2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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, May 17, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 40, Number 3

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

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2016

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: Tomorrow is B.C. Beef Day in the province of British Columbia and, in particular, in this wonderful precinct.

It’s a great day which signals long lineups, short speeches, great food and, of course, the end of the session shortly after — so I think it’s everything everybody wants to enjoy.

[1005]

We happen to have a group that’s here today, early, to discuss priorities in the beef industry. With us today in the gallery from the B.C. Association of Cattle Feeders are the executive team of Andrea van Iterson, August Bremer, Joe Heemskerk, Doug Houghton and Doug MacFarlane.

Could the House please make them feel very welcome.

N. Macdonald: The newly elected president of the Doctors of B.C. is Dr. Trina Larsen Soles. She’s practised in Golden, actually, for almost 30 years. She has been, for many years, a champion of rural medicine and is a strong advocate for public medicine.

Golden is a small town, so to have somebody come from Golden to take a very prestigious position is something that we’re all very, very proud of. I know that she’s been a fantastic doctor in our community, and the Doctors of B.C. are lucky to have her. She’s a very capable person.

Would the House join me in congratulating Dr. Trina Larsen Soles.

Hon. A. Virk: Madame Speaker, at nine o’clock this morning, you and all members of this House came together to unveil an exhibit honouring the contribution of South Asians to Canada and to British Columbia and namely in the war theatre as well, where a number of displays were put forward — medals and other ornaments that are a testament to the service.

I was joined by some approximately 50 members of the extended Virk clan for that event. There are some of them that are still here that I wish to introduce. First of all, my mother, Tej Kaur Virk, is here with us today. Accompanying them is my brother Dr. Karm Virk visiting from Seattle; my sister-in-law Sangeeta Virk; my three favourite Americans, my two American nieces, Jaiya and Meera, and my American nephew, Arman; also, my lovely wife of some 27 years next week, Jatinder; and my daughters Anisha and Maansi.

Would the House please make them welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two remarkable youth who are in the gallery with us this morning. They are and Rupert and Franny Yakelashek, two young environmental rights activists from Victoria.

Franny and Rupert have been working with local governments across British Columbia in developing environmental rights declarations and building support for provincial and federal bills of environmental rights. Franny and Rupert were awarded the 2015 Mayor’s Medal for Environment for their positive impact on the city of Victoria and its community and are finalists for the 2016 International Young Eco-Hero Award.

Rupert is just 12 years old, and his sister Franny is only nine. Our future is in very fine hands.

Would the House please join me in welcoming Rupert, Franny and their mother, Skye.

Hon. P. Fassbender: We don’t often get a chance in this House to thank those that work in our respective offices. Today two great individuals that work in the ministry office. Lia Robbins is our administrative coordinator, and I do want to mention that she’s engaged to be married to her fiancé, Kevin Thomson, this summer. Joining her is Taylor Brown, who’s the administrative assistant. We were able to steal her from the Ministry of Transportation. Both of them do a tremendous job for the ministry and, of course, for myself as the minister.

I’d like the House to make them feel very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, would like to welcome Rupert and Franny here to this Legislature. They’ve been incredible advocates, taught me a lot and certainly convinced me of the need for an environmental bill of rights for British Columbia. Thank you to them.

I’d also like to acknowledge that today is the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia. It’s a very important day. Quite exciting action happening in Ottawa, with the introduction of legislation to explicitly protect transgender people. I’d like to thank our federal government.

I hope this House can join me in celebrating today’s introduction of that legislation.

[1010]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’re joined today by two stalwarts of the British Columbia film industry — Jason McLean and Pete Mitchell. I hope the House can welcome them and encourage them to continue their fine work.

J. Rice: Today in the House is someone who has personally inspired me to do the job that I do today as MLA. Jackie Joseph is in the House. Jackie Joseph is of the Wet’suwet’en Nation, of the Carrier tribe, and Jackie
[ Page 13172 ]
has overcome tremendous adversity, particularly when it comes to violent relationships.

Together, this weekend we attended the first-ever Heiltsuk women’s feast in Bella Bella, where we witnessed an uplifting of the women in Heiltsuk territory to be Heiltsuk strong, to put an end to violence against women. Jackie was an instrumental part of that feast, and I would like the House to make her feel welcome. It’s her first time here. She’s a very special person to me, and a wonderful community leader.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m pleased to welcome today, from Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, an organization formed in 1973 to provide information and assistance to strata property owners on Vancouver Island…. Today we have with us Sandy Wagner, who’s the president — and John Webb, who’s the vice-president — of the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Holman: We have several guests from my constituency here today from the Regent Christian Online Academy. Visiting us today are students Cassia, Lydia, Olivia, Joanna, and Joshua, and their teacher Lori ann. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

AUSTIN WANG

Hon. S. Anton: A few weeks ago — thank you to the Minister of Education for arranging this — we had Austin Wang here in Victoria and introduced to the House. At that time, he had just won the gold medal at the Taiwan Science Fair and was on his way to the next competition, which he has now recently won. He received the grand prize at the 2016 International Science and Engineering Fair, called the Intel, held in Phoenix, Arizona. He was awarded $75,000 and is on his way to Princeton University.

I’ve asked the Minister of Energy to listen in on this part carefully because his award-winning project identifies a specific gene in E. coli bacteria which enables them to generate energy in microbial fuel cells by converting organic waste into electricity. Austin also won the Intel Best of Category Award of $5,000, and $1,200 for the China Association for Science and Technology. He’s one of eight Team Canada students who, together, brought home $160,000 in awards from this fair.

I should add that he’s the second Vancouverite in a row to win the $75,000 prize. He is the pride of his family; his high school, David Thompson High; his principal, Marea Jensen; mentors from the community; mentors from UBC. As I said, he’s on his way to Princeton, and as the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said a few moments ago, we can have confidence in our future when our youth are doing so extremely well. Would the House please join me in congratulating Austin for his success.

TYSON VENEGAS

L. Reimer: I rise in the House today to recognize a wonderfully talented constituent of mine, Tyson Venegas. Tyson has won the B.C. Junior Talent Search and PNE Star Showdown.

In March of last year, Tyson also sung the national anthems for Canada and the U.S. at a Canucks versus St. Louis Blues game at Rogers Arena. Tyson’s list of achievements also includes two performances at Carnegie Hall. To add to the list, he’s also sung with his hero and fellow British Columbian, Michael Bublé.

Did I mention that Tyson is only ten? It looks as if there is no stopping Tyson’s bid for musical success, as he is currently in California working on his debut album. I’d like to also mention Tyson’s mom, Iris. As parents, we do our best to support the dreams of our children, and Iris exemplifies this notion. Will the House please join me in wishing Tyson great success in making his dreams come true.

[1015]

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Oakes: I have several guests that I would like the House to welcome today. First is a lovely family that many on both sides of the House had the true privilege to meet. Lee-Anne and Fabio dos Santos have just recently moved to Victoria with their two incredible daughters. Would the House please make them welcome.

And we have some guests from Community Futures. In our communities, Community Futures does such an incredible job of supporting small businesses and engaging our economic development in our communities. Today we have the chair of Community Futures, Wendy Smitka, and joining her is the fantastic executive director, Marie Gallant. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: In the precinct today, we are joined by Aaron Sutherland. Aaron is with the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They are here to demonstrate what a magnitude 8.0 earthquake would feel like, so I would encourage all members, at noon, to go out to the shake zone at the front steps of the Legislature to experience that. Would the House please make Aaron and the Insurance Bureau of Canada welcome.

J. Shin: Joining us in the gallery this morning are the members from the Muslim women’s association, led by my very, very good friend and an incredible community leader Farida Bano Ali. Masjid and Islam schools in many corners of our province are the focal points where the BCMA women’s chapter meets to champion many
[ Page 13173 ]
of their initiatives for their local communities, from the violence-against-women workshops and breast cancer awareness campaigns to interfaith dialogue as well as government liaison for advocacy.

The journey of Muslim women in our province has been filled with stories of hard work, perseverance, cooperation and dedication. On behalf of the House, I would like to thank each and every one of them for their compassion and their strength and would ask all the members to please join me in welcoming Ruby Calvez, Shazia Rashid, Sadrul Buksh, Zein Ali-Akileh, Saira Yunus, Shahin Junes, Hamida Hassan and Fatima Nazeer.

J. Tegart: I had the honour of hosting my granddaughter here at the House, and fortunately, or unfortunately, we weren’t here yesterday for question period. But she got to see the work that is done by both sides of this House and was very impressed. She’s not here today because she’s on her way home, but I would like all members of the House to make Morgan Tegart very welcome.

Statements

RESPONSE TO FIRE IN WHITE ROCK

G. Hogg: Many communities are challenged and, thus, galvanized by crises. The people of White Rock are now enduring one such crisis. A major fire has taken well over 100 people from their homes and their businesses. The responders and the citizens acted quickly, with efficiency and with compassion.

It has been a very challenging few days for them. The resilience and support they’ve shown for each other, and the optimism, have been inspirational. The first responders, the firefighters of both White Rock and Surrey, the RCMP, the city staff, the social services and many businesses and citizens have all been remarkable in the assistance, support and donations that they’ve given to the people.

Please join me in extending our gratitude and support to them and to the citizens and businesses as they face the challenges ahead, knowing that they have the support of their community and of this province as they face those challenges.

Introductions by Members

L. Throness: I’d like to welcome a class of 22 grade 10 students who’ve just come into the gallery from Timothy Christian School. They come from beautiful Rosedale in my riding. Joining them are their principal, Doug Stam, their chaperons Daniel Van Brugge and Carol Van Klei, and their faithful bus driver, Lena Sterkenburg. Would you welcome them.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M235 — BRITISH COLUMBIA
LOCAL FOOD ACT, 2016

L. Popham presented a bill intituled British Columbia Local Food Act, 2016.

L. Popham: I move that the British Columbia Local Food Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1020]

L. Popham: The purpose of the British Columbia Local Food Act is to improve and maximize food security, economic return and population health outcomes from our public land trust, the agricultural land reserve.

The legislation will accomplish these purposes through five core elements:

(1) Eliminate the two-tier ALR created under Bill 24, by transferring all ALR areas currently categorized in zone 2 into zone 1 and eliminating the zone 2 designation.

(2) Establish a legislative standing committee on food and agriculture which will have a voice in determining the chair and other members of the Agricultural Land Commission.

(3) Mandate this committee to prepare, in consultation with the Agriculture Minister, a plan to increase local food production, marketing and processing. The plan would set targets and implement policies to meet those targets, which would be reported annually to the Legislature.

(4) Implement a comprehensive strategy on government purchasing locally grown food.

(5) Reintroduce the successful Buy B.C. program.

It is my view that our province currently lacks a detailed comprehensive strategy that ensures we are fully capitalizing on our agricultural land base in a way that grows our economy and improves population health and food security. Other jurisdictions are ahead of B.C. in terms of encouraging farming and food processing to support, expand and sustain their agriculture sector and domestic economy.

I move that it be placed on the order paper for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 13174 ]

Bill M235, British Columbia Local Food Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M236 — ENVIRONMENTAL
BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 2016.

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: Over the past decade, British Columbia has seen a steady erosion of the environmental laws in our province. The lack of any significant climate action from this province is a clear example. By outlining the rights and responsibilities of the B.C. government and the citizens of British Columbia, this bill is designed to complement and expand upon existing legislation used when decisions impact the environment.

This bill reinforces British Columbians’ right to a healthy environment and the government’s responsibility to protect it for this generation and those to come. A version of this legislation has already been passed in five legislatures across Canada: Ontario, Quebec, Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories.

Furthermore, 47 municipalities in British Columbia have already made declarations concerning their citizens’ rights to a healthy environment. This was reaffirmed at the UBCM convention last fall when a motion was endorsed to call for legislation that grounded this right in environmental law.

I visited resource development projects across British Columbia. The most successful of these, which also create the greatest benefits for their local economy, are those that account for their impacts on the environment. This should become the norm for anyone who wants to do business in B.C.

The Environmental Bill of Rights Act introduces a number of new policy measures that will assure increased transparency and access to environmental decision-making and create a stronger framework for British Columbians to be included in environmental decisions made in this province.

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

Bill M236, Environmental Bill of Rights Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

S. Robinson: This week, May 15 to 22, is Local Government Awareness Week. This is an opportunity for us to reflect and acknowledge the efforts that our mayors, councillors and directors make in our communities. Our local governments work hard to strengthen our economy, and they work hard to build more resilient communities.

Over the past six weeks, I have had the pleasure of attending all five of British Columbia’s area association meetings. These meetings were hosted in Nanaimo, Kelowna, Dawson Creek, Kimberley and Whistler. At each gathering, I was able to see and hear about the ways that mayors, councillors and regional directors from all over the province are working hard to plan and strengthen our communities.

They were talking about the need for communities to designate lands for job creation so that we can work closer to home. There were discussions about setting aside parkland so that communities have sufficient green space to meet our physical, mental and spiritual needs. They talked about roads, sidewalks, transportation, drinking water, sewage, homelessness and housing. They talked about policing programs, fire response and bylaw services that work together, keeping our homes, our families and our businesses safe.

[1025]

They were talking about ways to reach out to residents, to find creative ways to engage citizens and how to build a well-functioning council.

When we look at the total responsibility of local governments, we can really appreciate all that they do for our communities. I invite all members of this House to join me in acknowledging Local Government Awareness Week and thanking our local governments for their contributions to making our lives and the lives of our constituents more livable.

ANNIVERSARY OF SECOND
NARROWS BRIDGE COLLAPSE

J. Thornthwaite: Next month will mark the 58th anniversary of the single-worst industrial accident in Vancouver history. On June 17, 1958, construction crews were working on the Second Narrows Bridge, a new crossing along the Trans-Canada Highway that would connect Vancouver with the North Shore.

Crews were nearing the end of their shift when they heard the cry of screaming metal. Forty metres above Burrard Inlet, two bridge spans collapsed, dragging debris, tangled metal and 79 workers into the water below. In total, 20 people were seriously injured and 19 lost their lives, including 14 ironworkers, three engineers, a paint-
[ Page 13175 ]
er and a commercial diver who drowned while trying to help recover a body.

The cause of the collapse proved to be a complex problem and brought into question the safety practices of the day, the quality of the building materials and the procedures used for engineering temporary supports.

The accident was immortalized with many tributes, from books and poems to the famous Stompin’ Tom Connors song, The Bridge Came Tumbling Down, and the book Tragedy at Second Narrows by Eric Jamieson.

The bridge was completed and opened to the public in August of 1960, and in 1994 it was officially renamed the Ironworkers Memorial in honour of the workers who lost their lives. Every June 17, a memorial is held to commemorate the anniversary of the collapse, to pay tribute to those who died and to recognize the workers who survived.

Today there are four survivors, all of whom I have met — Norm Atkinson, Lou Lessard, Gary Poirier and Byron Main. For them, I quote Carol Doyle:

He builds bridges, buildings and schools.

Around his waist hang all his tools.

When the job is done, the last beam made,

he looks with pride upon his trade,

for he has left footprints on the iron.

MARINE CONSERVATION AREA FOR
SOUTHERN STRAIT OF GEORGIA

G. Holman: There’s encouraging news about two related issues I’ve raised here before — the proposed national marine conservation area for the southern Strait of Georgia and the endangered resident orca population. But we must act decisively to protect them both.

The NMCA has been supported in principle by federal and provincial governments since they signed a memorandum of understanding in 2003. The new federal government has now adopted protection targets for Canadian marine waters, and Parks Canada has hired staff to lead the NMCA planning process.

The south Salish Sea is one of the most productive marine ecosystems in the world, home to more than 3,000 species. Parks Canada calls the area the most at-risk natural environment in Canada. This includes our southern resident orcas, threatened by toxic contamination, noise pollution and diminished stocks of chinook salmon.

There’s a baby boom in the orca pod, but perhaps due to pollution, most appear to be males. These animals are still at risk, and the federal government has yet to develop a meaningful recovery plan, despite a court order to do so.

The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce now agrees. NMCA can generate significant benefits from marine-related industries such as fishing and ecotourism. Along with hundreds of my constituents petitioning this House today, I call for the protection of this special place with full consent and partnership of First Nations.

I also advocate for the southern resident orca, which live longer than many humans, engage in complex communication and form lifelong families headed by matriarchs.

We have an opportunity to protect the most endangered marine environment in Canada and avoid the destruction of its most iconic inhabitants. It’s 2016. Let’s get on with it.

COMMUNITY POVERTY
REDUCTION STRATEGIES

J. Tegart: It’s my pleasure to speak briefly today about the community poverty reduction strategy initiative. I’m proud to be the government’s liaison for this project, working with the MCFD director Kathy Berrgren-Clive.

We work with community-based partners in participating communities to develop, implement and enhance their local poverty reduction strategies. The initiatives, philosophy and the goal to address individual barriers is based on the belief that no one experiences poverty in exactly the same way.

[1030]

The impact for the families involved has been enormous. Their quality of life improved, barriers were lifted and stress levels declined. Families are at the centre of this initiative. MCFD family consultants work directly with community partners to develop local plans and, with participating families, to develop individual plans that help move them out of poverty.

The information gathered from each community strategy also helps provide a detailed picture of the key barriers and issues that families face as we continue working to reduce poverty across British Columbia. The work has taken me recently to Revelstoke, New Westminster, Stewart and Cranbrook.

Communities understand firsthand the effect of poverty and the impact it can have on individuals and families. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this complex and debilitating problem. That’s why we collaborate with partners in each community to find the most effective way to reduce poverty locally. I’ve met many incredible people, working hard to make a difference for their community members who are most vulnerable.

Today I would like to recognize those individuals and say thank you. The work you do makes a difference every day.

PASSPORT 2 PLAY INITIATIVE AND
PARENT ADVOCACY FOR EDUCATION

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to speak about and recognize the important role of public education — what that plays in building community.

Passport 2 Play is a sporting event for Vancouver school board students who have cognitive and physical disabilities.
[ Page 13176 ]

Last week there was a very successful event held at Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School with many students attending from across the district, supported by principal Dr. Irfan Sheikh and vice-principal Nick Akrap in collaboration with the Vancouver District Parent Advisory Council, Tupper life skills teachers Rosemary Evans and Allison Frers and, in particular, the leadership of students — to really support and provide a venue to engage and make sure that all students in our school districts are included.

We know right across the province that most school districts are also the largest employers in many communities, and it’s a huge contributor to the local community. A key role, of course, and an important part are the role of parents supporting students in schools and particularly the advocacy of groups that I have met with — families who have founded PAN, which is the Parents Advocacy Network for Public Education.

They uphold the right of all children to free, high-quality public education, accessible in their own neighbourhoods and educationally appropriate in seismically safe buildings with the resources and staff to meet their learning needs.

We know that they are supported and work together, as well, with Families Against Cuts to Education; Public Education Network Society, who have adopted and promote the charter for public education network; B.C. Parents of Special Needs Children; Parent Advocates for Gifted Education in Schools; as well as the Vancouver District Parent Advisory Council. They have expanded and have representatives in 49 schools across our province, encouraging more action. They have a #BCedinthered and look to promote adequate funding for public education.

IRONWORKERS UNION

G. Kyllo: The Ironworkers are a specialized private sector union with locals across North America. In B.C., Local 97, led by James Leland, represents about 1,800 men and women in the ironworking industry. Their members are highly skilled and have been recognized as a Red Seal trade with a high degree of global mobility. They have built many of the bridges and office towers in B.C. and are an active member of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Last week the Ironworkers expressed their support for Site C, LNG and mining. To quote Ironworkers business agent Doug Parton: “All we want to do is go to work — simple as that. You can draw your own conclusions from that. We support people that support us and put our members to work.”

In a media scrum that same day, Doug Parton had more praise for our government’s direction on major projects. “The Ironworkers heavily support industry as far as LNG, Site C, dams and mining — stuff like that. That’s our bread and butter. That’s the thing that puts our young people to work and creates a strong tax base.”

The Ironworkers also support apprenticeship training and currently have close to 300 men and women enrolled in apprenticeship training. Trades coordinator Derek Dizney leads the apprenticeship program with the Ironworkers. They have an impressive 90 percent completion rate.

[1035]

I’d like to recognize and thank the Ironworkers union for their commitment to British Columbia.

Oral Questions

BREACH-OF-TRUST COURT CASE AND
INVESTIGATION INTO MULTICULTURAL
OUTREACH STRATEGY

J. Horgan: After three years of dodges, after three years of cover-ups, we have charges laid against a political operative connected to the Premier on her leadership team — charges of breach of trust laid by the special prosecutor today. There’s more to come, but this doesn’t seem to be much of a surprise.

We have charges against an operative in the Minister of Transportation’s office just in the past number of months. We have the head of the B.C. Liberal Party facing breach-of-trust charges in another jurisdiction. We have a report from the Privacy Commissioner saying, inexplicably, that the Premier’s office routinely deletes emails and disregards freedom-of-information and privacy laws.

In light of all of this, and in light of the revelations that more will be coming, can the Deputy Premier advise us how long he has known that B.C. Liberal operatives would be facing criminal charges as a result of the quick-win scandal?

Hon. S. Anton: In a case where there is an allegation against government, a special prosecutor is appointed. In this case, a special prosecutor was appointed in August of 2013, nearly three years ago. His job is to advise the RCMP to assist where needed in their investigation.

The reporting structure is through to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, namely the head of the criminal justice branch. That is to keep the separation — the very important separation — between government and the political process and the special prosecutor. That is the process that was followed in this case, and yes, I can confirm that there was an information sworn earlier today. That matter is, of course, now before the court.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It’s just one big happy family in Liberal land. The head of the operation charged with breach of
[ Page 13177 ]
trust in Ontario. We now have operatives right beside the Premier being charged with breach of trust as a result of their activities going into the last election. We have charges against a member’s assistant with respect to deleting documents about murdered and missing women. It’s little wonder that we can’t keep track.

The only people we know were never under investigation were the health researchers that were fired and smeared by this government. So I guess it’s good for one but not for the other.

Again my question is to the Deputy Premier: how long has he known about criminal activity in the Premier’s office?

Hon. S. Anton: There is a separation — as I said a moment ago — between the assistance that the special prosecutor gives to the police, between his then subsequent decision-making. His reporting structure is through to the head of our criminal prosecutions. As anyone who knows her will know, this is a separation that is well maintained and that everyone should have confidence in.

I can confirm that, as Attorney General, I get heads-up on this the day before, but that information is kept to me, to myself, and to one or two others. I don’t think that it was to the Deputy Premier, but it’s a very closed process. I gather that the critic is also informed at the same time.

All of that is to keep the separation between the special prosecutor — his line of communication only to the head of the criminal justice branch and a complete separation from government.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a final supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, I can appreciate why the B.C. Liberals would want to separate themselves from the people that they hire, because it turns out that many of them are facing charges, whether they’re here or in another jurisdiction.

I would argue that would be odd to the people of British Columbia who struggle every day to make a connection with this government. When it comes to clawing back services, when it comes to reducing costs of housing, when it comes to meeting medical needs, when it comes to keeping schools open — nothing from this government. But when there’s an opportunity to separate the criminal activity of the people that they associate with, there’s definitely a line and a distinction.

Again, I’d like to engage the Deputy Premier, because I recall, not that long ago, him rising in this place and saying: “I’m terribly sorry for the actions of the people that the Premier collects around her.” I’m wondering why he’s not prepared to do that today.

[1040]

So again, to the Deputy Premier: you were quick to defend the indefensible three years ago when the acts were being done. Now that the chickens have come home to roost and charges have been laid, why nothing from the Deputy Premier?

Hon. S. Anton: I think that the Leader of the Opposition, in using the words “why we would want to keep separation,” is showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. The system is in place in the way it is to keep that separation, to protect the integrity of the process, to protect the integrity of the special prosecution and the police investigation so that the special prosecutor is not only free from political interference but seen to be free from political interference.

That is absolutely an essential part of our criminal justice system. In pretending otherwise, I think that is, as I said a moment ago, highly offensive to our system and perhaps shows just a fundamental lack of understanding as to why we have that separation. There is a clear separation. It is built into our criminal justice system. It’s an important part of our criminal justice system, and I think that all of us should have confidence in that process.

L. Krog: The integrity of the process requires the cooperation of public servants as well. John Dyble and the current head of the public service, Kim Henderson, reviewed 10,000 pages of unredacted documents to help the B.C. Liberals get past the quick-win scandal, and now we discover that one of the central targets of their investigation has been charged with engaging in criminal acts to protect the Premier.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister.

L. Krog: My question is to the Attorney General, and I’d like her to listen carefully to it. Can she tell the House whether Mr. Dyble and Ms. Henderson passed all of the documents they reviewed to the RCMP before the special prosecutor was appointed?

Hon. S. Anton: My expectation would be that everybody in government would comply with the requests of the special prosecutor. As to the details of what the RCMP received in the course of their investigation, that is a matter for the RCMP. I do not have details of that because, as I said a moment ago, this is a process that is entirely separate from myself as Attorney General, from government.

It is in the hands of the RCMP, in terms of the investigation, and the special prosecutor in terms of the advice to the RCMP and in terms of the laying of the charges. That is a separate process from government. It’s not one that I am involved in or that members of government are involved in.

D. Eby: When the B.C. Liberals released the Dyble-Henderson report, they said it put the quick-win scandal
[ Page 13178 ]
to bed. They said that Mr. Dyble and Ms. Henderson conducted a thorough and exhaustive investigation, clearing everybody. Well, the charge brought down today is a very serious one, and sadly, it took an RCMP investigation to bring it to light.

My question is for the Attorney General. Did Mr. Dyble or Ms. Henderson approach the Attorney General’s office for legal advice during their investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: As I have said a number of times, the process is separate from myself. That’s why we have a special prosecutor in circumstances of this nature. That is the importance of that separation — so that there is no influence, either actual or perceived. That is the process that has been built into our criminal justice process for some years now. It was implemented in this case because it was an allegation of somebody who had been working for government. That is why the special prosecutor was appointed. That is why his processes were kept separate from government. It is important for all of us to have confidence in that system.

K. Corrigan: On July 16, 2013, the Minister for Multiculturalism said, with respect to the Dyble-Henderson report: “The Premier’s deputy minister, together with three other deputy ministers — they are the senior deputy ministers in the government — have conducted an exhaustive, thorough and fulsome review of the plan, and they have come up with recommendations.”

[1045]

Can the Attorney General explain why this supposedly exhaustive investigation by the former and current Deputy Minister to the Premier failed to note serious criminal conduct by one of the Premier’s operatives?

Hon. S. Anton: What I can speak to is that, in this case, a complaint was made to the RCMP. On the basis of the complaint made, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, the head of the criminal prosecution service, appointed a special prosecutor. That was almost three years ago. The RCMP have been investigating the case in that time. They make their recommendation. There’s maybe an interchange between the special prosecutor and the RCMP. If the RCMP need advice, they ask the special prosecutor. The report makes its way to the special prosecutor. He lays the charge. That is the process.

The conclusion, apparently, of the RCMP was that a charge was appropriate. Apparently, the conclusion of the special prosecutor is that a charge was appropriate because that charge has been laid. Of course, the matter is before the courts. So we cannot discuss it, and I will not be discussing the charge itself.

Madame Speaker: Member for Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: It’s pretty clear that the Dyble-Henderson report was yet another part of the B.C. Liberals’ plan to cover the Premier’s tracks.

When we asked the Minister of Advanced Education about the report, he said: “We have a report here that is 97 pages long which was produced in record time by four senior civil servants to examine exactly the questions which my friends are now raising for the umpteenth time. The answers in the report are clear.”

Can the Attorney General explain why neither Mr. Dyble nor Ms. Henderson ever contacted the RCMP about their findings?

Hon. S. Anton: I can reiterate what I have said several times now. There was a complaint made to the RCMP in this case. When a complaint is made to the RCMP or, indeed, to any police department relating to government, a special prosecutor is appointed so as to maintain the separation between the prosecution and government. That was what was done in this case. A charge has resulted, which was sworn in court this morning. As I said, the matter is before the courts.

We should have confidence in the fact that there’s a special prosecutor and confidence in the process, because it does maintain that separation between the government and the prosecution and the police investigation.

S. Simpson: The Minister of Advanced Education went further. He said: “The processes of this government encourage probity and transparency…. The necessary documents were disclosed to the necessary working panel, an objective panel. Now the members opposite don’t want to just flog the dead horse; they want an autopsy on the dead horse. There has been an independent investigation. The matter is closed.”

I presume, from the minister’s comments, that he believes that the work of the special prosecutor has been a waste of time. Can the Attorney General tell this House if she believes the special prosecutor’s work has been a waste of time and if she agrees with her colleague that “the matter is closed”?

Hon. S. Anton: As the House knows, this matter was referred to the RCMP. The RCMP did an investigation. They worked…. A special prosecutor was appointed to provide legal advice. The report makes its way to the special prosecutor. The special prosecutor laid the charge. That is the process.

As I said, the matter is before the court. We will wait to see how that process unfolds. Of course, it is not for this chamber to discuss the matter before the court.

Madame Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.
[ Page 13179 ]

S. Simpson: The Minister of Advanced Education would be well served to remember that a closed mouth gathers no feet.

[1050]

The minister said this about the Dyble-Henderson report: “Once again, the members opposite have decided that it’s time for a witch-hunt…. The investigation was thorough, professionally done, complete. The interviews included three elected members, including the Premier. This matter is done.”

My question is to the Attorney General. Does she agree with her colleague that the Dyble-Henderson report was exhaustive and that the special prosecutor’s investigation was a waste of time?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a case where there was more than one process. There was a second process, which was the complaint to the RCMP. The RCMP have spent some time, apparently, on that process — or it has taken some time, in any event — working with the special prosecutor. The charge was laid this morning. That is an entirely separate process from the one the member is referring to.

As I said, the process is non-political. It’s a special prosecutor so as to keep it non-political, so as to keep it at arm’s length from the government. That process is unfolding in the way these do, with the information that was laid this morning. As I said, the matter is before the courts, so we will not deal with the issue in the information. But I think everybody should be confident in that separation between the special prosecutor, the RCMP investigation, and with government.

C. James: It’s pretty clear that the government engineered the Dyble-Henderson report so that the Premier wouldn’t face any political fallout. On September 26, 2013, the Premier’s spokesperson, Ben Chin, said the following about the special prosecutor’s investigation: “The government of British Columbia respects this process and will cooperate fully.”

Can the Attorney General tell the House if the government cooperated fully with the special prosecutor’s investigation?

Hon. S. Anton: It would be my expectation and it would be the expectation of government that everybody would cooperate fully with an RCMP investigation with the special prosecutor. But that is not a matter that I have knowledge of because the investigation done by the RCMP is done by the RCMP. It’s separate from myself. The work of the special prosecutor is done by him, separate also from myself, and reporting only through to the head of the criminal justice branch.

M. Mungall: The Premier said: “I have confidence that the RCMP are going to do the right job on this, investigate it thoroughly, and I certainly have no intention of interfering in any way.”

Can the Attorney General tell the House whether staff in the Premier’s office cooperated fully — fully — with the special prosecutor?

Hon. S. Anton: It would always be my expectation and, indeed, the expectation of government that members of government and members of staff would cooperate fully with an RCMP investigation. As to the details of the investigation, as to the conduct of the investigation, as to who spoke to who or when they spoke to them, I have no information on that.

As I have said a number of times — but it does not seem to be particularly sinking in — this investigation is not something that I am privy to. It’s not something that I get information about. I can tell you what expectations are. The expectation is that people will cooperate. But as to the details of the investigation, that is in the hands of the RCMP. As to the details of the laying of the charge and the advice given to the RCMP, that is in the hands of the special prosecutor. It’s a separate process from government, which is as it should be.

M. Karagianis: We know that staff follow government’s lead, and in the case of Brian Bonney, he was prepared to engage in criminal acts to protect the Premier. So we would expect that if the government was really serious about cooperating with the special prosecutor, it would back that sentiment with action.

Again to the Attorney General, can she tell the House whether she or her staff issued any written instructions to her colleagues or her staff directing them to cooperate fully with the special prosecutor’s investigation?

[1055]

Hon. S. Anton: As I have said a number of times, this is a process independent from government, independent from myself. The RCMP do their investigation independently as they see fit. If they need legal advice, they receive it from the special prosecutor, who is also independent of government.

These things do not come back to myself as Attorney General. They do not come back to government. There is a complete separation of process. It is an independent process, which is as it should be, and it is one that we should have confidence in.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: While government should be providing assistance to people on disability pensions or families looking for affordable child care, the B.C. Liberals have been preoccupied with providing legal advice to their political operatives. According to the Minister of
[ Page 13180 ]
Finance’s annual report on indemnities, government is paying the legal bills of at least six and possibly many more individuals who were interviewed as part of the special prosecutor’s investigation.

Can the Attorney General tell the House how many staff have been provided with counsel for their interviews with the special prosecutor?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the member opposite is asking about the question of indemnities. As I have said a number of times in this House, the matter of indemnities is, again, separate from the political process. I do not think that the member opposite wants politicians deciding who should get indemnities or not. I do not think that that would be a good process.

The question of indemnities is handled at the level of senior staff, who treat these things professionally and, again, independently. Whether or not a person gets an indemnity is a matter of privacy for the recipient of the indemnity. Again, I cannot emphasize too strongly how important it is that that be separate from the political process, as I have mentioned in this House a number of times before.

M. Farnworth: I’d like to quote from a release that went out today.

“The criminal justice branch and Ministry of Justice announced today that special prosecutor David Butcher, QC, has approved a charge of breach of trust against Brian Ashly Bonney. The charge falls under section 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 122 makes it an offence for an official to commit a breach of trust in connection with the duties of his office. At the time of the alleged offence, Mr. Bonney was the communications director for multiculturalism communications, government communications and public engagement in Vancouver.”

Mr. Bonney was working as a political operative for the B.C. government when allegedly engaged in criminal acts to protect the Premier. Can the Attorney General tell the House whether taxpayers are footing the legal bills for Mr. Bonney during the investigation and whether he still enjoys a taxpayer-funded legal defence?

Hon. S. Anton: What I can tell the House is this, that there is a policy around indemnities relating to criminal matters. There may or may not be an indemnity granted. Again, I cannot…. I actually have no information on that because it’s kept separate from the political process.

What I can say in a general way is if there was a criminal charge and it relates to employment, a person may possibly get an indemnity — again, emphasizing that I have no knowledge of this case. I’m simply saying what the policy is. If the person is found guilty of the criminal charge, they will be required to pay back any funds which they have received by way of indemnity.

But I have to just emphasize for the third time that that is not relating to this case. I have no knowledge of this case, and it would not be appropriate for me to have that knowledge.

DEATH CASE AND SERVICES IN
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FACILITIES

S. Hammell: To the people who knew and loved him, Lindsey Longe was an adventurous and generous spirit. But he also struggled with addiction and mental health issues, which led him to being placed in provincially funded supportive housing. There he was found dead on July 16, 2012, three days after he had passed away and nearly a week after he left St. Paul’s Hospital with a bacterial infection.

The Minister for Housing was at the opening of the building where Lindsey would come to live, and at the opening, he said the people who lived there would be “connected with supports and specialized services to help them stay safe and create better opportunities.”

[1100]

To the Minister Responsible for Housing, how could he promise people living in supportive housing that they would have the supports they needed when Lindsey’s deteriorating health and death went unnoticed for a week?

Hon. R. Coleman: Any time a family loses anyone, whether it be in supportive housing or any form of housing or in a community, it’s a sad event for that family. My condolences to the family with regards to this particular file and this individual.

The individual was in supportive housing and was found after three days. The checkout from hospital is another question that I won’t get into today. But, you know, as we’ve come through this, we have actually sat down with our service providers and our operating agreements with non-profit supportive housing providers to include mandatory health and wellness checks since this incident took place in 2012.

We’re continuing to amend our operating agreements with regards to this. This includes mandatory room check if the individual has not been seen or heard from within a 48-hour period. Our partners do conduct regular room and wellness checks. We do have, sometimes, with our non-profit building operators that they must balance the safety concerns with the requirements of the Residential Tenancy Act with regards to the person’s right to occupancy of their own home, which is what their unit is considered to be within their tenancy.

They have that right within their own home, but we are now putting in processes with every operating agreement to ensure that the health and wellness checks are taken within the past 48 hours. Building policies with our non-profit service providers with this regard….

This is a population that are in supportive housing, as the member knows, that often suffer from addictions and mental illness and other issues within their lives. The heart and soul that’s put into these buildings by the non-profits that actually care for these people is pretty remarkable. The time they give and the passion they put
[ Page 13181 ]
in to try to help people that are in issues with regards to mental health and addiction is remarkable.

We will continue to work with our non-profit partners to improve on any policy with regards to these types of checks because we think it’s important. But we should not, at any time, actually, pass off one situation as anything but more than a tragedy. And more, we should make sure our policies can be improved at any time, with regards, so that this type of situation doesn’t occur again.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: The commitment of the staff to the people they are supporting is not in question. Lindsey was supposed to have support from this government where he was living. Yet it was his friends and family in the days before and after he died who were trying to find out if he was in pain.

Lindsey’s mother, Christine, is here in the gallery today. For close to four years now, she’s been trying to find out why no one checked on her son for seven days after he came back from the hospital, much less call her after he was found dead. She deserves some kind of closure.

So my question is for the Minister for Housing. People like Lindsey were promised they would have specialized services when they came to live in supportive housing. If that was true, why were those specialized resources not available to Lindsey when he got back from the hospital and so clearly needed support?

Hon. R. Coleman: We are awaiting recommendations on the investigation being conducted, which remains open, by the coroner’s office. But we haven’t waited for that. We’ve actually started to change our policies and our operating agreements with non-profits with regard to 48-hour checks on the individuals that are in the housing, but it’s also important to note what’s been done since this incident to improve care of those with severe mental illness and substance use issues.

Development of a nine-bed acute psychiatric assessment and stabilization unit adjacent to the emergency department at St. Paul’s Hospital has come into play. A total of 14 new community outreach teams, including creation of a new assertive outreach team to serve individuals in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. These teams offer short-term, intensive transition support linking high-needs patients from emergency rooms into appropriate community care. Eight new assertive community treatment teams in addition to that.

[1105]

All of these are resulting out of the concerns we had when this type of instance took place. The family can be rest assured of this. Government has continued to do something that hasn’t been done in this province except for in the last decade and a half.

We’ve recognized that people have mental illness and addictions on the streets of British Columbia, putting supports in housing where they didn’t exist before, stepping up to improve the services to people with mental health and addictions and understanding that this is a very vulnerable population. We honestly feel it’s important to us as a society to understand that we have a compassionate heart for the people that need our help the most, and we’ll continue to do that.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: I have the honour to present a report of the Auditor General, Access to Adult Tertiary Mental Health and Substance Use Services, and the Merit Commissioner Annual Report 2015/2016.

Petitions

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition organized by my constituents. There are 4,871 signatures on this petition calling on the government to end the trophy hunt of grizzly bears in B.C.

J. Darcy: I rise to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of parents and residents of New Westminster calling on the government to build a new, New Westminster secondary school. Our school has been in need of replacement for over a decade, and hundreds of parents have asked me to present this petition to the House today.

G. Holman: Today I am presenting a petition from almost 450 of my constituents and others calling on government to immediately renew efforts to work with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to establish a Gulf Islands national marine conservation area.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: I present the Gaming Policy and Enforcement Branch Annual Report 2014-2015.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Committee of Supply in both sections. In this chamber, Ministry of Finance, and in Section A, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Lee in the chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.
[ Page 13182 ]

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: Before I recognize the Minister of Finance, I have a statement to make.

On Monday, May 16, at the commencement of Committee of Supply, Section B, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head rose on a point of order regarding the conclusion of estimates of the Office of the Premier on Wednesday, May 11. I have reviewed the Votes and Proceedings, the Hansard transcript and the video of the proceedings in question.

I acknowledge the question the member raised, but I do not agree that the Committee of Supply was not properly constituted and that, therefore, it could not consider or adopt the motion regarding Vote 10, the 2016-17 estimates for the Office of the Premier.

The proceedings unfolded as follows. An initial motion was moved by the hon. Premier that the committee “rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.” The Chair put the motion to the committee, and the motion was carried. Normally, the presiding officer would leave the chair and report to the Speaker. However, that did not occur.

Although the presiding officer rose briefly, he was immediately advised that it was the will of the committee to complete consideration of the estimates of the Office of the Premier. At that point, the committee had not formally closed proceedings, nor did the Chair declare that the committee was adjourned. In addition, Office of the Premier staff remained in the chamber, though it is required that all public servants must depart immediately upon the adjournment of committee proceedings.

The presiding officer resumed formal proceedings and recognized the Premier, who moved the motion to report completion of the estimates for the Office of the Premier. This motion and the motion to approve Vote 10 were duly adopted with the consent of the committee. The committee had altered its original decision to report progress by unanimous agreement of all members duly present and assembled in the chamber at that time.

The Chair did not call the committee back to order, as a recess or adjournment had not been declared. There had simply been a pause in the proceedings in order to confer and clarify with committee members on the status of business. This is not an unusual practice, as presiding officers often will consult informally with members during proceedings to clarify the status of business under consideration or to coordinate matters relating to the management of parliamentary business.

While the video recording captured the informal discussions of members, pursuant to the long-standing Hansard transcript practice, they were clearly not part of the formal proceedings. Further, it should be noted that during the entire proceedings, the mace remained in the lowered position, indicating that the House was in committee. In addition, the Speaker had not resumed the chair nor received a report from the committee.

In other words, at all times during the closing of the estimates of the Office of the Premier, the Committee of Supply remained constituted. The presiding officer followed the correct procedure to continue in committee and allow the will of the committee to be respected. It is immaterial that the informal discussion among members to complete the estimates occurred off the record and were recorded on video as interjections.

[1115]

The Chair heard these discussions and continued to preside in Committee of Supply, rather than reporting to the Speaker. The Premier’s final motions were moved with the unanimous consent of the members present, were deemed in order and duly passed.

Accordingly, the remainder of the proceedings and the closing of the Estimates of the Office of the Premier on May 11 were in order. Thank you.

A. Weaver: Hon. Chair, I just wish to thank you for a very thoughtful and thorough analysis of my point of order, and I do appreciate the work that went into it.

Debate Continued

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $178,497,000.

C. James: I look forward to the discussion over the next day and a bit. I think the minister is aware that we will divide up, for those who are watching, the areas into finance until late afternoon today. We’ll then move into real estate and gaming — a discussion around that section — and then move into freedom of information, just so the minister is aware of the areas that we’ll be canvassing.

Just to start off with a couple of basic questions around the ministry itself. I just wondered if the minister could say whether there has been any change in staffing in the Ministry of Finance from last year’s estimates to this year’s estimates. Included in that, are there any vacancies right now? If so, how many?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m guessing the member’s question was general in terms of the numbers of people within the ministry. I’ll come to that.

I know sometimes in these proceedings there is an inclination to make a grand opening statement. I generally don’t, because we’re generally under the gun, time-wise. I think, appropriately, it’s the member’s time and time of the members of the committee to ask some questions.

However, there is one change that will be apparent, and it speaks to the person sitting next to me. Athana
[ Page 13183 ]
Mentzelopoulos is here as deputy. To my left: ADM and now chief records officer for the government, Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland; Tara Richards as EFO. Paul Flanagan is behind me. From the treasury branch, David Galbraith is here as well. There’ll be some other people coming in through the course of proceedings.

I’ll now endeavour to secure an answer to the actual question that the member has asked.

[1120]

To the member, the big change relates to transfer of the responsibility for freedom of information. That involved the transfer of 207 people — I think the proper term is FTEs; I’m going to say positions — from that ministry into the Finance Ministry. The member, I think, is aware that that is a change that occurred in the latter part of 2015. That accounts for the biggest change in terms of FTEs within the ministry.

C. James: The other part of that question was related to vacancies. In canvassing other ministries, there have been some challenges around people leaving and being recruited in other areas. I just wondered: in the ministry itself, are there a number of vacancies? Is the minister facing the same kinds of challenges that some other offices are around recruiting out of the ministry?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it’s a three-part answer to the second-part question. Generally, the ministry, I’m told, is operating at a fairly acceptable and manageable level — 5 percent vacancy.

Two areas are worthy of special mention that stray from that. For the transfer from MTICS with the FOI officials — the 207 — that, I am advised, has operated in the past at a 20 to 25 percent vacancy rate, which is not optimal for achieving some of the targets we have set and some of the changes that we’ve made. The member knows and may pursue later budgetary uplifts to try and address some of that.

The other area that cannot boast a modest 5 percent vacancy rate that is cause for concern is FICOM, which has been operating at a higher vacancy. I think it’s in a position where folks are being recruited, poached — whatever term you want to use — largely into the private sector. Not exclusively — I think, in some cases, other areas, other public service agencies. FICOM would be the other area that’s on the radar screen with respect to vacancies.

C. James: I’m not looking for exact numbers. I’m just curious, because we’re hearing from other areas, including the independent officers, about some of the challenges that they’re facing for people who are being recruited out.

The minister is quite right. I would be interested in any kind of work that’s being done right now in that area. It does appear to be specific areas of employees that are more of a challenge than others — in particular, the area of finance. I’d be interested, from the minister, if there’s any work going on within his ministry or across the public service in that area.

Then the other question. I’ll just put this one out, as well, to finish up on the basic questions. Any changes in work that’s been contracted out in this ministry? Other than revenue services, which is obviously a piece that we’ll get talking about later. Are there any changes over this last year in that particular area in this ministry?

[1125]

Hon. M. de Jong: The question I posed, because I thought it got to the nub of what the member was asking, was: are there any major points of departure from our previous discussion as it relates to contracting out? I’m advised that there are not and reminded, as the member has already pointed out, I think, that the actual amounts posted in the budget for contracted services have decreased somewhat.

I think, perhaps more significantly, this is an opportunity for me to remind or alert the committee to what our and my objective is with respect to this very relevant question, and that is we have begun the process now of posting directly awarded contracts. Yes, there is a whole criteria around when that can happen. But the objective is to ensure that the member and her colleagues and members of the public would be able to consult a website and know exhaustively where directly awarded contracts have arisen.

Then the next step along that process is to post all contracts — and not just for the Ministry of Finance but for government. We’re doing this one step at a time, but it is consistent with the view I’ve traditionally held that when we are spending public dollars, the public deserves to know via what instruments those dollars are being spent.

C. James: Could the minister give a timeline around that? When is it expected that we’ll see a broader base of contracts being posted?

Hon. M. de Jong: A three- or four-stage exercise. Directly awarded contracts are now being posted and the summary of those contracts. We then would like to move to a summary — and this is over the course of the next six to eight months — of all of the contracts. Thereafter, the objective is to get to a point where the contracts themselves are posted.

We do this step by step because, despite my zeal for this, I recognize that there are sometimes, occasionally, provisions within the contract itself and often schedules to the contracts that may include proprietary information. So we need to develop the expertise and the capacity to deal with that.

But in the same way that, I think the member knows, I was anxious for the public to be able to click and find
[ Page 13184 ]
MLA expenses and minister’s expenses and see the actual documents, that’s the objective here. I’d say it’s probably a nine- to 12-month process.

[1130]

C. James: My understanding is that includes all ministries. That will eventually include all ministry contracts.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes.

C. James: I’ll just move on, then, to a couple of questions around credit unions. I know the minister and the ministry have been subjected — I won’t say “subjected” because they’ve done a very positive job — to a lot of efforts by the credit unions over this last year on a couple of key issues that are important to them and, I believe, that are important to all British Columbians.

One is the issue of the small business tax and the tax credit and what’s going to happen to that. That’s one area I’d be interested in from the minister’s point of view. That was an area that was supported by the Select Standing Committee on Finance and didn’t happen in this budget. I’d like to hear from the minister — his views around that and where the work is on that piece.

The second piece, which I think is just as important, is the whole issue of business lending and the work that the credit unions are doing right now around assets and the importance of finding that balance of what the credit union is lending and what they’re keeping as protected assets in their asset portfolio. It appears that we’re the only province, as far as I’ve been able to gather, that actually requires the threshold to be there around the assets for the credit union, which, in fact, makes it more difficult for them to be able to increase the lending that they are doing.

As we all know, credit unions are such an important part of our communities, particularly in rural B.C. and small communities where business lending isn’t always happening through the big banks. Credit unions often fill that much-needed opportunity for businesses to be able to get the kind of capital they need to continue on. We know small businesses and the work that they do around employment in our province.

I wonder if the minister could speak about both those issues and where the discussions are with the Finance Ministry right now on those.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll answer in a fairly general way. I’m sure there will be some follow-up that flows from that. There are a couple of issues that the member has highlighted in her submission.

First of all, we are in the midst — this is a statutory requirement — of reviewing the Financial Institutions Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act. We launched that process last year. I did call together the credit unions — I think I appeared at the annual meeting of the credit unions — and then asked for somewhat of a working group to be pulled together that would try to include broad representation.

The credit union movement…. I think there are now 44. It’s in the 40s. It’s a diverse group. There are large ones. There are small ones. There are multi-branch credit unions and single-branch credit unions.

I guess it’s fair for me to make this confession. I have a special affection for…. I actually call it the movement because it’s how it arose and how it was created. I still recall the day I got on my bicycle and rode into Matsqui village — I was going to say with my $20 bill, but it might have been a $10 bill — to open my first account, as a nine-year-old, at the Matsqui Prairie Credit Union. I have remained an enthusiastic member ever since.

Credit unions have grown. The business has grown — the regulatory requirements, the range of businesses that credit unions are involved in. The member has mentioned some of the issues that have arisen, some of them very much a part of the discussion that is taking place. I would say that credit unions have expressed a desire to meet the highest levels of regulatory competency but, at the same time, have made the point that those rules need to be applied in a way that takes into account, in some cases, limited resources and that the capacity of a large multi-branch credit union is very different than the capacity of a single branch.

[1135]

Quite frankly, as we move through this process, one of the questions that I have tried to pose is: is it still possible to have a single set of regulations that respond to the consumer protection needs and the needs and abilities of a group that is that diverse? I don’t know the answer to that yet. We’re working through that in this process.

Other questions that have arisen relate to unlimited deposit insurance that the government of British Columbia bestowed upon the credit union movement in 2008. I believe it was 2008. Candidly, I think the member knows this. Certain credit unions know this. The federal regulators have expressed concerns around that. Now, their jurisdiction is different, but they have expressed concerns, and credit unions themselves have some issues. That’s another issue that we are endeavouring to work through in this opportunity to update and modernize the relevant statutes.

The member began her question by pointing to a specific issue that engaged our attention, I believe, in 2012-2013. What occurred then — I’m operating off of memory — was a change by the then federal government to taxation policy that had consequences. There is a threshold here. It doesn’t affect all credit unions. For the larger credit unions, it had a relatively significant and negative effect on them, in terms of applicable taxation rules.

The request at the time, the very passionate request, was: could the province take some steps to cushion the impact of that? These were difficult days for the province
[ Page 13185 ]
fiscally, as we tried to claw our way back to a balanced circumstance. We did in the end. I think the budget of February 2013 and the one that ultimately passed in June or July of 2013 included provisions for an extended or enhanced credit to take account of the change that the federal government had made, though we did say that it would — now I’m really operating from memory; I think it was a three-year phase out — phase out over three years. Now it’s 2016. And guess what. We’re phasing out.

I will say this. In Canada, I understand that this is, again, cause for concern with some of the credit unions. I don’t want the member to be under the impression that I have been inundated with written requests or demands or whatnot from the credit union movement. Maybe it’s because, when I have met with…. At meetings, I have said, fairly candidly: “Look, this issue arose out of a decision of the federal government. There is now a new federal government, and I suggest your first stop in trying to address this in a way that would accrue favourably to you and your members is with the government that created the issue in the first place, at the federal level.”

I’ll wrap up now by saying I still think that is the case. Though we did take steps to cushion the blow, as it were, in 2013, I haven’t been shy about saying to credit unions that I think it is incumbent upon them to turn their attention to the level of government that created the issue in the first place for them, through the change that was made at the federal level.

C. James: I understand the Finance Minister’s discussion on this point and the issue of taking on federal downloading. I think most of us would agree that that’s not an area that the provincial government looks on moving into fondly. I do think it is important to note, though, that every other province has done that and has provided support for the credit unions. So B.C. is an outlier in that regard.

[1140]

The minister mentioned the Financial Institutions Act review. I understand that that’s going on, and I understand that these pieces, from what the minister has said, will be discussed as part of that Financial Institutions Act review. I think it’s important to note that both pieces…. Certainly, the piece around the small business tax has a huge impact on credit unions — $80 million more in income tax. In some cases, they’ll be paying more than some of the big banks, which, I think, is, again, certainly not the intent.

The minister has spoken fondly of his credit union. I do the same. As someone who has always had my accounts at a credit union, I think it’s important to recognize that they do have a different role than the big banks. They do have a mandate around providing community support.

I wonder if the minister could talk about the timeline for the Financial Institutions Act. When does he expect that both of these issues could be addressed through that process or will be part of the discussion? When does he expect that some decisions coming out of that will occur? Does he expect that the issue of the changes around business lending for credit unions and their requirement around capital will be reviewed as part of that act — or the small business tax? Does he expect that the decision will come out in this next year?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the short answer to the timeline is…. We’re probably a month or six weeks behind where I’d hoped we would be. By the way, I have to accept responsibility for that. I have wanted to engage personally with the working group that we have convened to take stock of the remaining work to be done and, I must confess, over the last month, April and May, have not done so. However, looking forward, that would be the next step.

I’m hoping that we can bring closure to the discussion and be in a position to share some thoughts on ultimate decisions in the fall. It’s a statutory review. By definition, it will involve some statutory amendments to be in a position to begin the drafting process. I should emphasize: to my knowledge, there is no drafting work. I say that because I don’t want people to believe that we have come to any preconceived ideas about what this should all look like. It’s why the re-engagement is so important — so that we can achieve some finality and certainty around that.

That is with respect to the statutory updates. That would probably also capture some of the regulatory impediments that credit unions speak of and describe. So that’s one track of work.

The issue around the taxation policy, candidly, is probably a budgetary matter. The decisions around that are ones that would be caught up in the budget exercise through to February.

[1145]

D. Donaldson: I have a specific question for the Finance Minister regarding the 2016 farmers food donation tax credit. I posed this question to the Minister of Agriculture during Agriculture estimates, and he referred me to you, so I’m going to pose the same question, with a little bit of background.

As the minister knows, the farmers food donation tax credit is available to individuals and corporations in the business of farming to donate a qualifying agricultural product to a registered charity. The agricultural product could include meat products as well as other products, and the credit is worth 25 percent of the fair market value of the qualifying agricultural product.

My question relates to the fair-chase food meat donation program that has been conducted by the Guide Outfitters of B.C. since 1993. Just in 2010, they donated 900 pounds of wild meat to the Salvation Army in Kelowna for redistribution. The guide-outfitters point out that wild game meat is natural, organic and has no steroids, artificial colours, hormones or other chemicals.
[ Page 13186 ]
It’s lower in fat and higher in protein than commercial domestic meats.

This is meat that is left behind by hunters who are guided by the Guide Outfitters of B.C., and they make good use of this meat, donating it to a charity, such as the Salvation Army in Kelowna. We just met with Food Banks B.C. this morning, and we know the value of this kind of generous donation.

My question. Given the fact that we could get a fair market value for that meat…. There are venison, elk and bison already on the market, similar ungulates to the moose meat that was donated, and the bison is donated. Also venison is donated. We also know that venison deer are raised and harvested on a farm in B.C. To me, it’s not that far a stretch to consider the wild meat that’s already been donated by the Guide Outfitters of B.C. to registered charities to qualify for this tax credit.

My question to the minister is: did the minister consider the small business owners in the guide-outfitting business and the industry when considering this tax credit? If so, why weren’t they included? And if not, under this budget cycle, will he commit to including them in the food donation tax credit program?

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing I was inclined to say is: “Well, what did the Agriculture Minister tell you?”

If I follow along — and I don’t want this to be interpreted by anyone as an authoritative interpretation — my sense is that the member is correct. The way the credit is worded and defined and intended to be applied from a regulatory perspective is that it would exclude a guide-outfitting company. It was geared towards donations from farmers and agriculturalists.

[1150]

I think the member’s question is: is that something we’re prepared to examine? I, by the way, see the member’s point about the value of donating a moose or wild game. Delicious. I’ve eaten it, enjoy it. It has great value…. I don’t know how you’d…. The member may know more about this. I’m now hearkening back 25 years ago to my prosecution days. In those days, I recall, it was illegal to sell a moose, to sell moose meat. I’m not sure how we’d assign a market value to something that is illegal to sell.

Venison is probably a different thing, because there is farmed venison available. But in the case of actual wild game for which there are severe restrictions on the sale, I’m not sure what the process would be for assigning a market value or whether there would be arguments against doing so from the point of view of encouraging activities.

The short answer is…. The member raises a point about whether or not it is possible to adjust to include donations of wild game. I’ll have to find out. The second part of that question is, I think: would the government be prepared to consider it? I’d be prepared to consider it, but I can’t and won’t say authoritatively to the member that the answer would be yes.

C. James: Another issue not related to credit unions but to a report by credit unions is the issue of payday loans and personal debt in British Columbia. As the minister knows — we talked about this a few weeks ago — Vancity came out with a report around the growing nature of the payday loan industry in British Columbia and the, I think, shocking numbers, when you took a look at the use of payday loans by British Columbians.

Between 2012 and 2014, the borrowers in British Columbia grew 58 percent, and the size of the industry grew 21 percent in just that short period of time. I think I don’t need to tell the minister that the annualized percentage rates are outrageous and cause families to get further and further and further into debt. You can be looking at anything up to 600 percent.

It was an election platform promise by the government in 2013 to reduce the maximum interest payable on payday loans from $23 per $100 borrowed to $17 per $100 borrowed. That was 3½ years ago almost now, and that hasn’t been done. I think it’s interesting to note that Alberta, in fact, did this just yesterday — decided to drop the rates on payday loans. They dropped to, on $100 borrowed, $15. They are now the lowest.

I wonder if the minister could let us know why that hasn’t happened yet — it was a commitment from a number of years ago — and what the plans are to take this issue on, which is critical to the debt that British Columbians are facing.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m just getting some information about the work that has been done.

Rather than blather on and have to repeat it all, either the member may have another question and we can come back to this after the lunch hour, or I can move adjournment and we can come back to it directly.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.
[ Page 13187 ]

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

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL

(continued)

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

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

On Vote 39: ministry operations, $666,552,000 (continued).

B. Ralston: I have a question relating to Surrey, the city of Surrey’s weighted violent crime clearance rate. As the minister will know, but perhaps just for clarity, I just want to provide a definition of “clearance rate” for those who may not know what that means.

“The clearance rate represents the proportion of criminal incidents solved by the police. Police can clear an incident by charge or by means other than the laying of a charge. For an incident to be cleared by charge, at least one accused must have been identified and either a charge has been laid, or recommended to be laid, against this individual in connection with the incident.

“For an incident to be cleared otherwise, an accused must be identified and there must be sufficient evidence to lay a charge in connection with the incident, but the accused is processed by other means for one of many reasons.”

That’s the definition taken from Statistics Canada, the violent weighted clearance rate for British Columbia compared to the violent weighted clearance rate for Surrey is from 2010, ’11, ’12, ’13 and ’14.

[1115]

What the statistics show is that the clearance rate for Surrey is dramatically lower than the clearance rate for British Columbia. Starting with 2014 and working backwards, 52.64 percent provincially, 42.37 percent in Surrey; in 2013, 51.83 percent in British Columbia, 38.1 percent in Surrey; in 2012, 49.42 percent, 34.79 percent in Surrey; in 2011, 49.7 percent, 32.8 percent in Surrey; in 2010, 49.52 percent, 40.01 percent in Surrey.

There’s a dramatic gap between the clearance rate overall provincially and what takes place in Surrey. Can the minister explain why that is?

Hon. M. Morris: Just of note, those statistics are improving. If you look over that same period of time, the clearance rates have gone up. Just drawing on my own experience in policing and as a senior police manager, in comparing clearance rates in an urban environment with British Columbia, as an example, the differences between an urban environment and a provincial environment or a rural environment are significant.

In rural B.C., you don’t have the transient populations. A lot of the accused individuals are easier to track down. There are a lot of informal resolutions to the files in rural B.C. because you know the people and you find alternative ways of clearing those files by sending them through some kind of restorative justice program or other types of programs.

[1120]

In an urban environment like Surrey, like Burnaby, like some of the communities we have down here, it’s a very transient population. The investigations take a lot of time. Trying to track these individuals down sometimes does take quite a while.

One thing that’s not captured in the clearance rates is the work that’s being done on the front end in preventing a lot of these offences from taking place in communities like Surrey and Burnaby with our SMART program and some of the other programs that we have in place throughout B.C.

B. Ralston: Well, judging from the number of shootings in Surrey, prevention at the front end isn’t exactly working out too well.

I know that the minister wants to avoid recognizing any difference in the clearance rate in Surrey due to underfunding and under-resourcing. Indeed, academic experts — in a previous life, one who’s presently in the chair at the moment, the member for Abbotsford South — have written academic papers that show that where a police investigative force…. The clearance rate is still one of the most important measures of police activity. Where they’re under-resourced, where there’s not sufficient staff dedicated to solving crimes, crimes are not solved. Is the minister completely…?

Is the minister saying that he will not accept any responsibility for underfunding as a cause of the much lower clearance rate in Surrey? It is dramatically lower — in 2013, 13 percent; in 2014, 10 percent. That’s statistically very significant and a big difference, and I don’t think it can simply be explained by a rural-urban difference, however much the minister may wish that to be the case.

Hon. M. Morris: Again, I’m basing my answer upon my own personal experience in many, many years of policing. There is a significant difference in the calculations of clearance rates in rural and urban B.C., for the same reasons that I mentioned earlier on. It’s an unfair comparison when you look at B.C. generally in comparison to the Surrey stats.

B. Ralston: I do appreciate the tendency in politics to rely upon the anecdotal, but the minister has, seated with
[ Page 13188 ]
him, senior staff from his ministry who are very familiar with the statistical measures of clearance rates and all other detailed statistical measures of criminality in communities in British Columbia. So to rely on the anecdotal rather than giving a more thoughtful and insightful answer, I think, is not helpful. I don’t think that the public is served by that kind of an answer.

I’ll give the minister, one more time, another chance to talk to his staff and to come up with an answer that takes advantage of the senior, experienced staff who will be able to provide more insightful answers, rather than an anecdote about the minister’s time as a police officer.

Hon. M. Morris: Again, it’s not anecdotal. I’ve got a lot of years of experience in determining clearance rates, in reviewing clearance rates and all the statistical data that is used on the compilation of these kinds of statistics, and I stand by my answer. You cannot compare the clearance rate in Surrey with the overall general average of British Columbia. There’s a significant difference in the processes and the investigations.

H. Bains: I just want to follow up on the question that my colleague from Surrey-Whalley asked. When the minister talked about Surrey versus B.C., the B.C. also includes cities like Vancouver, like Burnaby — all of the major centres — so the clearance rate, in combining all of them except Surrey, is much higher than in Surrey. That’s the point. That’s the point that the member for Surrey-Whalley was trying to make.

Anecdotal answers perhaps are a reflection of the government’s attitude and perhaps are the reason that our clearance rate and the crime in Surrey are not turning around and continue to escalate.

[1125]

My question, again to the minister, is this. Let’s move forward. Let’s compare B.C. to the rest of Canada. The report by the Chair, when he was in a different life before, an expert….

They also compared B.C. with the rest of Canada. B.C.’s clearance rate of homicides, whether they are gang-related or non-gang-related, is much, much lower than the rest of Canada. No matter which way you look at it, our clearance rate is lower in B.C., in Surrey, when you compare it with the rest of B.C.

The minister needs to take some responsibility and accept that the report that came from the member for Abbotsford West was because when the investigative team — and I spoke about that yesterday — needed support in additional resources for undercover, wiretap or additional resources for the investigative team, they were denied. The reason for denial was a lack of resources.

Why can’t the minister stand up and accept some responsibility that the lowest clearance rate in B.C. — and in Surrey, when you compare it to B.C. — is because of a lack of resources? I think the government needs to stand up and say: “Yes, we are going to put some deterrents in there and put those people behind bars — those who kill.”

When they know there’s only a 30 percent chance that they will be going behind bars and there’s a 70 percent chance that they will be walking free, where are the deterrents? Why won’t the minister stand up and accept some responsibility for the lowest clearance rate in Surrey and in B.C., when you compare it to the rest of Canada?

[1130]

Hon. M. Morris: You talk about resourcing and the 2014 clearance rates, which we’ll agree to disagree with your take on that.

There have been 141 new resources added by the city of Surrey, which is ultimately responsible for the resourcing levels in municipal policing, as all communities are. But in addition to that, for several years now, CFSEU has been funded by the province to the tune of about $70 million a year, and I know that over half of the resources that CFSEU has had have been focused on Surrey issues.

IHIT, which is the Integrated Homicide Investigation Team, has been active in Surrey and throughout the Lower Mainland — provincial resources again. The major crimes unit is another one that’s been active in Surrey.

There have been a lot of proactive resources that have been in use in Surrey, and throughout the Lower Mainland as well, with respect to ending gang life and into other proactive policing and whatnot. Just to give you an example, in one week, there were 178 people checked in Surrey as a result of these types of issues here by the CFSEU units and the members that are focused on the gang and street-level activities that we have there. So there’s a lot of work going on throughout Surrey and throughout the Lower Mainland, but particularly in the Surrey area, to prevent a lot of these things from occurring.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister now can answer this House…. Last year there were around 60 shootings in Surrey, and this year, so far, 39. Can the minister answer how many of those 60 shootings have been arrested, charged or put behind bars? And how many of the 39 this year have been charged, arrested or pending charges?

Hon. M. Morris: We’ll get back to you with the information on that. We don’t have that level of detail here. What we’re faced with is…. You asked the question on the ones that were related to the shootings in Surrey, so we have to separate that detail. There are the persons that are arrested. There’s a charge approval process that can take weeks sometimes or even months before the charge is approved and the individual is named publicly. So there are a number of factors that are involved in that, but we’ll do our best to get you those numbers as quickly as possible.

M. Farnworth: While we don’t have a lot of time left, there are some issues I’d still like to pursue in terms of the
[ Page 13189 ]
guns and gangs strategy, following on the questions that my colleague from Surrey-Newton has already asked. We focused in terms of what’s taking place, but one of the elements that we haven’t really discussed is the issue around guns and the gun amnesty program.

My question to the minister is this. On April 15, you had the announcement that included a gun amnesty program. Surrey had said that they already had a gun amnesty program that had been in place for several weeks.

[1135]

When the minister made the announcement, were they signalling the intention that it was going to be a provincewide program, or was it just going to be a specific Surrey program that had already been in place for several weeks?

Hon. M. Morris: Surrey didn’t have a separate amnesty program. The amnesty program that we’ve had over the past few years — and they’re only active for a period of time — has been provincewide. The last one we had was in 2013. Provincewide there were 1,801 weapons recovered as a result of that.

Surrey, however, has had what they call a Safe City program, where they got a list of all the unregistered firearms in the city of Surrey. That number was 500. Out of the 500, people are in the process now of legally registering those weapons, and they’ve turned some of them over to the police as well.

M. Farnworth: So what you’re saying, then, is that Surrey’s program was not a gun amnesty. Okay.

The Vancouver Sun recently reported, on the issue of guns, a troubling trend in British Columbia. According to the most recent data from the RCMP’s National Weapons Enforcement Support Teams, 61 percent of crime guns in the province are domestically sourced, which is a significant change of what it has been in the last decade, when much of it was smuggled up through the United States. They have tightened restrictions and clamped down on that, so now what we’re seeing is people legally buying guns, and then they’re getting into the criminal market.

One of the three pillars in the recent government announcement was the focus on legislative solutions to “explore potential changes to provincial and federal laws related to the purchase, movement and storage of firearms.” Can the minister explain how he intends to consult on the changes he’s looking for? What proposed changes is he wanting to seek?

[1140]

Hon. M. Morris: The illegal firearms task force that we spoke about there will allow the policing and security branch to take a new approach to illegal guns by creating the task force. This task force is going to work with federal and provincial experts in determining exactly what aspects of the legislation need to be changed.

We acknowledge that the purchasing of domestic weapons has become problematic. I know there were some arrests made here not too long ago, and charges against a couple of individuals for doing just that in this province. We’re going to be looking at strategies that will identify these types of things when they occur so that we can act a little more quickly on that and identify where these weapons are coming from and where they’re going.

M. Farnworth: A quick question on that. What’s the time frame?

Hon. M. Morris: It’s ’16-17.

M. Farnworth: I take it that’s 2016-2017…

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: …not the year 1617, as someone said.

The last topic before we finish off. I’d like to talk a bit about solitary confinement in our system. An article by the Globe and Mail found that provincial and territorial systems keep wildly uneven stats on segregated inmates. My question is: do we keep short-term and long-term figures, statistics, on the number of people kept in solitary confinement in British Columbia?

[1145]

Hon. M. Morris: Segregation. The average daily count for B.C. Corrections is 126, which is 5 percent of the overall corrections population that we have. The average stay in segregation is seven days; 83 percent of stays in segregation are ten days or less. We routinely track the statistics that we have for segregation.

The reasons for segregation. Oftentimes it’s voluntary segregation, where the person comes and identifies himself and wants that. The other reasons are for combative and significant behavioural problems that cause safety issues for the prison population at large.

M. Farnworth: I am mindful of the time. When the Globe asked all 13 provincial and territorial prison systems in the country for aggregate numbers of inmates who spent more than 15 days in segregation for each of the past five years — that 15 days is a key threshold — only one province, Quebec, was able to fully comply with that request.

Does British Columbia have those statistics? If they do, why were they not able to comply with that request from the Globe?

Hon. M. Morris: We’ll get back to you with the answers on that. We aren’t aware of any requests that came in on that, but we will check our records.

M. Farnworth: What I will ask the minister, then, is my last question. If no requests did come in on that, then
[ Page 13190 ]
consider that request, in terms of the aggregate for more than 15 days, as a request being made by me. I would appreciate those figures.

With that, hon. Chair, I can say that we are finished the estimates of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Vote 39: ministry operations, $666,552,000 — approved.

Hon. M. Morris: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of Vote 39 of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada