintenance facility is a large-step function that is often considered unaffordable…. As a result, service expansion will be severely constrained in some communities due to inadequately sized operations facilities that store and maintain buses."

Given the state of the present budget and the determination to keep it on a flat level, I'm wondering whether the minister has any comments on this and any positive signs that we can take back that maybe B.C. Transit isn't going to be going, really, in the bad way that is indicated in its own service plan.

[1140]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I appreciate the member's questions with respect to B.C. Transit. There's no question that there are challenges ahead in terms of meeting what are very ambitious ridership targets.

I do want to say, though, that British Columbia continues — and this has been for a good number of years now — to invest more than double the Canadian average in transit here in British Columbia. When we look at every other province and how much each province invests per capita in transit, British Columbia continues to be double the Canadian average.

In fact, since 2001 the total operating grant support, the total funding that the government of British Columbia has provided B.C. Transit is now in excess of $1 billion. It's a direct result of that investment that we've actually seen, during the past 12 years, an increase in transit ridership of over 40 percent.

So we're making progress, and it's good progress. Clearly, there are challenges ahead that we will have to work with B.C. Transit to address in order to achieve the aggressive targets that we have in front of us.

I will say that operating grants over the next three years, in terms of the service plan, do provide for a 16 percent increase. That's a 16 percent increase in operating grants for B.C. Transit. There's also a healthy amount of capital dollars in the budget to allow for some buildout of facilities that are desperately needed in a few of our larger communities.
[ Page 2633 ]

Good work has been done. We're heading in the right direction, but certainly, there is more work that needs to be done in the months and years ahead.

C. Trevena: I think that we're all wanting to see an expansion in the growth of transit, to get vehicles off the road and get more people using public transit. It's going to be good for our province, good for communities.

That being said, I think we do have a very realistic assessment in this service plan from B.C. Transit. I'll reiterate, quoting page 13. It says: "The goals and objectives identified within this plan reflect service and initiatives that can be accomplished within a fiscally conservative environment." But it does say that service expansion is going to be constrained, that B.C. Transit's ability to attract and grow new riders will be limited.

It goes on: "…some regional systems will struggle to maintain existing services and may even choose to reduce services."

[1145]

To the minister, while he's talking about the investment comparative to other provinces, what are he and his ministry actually doing to ensure that B.C. Transit is going to have the stability there and that we are going to be able to ensure we can seriously attract new riders? How are we going to get people out of their cars and onto the buses?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, certainly we're going to continue to do everything that we can to achieve the very aggressive targets in the provincial transit plan. I also want to remind the member that our government was elected on a commitment to balance our budget, and we were very proud, only weeks ago or a month or so ago, to actually bring in our second consecutive balanced budget here in British Columbia.

That means making some tough decisions and not being able to fund every program in government to the extent that maybe is warranted or merited. But it certainly doesn't also mean that you stop funding transit, and this government has not stopped funding transit. As I mentioned in my last response, we are increasing operating grants for B.C. Transit by 16 percent over the next three years. That is not inconsequential.

We have seen a 40 percent increase in transit ridership over the last 12 years, and we project that we will continue to see transit ridership increase, both within the B.C. Transit network and also within TransLink's network, because of the significant capital investments that this government has made but also because of our ongoing commitment from an operating perspective. Again, a 16 percent increase in operating grants for B.C. Transit over the next three years.

C. Trevena: I'm very aware that we have just a few minutes until we have to go, and I'm just expanding a little bit here. I'm not going to belabour the point. I know I'm going to continue getting the same answers from the minister, so there's very little point carrying on, pressing on it. I just want to go perhaps with a different tack.

The 2012 review of transit was prepared for the government, and the recommendations of the review were accepted. It was the audit of B.C.'s transit ridership growth, Modernizing the Partnership. All the recommendations were accepted by this government. There are some recommendations that do take legislation. We have heard from the Government House Leader that there is going to be no further legislation in this session.

I'm wondering, from the minister — it's Modernizing the Partnership: Report of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel — why there is this delay. This was published in 2012. We're at 2014. We do have a legislative session now. We don't know when we're ever going to have one again. When are we going to see some of these legislative changes take place that might help us get where we need to with transit?

[1150]

Hon. T. Stone: As the member has pointed out, the review that she has mentioned was an August 2012 review. It was a three-person panel that conducted an independent review of B.C. Transit. There were 18 recommendations that came out of that review. The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure has accepted all 18 recommendations, again as the member quite correctly stated.

Within the 18 recommendations there are actually six items that require legislative change, and there are 26 items that do not. I'm pleased to report that all 26 non-legislative items have actually been fully implemented, again in partnership with B.C. Transit and, actually, the Union of B.C. Municipalities as well.

The six items that do require legislative change — we are committed to implementing those. They obviously will have to be implemented at an upcoming legislative session. They won't be implemented in this session. What we may do is look at bringing those legislative changes forward post-review of the provincial transit plan, which, again, is within the context of the ten-year provincial plan.

We think that's a more appropriate time because, frankly, coming out of the review that we're doing of the transit and transportation plan, there may be other legislative changes that may make sense that we would then bring forward at the same time as the six remaining ones from this review.

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