Hansard — House Blues — Tuesday, June 1, 2010 p.m.

This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

HOUSE BLUES

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

D. Hayer: I have two special guests. I had a chance to have lunch with them today. One is Mohsin Abbas. He's the senior editor of Jang Canada, which is one of the largest Urdu newspapers in Pakistan and also outside Pakistan. As well, he's a special correspondent reporter for Hajj news, a television program, and BBC World. And also his partner, Jiesu Luo. Would the House please make them very, very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Les: With regret, I advise the House today of the passing of one of my constituents, Mr. G.W. Graham, at the age of 103. Mr. Graham was born in Greenwood, B.C., in 1907. He moved to Chilliwack in 1909. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When he finished his schooling, he took one year of teacher training and then proceeded to teach at Atchelitz Elementary followed by Robertson Elementary and Sardis Elementary, during which time he got his bachelor's degree and became vice-principal and then principal of Chilliwack high school, now known as Chilliwack Secondary. He left a lasting imprint on his students and on our community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In 1950 Mr. Graham was appointed school inspector for the provincial government and later became the superintendent of administration for the province's school boards. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In 2005 the Chilliwack school district named its newest middle secondary school after him, known today as G.W. Graham Middle Secondary School. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In 2008 the University of the Fraser Valley presented him with an honorary doctorate degree for his decades of educational leadership. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

One of his former students said this: "There are very few people in this world that you will encounter who will have a lifetime effect on you, and he was one of those people. He gave his students a profound sense that we could do anything we wanted to do." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I said, Mr. Graham left a tremendous mark on this province and on our community, and he will be sorely missed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

E. Foster: Joining us in the House today are two friends of mine, important people in the Vernon area. We have His Worship Mayor Wayne Lippert and the chief executive officer for the city of Vernon, Leon Gous. They're here to speak to some ministers. I would like the House to make them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. Stilwell: I rise today to introduce some important friends and visitors from my riding of Vancouver-Langara who are in the House today. Rabbi Infeld from Beth Israel Synagogue and his son Avishai are here in Victoria and visiting the Legislature building. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As well, there is a group of 30 grade 5 students and 15 adults from St. Anthony of Padua School. I would like the House to please make them all very welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Popham: Today I had the pleasure of lunching with four lovely ladies: Elsie McMurphy, Sue Geddis, Linda Black and Ruth Howland. Please join me in making them feel welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: I move introduction of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Simpson: The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010, looks to protect the most vulnerable sector of our society, the owners of mobile homes. Currently tenants renting pads or land in home parks have little protection against eviction for the purposes of development. This group of people faces unique obstacles and barriers when they face an eviction. Their homes are, in most instances, permanent structures and not movable. If they can be moved, the costs are prohibitive for moving a manufactured home, if you can find another location at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

By amending sections 42 and 44 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, this bill will accomplish the following: require that a park owner require 12 months' notice of eviction when redeveloping land under any form of tenancy agreement, require that a park owner at the time of eviction pays a tenant's relocation expenses up to $25,000 and require a park owner to pay those tenants who are unable to relocate their manufactured homes because of local building standards an amount equal to the fair market value of the manufactured home as compensation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker, manufactured home owners are frequently older British Columbians who have chosen this as their retirement option. They have worked hard all their lives, they pay their rent, and they keep their homes and surroundings in good repair. These British Columbians believed they had an arrangement that would allow them some longer-term security for their later years. The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act will help to ensure that this is the case and, when it is not, will guarantee that they are at least treated with some fairness in terms of their costs and the protection of their asset. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Bill M208, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010, 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.

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Long Term Tenants Protection Act, 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to move that this bill be read for a first time now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to ask each and every member of this House for their support for the Long Term Tenants Protection Act, 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is a bill for Lynn Stevens, an 82-year-old constituent of mine who has fought ovarian cancer and now has had to fight Hollyburn Properties to stay in the only home she has known for the last 41 years — an unfair eviction. This is a bill for the Seafield, which 93- and 82-year-old Mary and Rolly McFall have called home for decades. They're now standing up to their landlord's attempt to jack up rents 73 percent through the geographic area increase clause. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This bill says no to massively jacking up rents of long-term tenants over and above the yearly rent increases they pay year in, year out. This bill puts into law what is there in spirit. It says no to big landlord companies who try to evict long-term tenants under the pretext that it's for use by a caretaker when there are actually other suites available for that use. This bill says yes to the vast majority of renters and landlords who do follow the rules and maintain long-term relationships based on trust, a home based on peace and quiet enjoyment, and steady income for the property owner. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As members will know, there are a number of other changes needed to balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, but this bill is a good first step. The Long Term Tenants Protection Act could be passed into law this week to immediately protect long-term tenants who are currently living under threat of mass eviction or massive rent hikes because of an unbalanced and unfair Residential Tenancy Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I hope members of this House will think of Lynn, Mary and Rolly and unite to pass this bill this week. I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for reading at the next sitting of the House after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Bill M209, Long Term Tenants Protection Act, 2010, 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.

D. Thorne presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Thorne: I move that this bill be introduced and read for a first time now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

D. Thorne: I'm asking today for support for this bill, which amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide more protection for tenants. It increases the amount of notice that a landlord must give a tenant in the event of renovations that require the tenant to vacate their residence and of conversion to strata title, and it increases the compensation payable to tenants under those circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It allows the tenant the right of first refusal, giving them the option of continuing residence following the renovation or conversion, and prohibits the landlord from raising the rent any more than otherwise would be lawful. Finally, it allows the tenant increased time to pay overdue rent or dispute an eviction notice and increased time before eviction due to the non-payment of rent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This act is an acknowledgment of the imbalance of power that exists between landlords and tenants, particularly with regards to the many avenues available for landlords to eject tenants with very little notice or compensation. With this act, British Columbia recognizes and protects the rights and interests of tenants in a way that is fair and reasonable to landlords. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading after today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Bill M210, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010, 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.

V. Huntington: Delta South is known for nail-biting races that come right down to the wire. Today I would like to talk about one that has been called "fast and furious" and "a wild, colourful, exciting pursuit to the finish with competitors at the top of their game competing all-out for the grand prize." It's the Tour de Delta, and the grand prize is the race jersey. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Tour de Delta, the brainchild of the member for Delta North, is a fabulous weekend of bike racing that will be celebrating its tenth anniversary two weeks hence. Over 5,000 spectators will watch three rousing events in both men's and women's categories. Athletes from around the world will come to Delta to compete for what has become the richest cycling prize in Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

North Delta stages the first event on Friday evening. The prologue is the Race of Truth, and cyclists compete against the clock on special time-trial bikes designed, they say, for speed not comfort. On Saturday morning families from North Delta, Tsawwassen and Ladner bike to east Ladner for the mayor's race and to watch BMX competition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That evening the Criterium begins with the Kid's Crit and ends with professional riders and a chase described as NASCAR on two wheels. The Criterium core circles the village streets of historic Ladner. The final event is the road race, which begins on Sunday in North Delta, runs through the agricultural lands and ends with a gruelling uphill battle on the streets of Tsawwassen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Staging the Tour de Delta takes enormous effort, and special thanks are due all the sponsors, organizers, volunteers and billets throughout Delta who make this weekend such a success. My thanks to them all, and my best wishes to all the competitors for a weekend of leg-burning fun. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

T. Lake: On Saturday, May 22, I had the pleasure of spending the day in the beautiful North Thompson community of Clearwater, gateway to Wells Gray Provincial Park, to celebrate May Days and a number of remarkable achievements. The day began with that staple of rural B.C. life, a delicious pancake breakfast served up by the Clearwater Elks Club, followed by a visit to the farmers market where home-grown herbs and handmade jewelry were hits with my wife, Lisa. Although the weather was rainy, the smiles and hospitality were, as always, very warm. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The next stop was an event that, while it might not seem popular to most, is always exciting for those of us who serve the public — the official opening of the new Clearwater sewage lagoon. The Towns for Tomorrow program has enabled the district of Clearwater to add aeration to the lagoon through a system powered by solar energy, greatly reducing the odour from the plant. The only ones more excited about the project than the politicians were the neighbouring residents, who can now enjoy their back yards whichever way the wind is blowing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The skies parted just in time for the May Day parade in which hundreds of residents lined up to watch colourful floats and antique vehicles make their way through the town, while children reached out for the delicious treats thrown by the participants of the parade. The highlight of the day was the opening of the Clearwater skateboard park and tennis courts, and the crowd was treated to a professional skateboarding demonstration. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The community of Clearwater, while facing the many challenges of a rural resource-dependent community, is full of optimistic and resilient people who celebrate their way of life and will continue to build a bright and prosperous future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Simpson: The accidental death of a young person is difficult for all of us to accept, partly because of our innate sense of the unrealized potential of that loss. When a young person makes a choice to end their own life, there is an associated guilt and inevitable questions of how family, friends and the broader society failed that person so deeply that they chose to not face another day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's why programs like yellow ribbon suicide prevention are so critical. The goals of this program are to promote awareness that suicide is our collective problem and is preventable; develop broad-based support for suicide prevention and intervention; develop and promote a program to reduce the stigma associated with suicide, which prevents individuals and families from seeking help; and increase media knowledge about youth suicide in proactive ways to prevent it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

For five years now, a group of young people in Quesnel have exemplified an energetic, upbeat and community-based approach to youth suicide prevention. Called Youth Entertaining for Service or the YES group, these young people have raised enough money each year to enable Barb Lamoureux, the Canadian representative of the yellow ribbon campaign, to come to Quesnel to engage their peers in a proactive suicide prevention program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The YES group are talented musicians, singers, dancers and true entertainers in every sense. They dedicate months of their lives to the preparation of a themed variety show that enthrals audiences for two-plus hours each night, with many people coming back again and again to enjoy their energy, talent and absolute professionalism. Their show titles reflect the range of their talents and their appeal to all audiences. They started with Fabulous Fifties, then Swing the Mood, followed by Feeling Groovy and last year's Gone Country. This year they're busy preparing Rock On. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I ask the members of this House to join me in recognizing this talented group of young people and thank them for the sacrifices they make each year to provide support to young people in their community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Sultan: I'd like to talk about some outstanding North Shore entrepreneurs. ClearVision Technologies is growing fast, solving a chronic problem in packaging. Are those flaps on the box glued down right? A production line can glue eight boxes a second. ClearVision's camera photographs each box as it flashes by, decides whether the glue is right and tags rejects with ultraviolet. Every order is defect-free. In the world of packaged goods marketing, that's a breakthrough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

CEO Stephen Robinson was a big hit at the Chicago packaging conference. Augurex Life Sciences Corp. led by Norma Biln, whose resumé runs from Pfizer to Aspreva, has developed a protein biomarker for arthritis. Biomarkers give more accurate diagnoses, allowing medical treatment customized to each patient. It's a growth market. Biomarkers are a $5 billion business growing about 40 percent a year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Inproheat was founded by an Austrian immigrant who invented submerged combustion, which saves energy in industrial heating. Today it's the ultimate in greenhouse gas reduction. Inproheat works in Chile, Mexico, the United States, Europe and elsewhere. CEO Steve Panz informs me they converted this very Parliament Building to heating by natural gas, but he also observed there seems to be no lack of hot air in the building to start with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Why is the North Shore fertile ground for such entrepreneurs? Well, for some others, coaching by such mentors as Mike Volker and Ralph Turfus also helps. Thank you, and thanks to them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: Greater Victoria high school students recently celebrated the culmination of a year of giving back to our local charitable sector. Student-led groups from seven local high schools demonstrated their support for a broad range of causes, community projects and organizations in the form of grants made through the Victoria Foundation's Youth in Philanthropy program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Participating schools this year include Belmont Secondary, Frances Kelsey Secondary, Victoria High School, St. Michael's University, Reynolds Secondary, Oak Bay High and Stelly's. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Originally launched in Victoria in November 2003, the Youth in Philanthropy program is designed to engage young people in proactive, values-led grant making. Students gain important, lifelong leadership skills as they carry out the process of making thoughtful grants to benefit our communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Each year the foundation provides grants of $3,000 for each school, $500 of which is retained to add to an established endowment in the school's name. Using Victoria's Vital Signs as a tool, the students learn about critical issues that exist in their community. Students then research the potential charities. They conduct interviews. They conduct on-site visits. Each student member provides input, and then the group as a whole decides on how to allocate the grant-making funds. The written recommendations are then approved by Victoria Foundation's board of directors. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This year the student philanthropists granted a total of $17,500 to 14 different charities in my community, including the Land Conservancy, Victoria Women's Transition House, Passion for Tango, Surrounded by Cedar, Island Wildlife Natural Care Centre, Beacon Community Services, BCSPCA, Victoria Youth Empowerment Society, James Bay Health and Community Services, Victoria Single Parent Resource Centre, Victoria Riding for the Disabled, Extreme Outreach Society, Boys and Girls Club and Victoria Cool Aid Society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Since 2003 local student grant-makers taking part in this program have made over 100 grants totalling more than $100,000. I wish all of us in the House to pass on our thanks to them for giving their time so freely this year and for making the program such a success. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Cantelon: "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." Dorothy might have said those very words had she landed on the school grounds on Sunday afternoon at Qualicum Beach Elementary School, because created that day on the grounds of the school was a storybook village of children-sized, munchkin-sized buildings to inspire a child's imagination. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It all began early Sunday morning with a team of builders, a pile of lumber and supplies in one place and teams of eager builders, without plans, to build these ten child-sized buildings. They included a general store, a hospital, fire hall, bank, post office, theatre, schoolhouse, library and gas station — all built to inspire children's imaginations in an interactive environment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Around the safety circle a child-sized roadway was built, where children can ride their trikes or pedal cars and learn about the rules of the road with stop and yield signs, visit the various buildings and enjoy some interactive and learning play. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It was built in a day — miraculously, as I say. I pounded nails with the Oceanside Development and Construction Association, so I had good help. It rose from the ground from nothing up to an entire village. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Next to the village is an alphabet garden, which features, of course — as you might expect — 26 planters, each in the shape of the letters of the alphabet. These will be tended by volunteer groups in the community who apply to tend and grow vegetables and flowers in the garden, which will be made available to the community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The entire thing creates a great learning experience and environment for seniors, grandparents, parents and teens to enjoy their imaginations with these interactive buildings. It's all part of the concept of Building Learning Together, which is a coalition of community partners that have joined together to support early learning for children zero to six and their families. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Since 1999 they've grown to represent over a hundred businesses, service clubs and schools, 20 agencies, ministries, as well as over 200 individuals who participate in this interactive development of childhood learning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Let's congratulate their efforts and congratulate all those who ably built the buildings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

C. James: In Port Alberni plans are underway to build the Pacific Coast University campus, which will house an internationally acclaimed disabled management program. But thanks to the HST, the cost of construction has just gone up by $70,000. So my question is to the Premier. Why is he hitting the Pacific Coast University with the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: I am familiar with the news reports about the concerns around this institution in Port Alberni. Certainly, I am familiar with the good work that has been done by the National Institute of Disability Management and Research going back well over ten years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I am curious as to how they would arrive at that number. Certainly, we are prepared to work with them to show them exactly how the rebate system would work. When we announced that the university sector in British Columbia would be eligible for a 75 percent rebate of the HST, I know that the university sector was very pleased with that because that, in fact, offsets the incremental cost of HST for any typical university. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

C. James: I'd like to inform the minister that the university obviously did a lot more planning than the government did. This is $70,000 after the partial rebate, which is an additional cost to this university and their construction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is an award-winning program. It helps people with disabilities get back to work. It's precisely the kind of program that we should be supporting for our economy and for people with disabilities so they can lead an independent lifestyle. But the Premier and this government are moving ahead with the HST — $70,000 additional cost on this project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, my question is to the Premier. The HST is hurting British Columbians every step of the way. Why won't he just say no to the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: The Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences has not contacted us. We would certainly be pleased to work with them in terms of the calculations they've done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When you look at the incremental cost of a construction project that would result from the introduction of the harmonized sales tax and the elimination of the provincial sales tax, we believe that for any typical construction of this nature, the rebate should totally offset any incremental cost. But we are prepared to work with them and look at the calculations that they've undertaken. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

C. James: In a September 2009 bulletin the member for Parksville-Qualicum said that the Premier himself had given his unequivocal endorsement to this university. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now this same Premier and this government are hitting them with the HST, and it's not simply the Pacific Coast University that's going to be hurt by the HST. There are similar programs and similar projects all across this province. As we all know, the government's HST betrayal will hit British Columbians in every aspect of their life. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, my question is to the Premier. The public has spoken loud and clear. Will he get rid of the HST now? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: It's that kind of blatant misrepresentation of the facts that I think has actually resulted in a lot of people's concerns about the harmonized sales tax. As I have said on numerous occasions, about 20 percent of goods and services will be more expensive after the harmonized sales tax. But we also know there are embedded production costs that will actually come out, resulting in prices being lower than they otherwise would be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Let's actually just talk for a minute about the ability of a typical British Columbia family to afford those little incremental costs that are going to happen to some things. I've mentioned the HST credit that's going to be there for 1.1 million British Columbians. I have mentioned the reduction in personal income tax that we brought in specifically to offset the HST implications. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But let's actually just compare what an individual earning $60,000 a year of income would pay today in personal income tax compared to what they would pay in the last year of the NDP government. In 2001 that individual earning $60,000 a year would pay $5,401 a year in personal income tax alone. This year, after our B.C. Liberal budget, that same individual would be paying $2,969. That's over $2,500 less. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Fraser: I don't believe anyone in British Columbia believes the minister when he's coming up with these numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Fraser: Wolfgang Zimmermann is the head of the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. As the key force behind this non-profit university, he has put together a business plan. He did his due diligence, and he is committed to helping people with disabilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The construction of this campus is underway. Imagine his shock when he learned that the HST will penalize his project — $70,000 that was not factored into the project, $70,000 more than he was prepared for. To the minister: will he stop punishing initiatives that support British Columbians hurt in the workplace? Will he scrap the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's be clear what Wolfgang Zimmermann is paying today under the PST system on the construction of this facility. He is paying 7 percent provincial sales tax on every single nail, on every barrel of concrete, on every piece of wood, on every bit of wiring, on every bit of plumbing that goes into that facility. He is paying 7 percent PST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, guess what. After July 1 he will be paying 7 percent provincial HST on all of his wood, on all of the material, and yes, on the labour component as well, but guess what. He actually gets 75 percent of that HST rebated as a result of the rebate system that we've put in place for universities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Fraser: I wonder if that's the same kind of math that led to a $500 million cost overrun on the B.C. Place convention centre. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The minister's pretty dismissive of $70,000. That's a huge hit for a project like this. It's a major setback for managers running a tight plan — like Wolfgang Zimmermann — and who want to deliver on budget. So will the minister stop this misleading rhetoric? Will he do what he said he'd do before the election and cancel the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned, the university sector — and I'm assuming that this facility qualifies as part of the university sector — will be entitled to 75 percent of all of the HST that they pay in the form of rebate. That, given the typical university in Canada, will offset all of the incremental costs that they would be facing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But going back to the member's initial comment about how our understandings may not be the same as his, I can tell you what the understandings are on this side of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's our understanding of the economy in British Columbia that has meant British Columbia now has a triple-A credit rating in this province. It's our understanding of the economy on this side of the House that has actually led to dramatic reductions in provincial income tax for British Columbians; dramatic reductions in the small business tax rate for small businesses in British Columbia; and the elimination of the corporate capital tax, which was strangling the economy in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

British Columbia is coming out of the recession faster than any other jurisdiction, and it is because of the economic policies on this side of the House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

N. Macdonald: With the Pacific Coast University, just let's be clear here. The minister says one thing, lays out one scenario, and Mr. Zimmermann lays out completely another. So who to believe? Is it the B.C. Liberals, who promised not to bring in the HST but did bring it in and now routinely trivialize any view on the HST that does not correspond with the 2 percent of British Columbians that agree with the HST? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Is it him? Or is it Wolfgang Zimmermann, just awarded Citizen of the Year in his community, just awarded or co-winner of Volunteer of the Year in his community, recipient of the Order of British Columbia, executive director of the disability fund for forestry workers of B.C., intimately involved in budgeting for the construction of Pacific Coast University. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Who are British Columbians supposed to believe — Wolfgang Zimmermann or this discredited government? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. C. Hansen: As someone who was born in Port Alberni…. I think the first time I had learned of the work of Wolfgang Zimmermann was in the mid-1990s, shortly after I was elected, during a time when I was the opposition Labour critic. Certainly, he has done a tremendous job in leading the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. His work now in putting together the Pacific Coast University of Workplace Health Sciences is to be commended and, I think, one of the reasons why everybody in this House, by unanimous vote, actually approved the private bill for the establishment of the Pacific Coast University. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I said earlier, he has not contacted us, but we would certainly be prepared to work with him, to look at his numbers. Quite frankly, I would be very surprised if the HST results in any incremental costs for the construction of that facility, but we're quite prepared to look at that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: We've learned through an astonishing four-year-long freedom-of-information request that for almost two decades the Agriculture Ministry has failed to protect wild salmon from the lethal IHN virus and actually fought to keep that information from the public. In spite of an order from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, fish farmers are threatening to keep disease outbreaks secret if the minister releases the reports. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These foreign companies are conducting business in our public waters and are threatening our wild salmon. What are they hiding from us? Did the Minister of Agriculture cave in, as usual, to the salmon farmers? Or has he released the details of the lethal pathogen outbreaks? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Thomson: I can confirm that, in response to the recommendation as a result of the order from the freedom-of-information process, we have released that information and provided it on April 12, within the timeline that was required. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As you know, the legislation requires freedom of information but also respects privacy concerns, and we take that very seriously. That process was worked through, but when the decision was made that the information was to be released, we provided that information. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: I am pleased to hear that the information has been released, and I hope it's as publicly available as we would wish. But these fish farm operations are breeding IHN and sea lice, in spite of what members opposite have been told. They have destroyed wild salmon runs in Scotland, in Ireland, in much of Norway and in Chile. They are well on their way to destroying them in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The government protects these corporate bullies who have no right at all to tell us what they will and will not report. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When is the Minister of Agriculture going to protect our wild salmon and move these fish farms off migration routes and into closed containment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Thomson: Our approach to closed containment is consistent with the recommendations of the Pacific Salmon Forum. This was the most comprehensive report that was undertaken. It made recommendations that said there should not be substantial public investment in closed containment until the business case and the economics were proved. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is emerging technology. Work continues in this area. There is progress being made. Our staff continue to work with organizations such as the Save Our Salmon society and Tides Canada in looking at this technology. We continue to support it. We will continue to work with those organizations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Also, as you know, we're in the process of negotiating the transfer of regulation of the finfish and the shellfish aquaculture industry to the federal government. The recommendations of the Pacific Salmon Forum are informing those negotiations. We will continue to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have the most comprehensive environmental regulation in place for this industry, and we'll make sure that we continue to do that as we transition the regulation of this industry to the federal government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Farnworth: The government has shown that they're more than happy to reach into the pockets of ICBC ratepayers to help cover their budget deception. In this year's budget alone they've raided $778 million from ICBC coffers. Now we've learned that the government has passed an order-in-council that gives them the ability to take money from ICBC's basic insurance rate coffers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question to the minister responsible for ICBC is: will he ensure that if there are excess moneys, it is drivers who will benefit and not this government? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: That's precisely what lies at the root of the document to which the member refers. The corporation, as the member knows, goes to the Utilities Commission for consideration of rate matters. The objective is to maintain stability, where possible, ensure that drivers in B.C. continue to enjoy the lowest rates in North America and, where possible, even reduce those rates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Farnworth: Well, the problem with the government is that we've seen that they took the $778 million from ICBC coffers. When they decided to give some back to drivers, it was in the form of $1 for the driver, $19 for the government — $1 for the driver, $19 for the government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What we want and what drivers in this province want is a commitment that if there are any excess funds, revenues, in the basic insurance coffers, that it goes back to the drivers and not to this government — every single penny. Will the minister commit to that and ensure that B.C. drivers don't get hosed at the expense of this government trying to cover up its budget deceptions? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily for the member's sake and members of the assembly, the answer to that question lies in the OIC itself, which is designed to ensure that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has the tools it requires going forward to make submissions to the Utilities Commission around rates that will ensure stability and that British Columbians continue to enjoy the lowest rates in North America. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Karagianis: The Options Child and Family Centre provides integrated day care services so that young moms can finish high school. But last month the Minister of Children and Families cut the funding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Heather Kay from Options has written to the minister, pleading for the reinstatement of their funding. The minister has categorized the cuts as only affecting teaching around feeding and diapering and basic parenting. Well, the letter from Options says: "When you have a baby, your whole relationship revolves around feeding and diapering. How you hold your baby, how you look at her and respond to her cues are the beginning of the attachment process." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Every mother knows how important this is, and I do not understand why the minister is so dismissive of the importance of this program. So I'm asking today: will she reinstate the funding fully before this organization is forced to close their doors this month? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. Polak: As we've canvassed in this House before, there have been no reductions to funding for day care spaces in British Columbia — not one dollar. In fact, our funding for child care subsidies this year is increasing to provide subsidies to more and more children and their families. This year alone we will spend $300 million on child care and a billion dollars across government on child care, early childhood development and services for children and youth with special needs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Karagianis: Almost $50,000 was cut from Options. The result, as the minister very well knows, is that they are going to be closing their doors. The letter here states: "Babies have been kept from going into foster care. Mothers have gained confidence and skills to enable them to become better parents." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It goes on to say: "Without this funding, the moms would not be able to continue their education, and for many, dropping out of school would be a downward spiral in their lives." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's very clear. Will the minister commit today to reinstate this funding so these young moms can finish their high school and get a better start in their lives on a program that has been around for 21 years and will shut its door if this minister does not do the right thing? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. Polak: When it comes to funding for the child care spaces, it is still there. When it comes to funding for the subsidies, it is still there. There is no reason for child care spaces to be closing. The funding remains. The funding the member talks about is a small amount to provide for a basic parenting training program — programs that are provided by other community services. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, we have seen nothing but increases to what we've been spending and investing in early childhood development and in child care in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Elmore: This is a program for at-risk teenaged mothers, usually with a difficult history. The letter points out that rarely does a girl enter the program with an intact family and a stable social safety net. Often this program is the only support they have in their goal to fulfil and complete their education. The moms at Options are vulnerable and at a considerable disadvantage, and this minister defends a cut of 43 percent that will kill the program and take away vital day care spaces. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Will the minister finally just do the right thing and guarantee funding for Options so they can stay open next year? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. Polak: The member is wrong. This funding does not…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. Polak: The member is wrong. The funding remains in place for the child care operating funding. The funding remains in place for the subsidy. In fact, we recognize the increased vulnerability of these young women, and that is why women in those circumstances qualify for an enhanced child subsidy that amounts to approximately $100 more than an average child would receive. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Mungall: Today the domestic violence death review panel released its report. It shows that 12 percent of homicides in British Columbia are due to domestic violence, and it offers recommendations to prevent such deaths in the future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question is to today's Solicitor General. Will this government fully implement the recommendations of this report? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a good report. I think, in analyzing the 11 incidents that took place between 1995 and this year, the civilian members of the panel had an opportunity to examine the tragic circumstances and make some very thoughtful recommendations. We don't have time here to canvass each one of them, but each one of them appears to me, at first instance, to have merit. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We'll take until the end of June, as provided in the report, to provide a formal response from various departments of government, but I hope the member will take some comfort from the fact that I think, and the government believes, it's a very good report. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

M. Mungall: Well, I'm glad the government thinks that the report is good. But I think that people wouldn't be surprised that the domestic violence death review panel report cites the Langley pilot project as a model of how agencies can work together to protect survivors of domestic violence from danger. However, people would be surprised that instead of being rolled out across the province, this government cut the Langley pilot project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

My question again is to the Solicitor General. Why did this government cut this program instead of applying it across the province? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: In the report the authors refer to and emphasize the importance of collaboration, coordination, standardization and ensuring that whether people are involved in the investigative, prosecutorial or preventative side, they have the training necessary to identify and, hopefully, prevent domestic violence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Some of that work is already ongoing. The domestic violence action plan that launched earlier this year speaks to some of those very themes. There is additional work to be done, and the government is going to capitalize on the good work of this report in moving forward to address the scourge of domestic violence in our society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister has said that this is a good report. This government can show their commitment to protecting survivors of domestic violence by acting now to restore the Langley pilot project and begin unrolling similar programs in other communities across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Will the Solicitor General show good faith by committing to fully restoring the Langley pilot project today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually think — and I wouldn't profess to have committed the entire report to memory — the report goes beyond that. I think the report and the authors speak to the importance of coordinating efforts between divisions of government, coordinating efforts between investigative authorities and prosecutorial authorities and the agencies that exist at the community level to prevent and counsel families who are victims of domestic violence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Whilst I appreciate and accept the importance that the member attaches to the single program, I think the value of the report that we're dealing with today is that it speaks to a much larger effort that the government is committed to moving forward on in the future as part of the domestic violence action plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the first session of the 39th parliament. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Hammell: I'm presenting a petition calling on the British Columbia provincial government to cover the cost of the annual PSA test for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 40 and older. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, I call the continued estimates of the Office of the Premier, and in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 20. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; L. Reid in the chair.

S. Chandra Herbert: Before the lunch hour the minister and myself, as well as a number of the other members, were engaged in a discussion about UBC and the wider property there — who's in charge, who should decide around property development there. The response I got from the minister was that he seemed to suggest that we were suggesting that a gridlock continue at Metro Vancouver and between UBC and so on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Well, the minister is correct that there was concern between Metro Vancouver and UBC about who had the right to develop property, who had to do the consulting — all those kinds of issues. With UBC being the developer, wanting to proceed with major developments there on the campus and in that surrounding area there…. We've certainly seen those with Pacific Spirit Park and the concerns around the beaches, as well as, of course, the farm. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

UBC is the developer. Metro Vancouver was trying to push for stronger land use planning there. They would be the regulator, I guess. But instead of dealing with the gridlock by pulling the two parties together, what we've got here is that the government has decided to put the role of regulator into the role of developer. Now we have UBC, an unelected board, largely in charge as a regulator of the property development as well as the developer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I guess my question to the minister is: is there any concern that this could be a conflict of interest, could lead to decisions — in terms of the development side of things — being torqued because of the desire to develop by that board? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: No, there is no concern about that. The UBC board doesn't have the final authority to make the decisions around land use; the minister does. The minister determines whether there has been an appropriate amount of consultation done with the people who live on the UBC lands, and whether or not the land use bylaw is in conformance with the legislation that we are discussing here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the question is: why wasn't there a process that brought the two parties together and got them to decide, as Metro Vancouver suggested, rather than this heavy-handed manner where now the minister is basically in charge of the future development for all of that area, and the residents there have little to no say? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I'm not sure what sort of a process the member has in mind. I can tell the member that a couple of years ago there was an attempt to do a form of mediation between UBC and Metro, and that was not successful. That is, in fact, why Metro and UBC metaphorically threw their hands in the air and said: "You have to do something to help us." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Maybe I don't understand the member's question properly, but if he's suggesting that there was no process of bringing people together here, that would be incorrect. There was a process. It wasn't a flashy, public process. It was a process that involved our staff working together with Metro Vancouver and with UBC to try and find a solution — and the solution exists in this proposed legislation — that would work on an interim basis for UBC and Metro Vancouver. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: I don't know that people have said, "Throw your hands in the air," and I know earlier the minister made the suggestion that Metro Vancouver wanted this to happen, that this was a plan that they were calling for, basically. Well, at least from my reading of Metro Vancouver councillors and board members, I guess, they've talked about this. They talked of "dictatorship." They talked about, "They hit the panic button, and the crisis does not exist" — that they wanted to be involved in this, as they had been trying to do. But instead of being involved, the minister, through this bill, is becoming the boss, basically, of all the residents for that area, without appropriate democratic principles in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don't think residents of that area are calling out for a flashy kind of a thing. I think they're calling out for what we all have in other communities, which is the right to elect decision-makers who affect the development of their neighbourhoods. That's not what we're getting with this bill. What we're getting is the minister as boss, and a largely handpicked board of directors at UBC who are not elected by many of the residents in that area, many of them being staff. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I understand the concerns UBC has, as well, with the lands that they control. And I think, instead of appointing oneself boss, one would think that, maybe, a facilitated discussion where there was a timeline laid down to pull the parties together so that we could actually increase the democracy on the campus, as opposed to, instead, where we're at here. They are no further ahead from what I can tell, in terms of democracy for those residents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The minister has suggested that there has been much call from Metro Vancouver for this kind of thing. Would the minister share his file of communications from Metro Vancouver directors and residents calling for himself to be appointed boss of the area and for the unelected board of directors to control development, both being a regulator as well as a developer? I'd be very curious if the minister has those communications. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: I can see it's going to be a challenge for me to convince the member and perhaps all the members on the other side that Metro did in fact express publicly on several occasions its desire that the province actually step in and do something. It was virtually impossible for Metro to deal with land use planning issues on UBC lands. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I can tell the member this much. This is a quotation from a mayor who sits on the Metro board. "It's getting more and more difficult to be the government for them" — UBC — "because we're not there." The same mayor said a bit later: "Let me put it in clear terms. We're not prepared to continue with the status quo." Both those quotations were from the mayor of Burnaby. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Another quotation from the same mayor publicly: "We decided clearly that one of two things happens: either we govern, or we don't govern. No more in between." Clearly, there was lots and lots of evidence that Metro was in need of some assistance in this matter, and so was UBC. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Despite what members on the other side might like to suggest — and I'm not saying they haven't had their own private discussions with certain members of the Metro board; I'm sure they have — when our professional staff dealt with their professional staff and with some of their elected folks, they said: "We need you to step in. We need you to help with land use planning on an interim basis and work long term towards more independent government for UBC." That's precisely what government is doing through this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, to quote the mayor from Burnaby, as the minister did…. This is what the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, told the newspaper about what the government decided to do here. The mayor is quoted as saying: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"It's the typical attitude of the province. It's the arrogance that makes it so difficult for us to be able to deal with them, because in essence, UBC was able to persuade them to really remain with the status quo instead of doing something that we think is necessary, and that is to end up with a local government that's democratically elected and responsible to the people who live in the UBC area."

That's the mayor of Burnaby that the minister quoted in support of what has happened here, when very clearly, from his quotations, he is not supportive of the action the government has taken here, instead calling for a locally elected body to represent the area, as opposed to the minister as boss. That's the concern that the minister needs to take into consideration here with this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I guess the next question is just around appropriate consultation. According to the bill, there's a suggestion that there could be one consultation meeting about a proposed land use plan, or more if they want. I guess the concern that I've got is that when you don't have an elected body, when the minister is in charge but is not in the area, does not get elected by those local folks, you could have one consultation meeting and ram the thing through. The board signs off on it, and then: "Here you go." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The minister, busy with many of his other files in many other communities, probably not wanting to be, in a sense, the mayor and council for that area…. That doesn't appropriately reflect the widespread community use of that area, as opposed to just the use of the university. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Does the minister suggest or feel that it's appropriate just to have one consultation meeting in this situation, as suggested in the bill? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member is referring to section 40 within the MEVA, entitled: "Consultation and public hearing." That is the minimum that will have to be done by UBCM in the land use planning process when they want to bring forward a land use planning bylaw. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

For the member's interest, and in the interests of the House, that is the same routine, the same practice that is established for municipalities. It's precisely the same thing. What's better about this particular process that's encompassed by this legislation is that, in fact, the minister, in this case, has a capacity or opportunity to order as much consultation as the minister thinks is necessary, over and above this minimum that is described in the legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, there's actually greater potential for more consultation to take place in this situation with land use planning at UBC than there would ordinarily be in a municipality. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In fact, it is the opposite from what the members are suggesting, with all due respect to them. It's not going to be less democratic, and it's not going to have less consultation. In fact, there's a very good chance that there will be more consultation here than there normally is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I guess the other difference, of course — and the minister spoke of one difference — is that the board of directors is making that decision that will affect all the residents, a number who are not affiliated with the university. If they don't like the decision, they don't have a vote to be able to tell the board of directors, "Well, we're not voting for you next time because you've decided to do something," which isn't in, in their view, the best interests of that community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's the same for everybody else who uses the Pacific Spirit Park area, the beaches, the many public spaces and facilities there — that they don't have a vote to determine…. Instead, what you have is a board of directors who very much want this development. I've seen some of the proposals. Some of them are quite exciting, and some of them are quite concerning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I guess the concern here is that we're going to have a situation where the minister can order as many consultations as he likes — and I would encourage him to order more, if this bill passes, than what's contemplated in the bill — but even with all of the consultations in the world, if a board or a government, as we've seen here with the HST and other things, decides they want to do something, no matter what the public says, they can do it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

However, in this place we all have consequences when we do one thing. We have the chance of the voters telling us in the next election that they do not appreciate that, and they can vote us out. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I've laid out my concerns around this legislation, and I think it's a concern shared by many. I don't have further questions, because I understand we're going to get very similar answers. I don't think the answers can come that would say actually that it's the local people who will get to democratically elect the people that will be making that decision, because it's not in this bill, unfortunately. I'll close there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: The minister may well be aware that Wreck Beach is a pretty prominent part of Vancouver's park community. The Wreck Beach Preservation Society has raised a number of concerns around the proposed legislation. They've got two very serious concerns. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The first is that they are of the view that the real estate development at UBC should be regulated and restricted so as to prevent adverse impacts on Pacific Spirit Regional Park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm just wondering if the minister has any comment about his view about Pacific Spirit Regional Park and, in particular, around the use of buffer zones and requiring UBC to develop a decent stormwater management system as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: In the existing OCP that continues to apply as a result of this legislation, there is a requirement that the land use planning take into account the park that the member mentions, Pacific Spirit Regional Park. As I say, that OCP will continue on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The transfer of land use planning authority to the minister, with the planning process going to UBCM, in fact does not include the parkland. So just to be clear, UBC will not have the right to do land use planning over the actual park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response, and I understand the point he's making. But the concern that the society raises is quite a legitimate one. It's one thing to have a park and a boundary in that sacrosanct property. It's another thing when you deal with the lands immediately adjacent that abut against that park. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The concern here is that they would like to see some guarantee around buffer zones, instituting reasonable setbacks, height restrictions, design requirements on lands adjacent to the park, etc. In other words, you're not going to have a wall of condominiums up against Pacific Spirit Park. That's a dramatic example, and I'm not suggesting that's going to happen. But what they are looking for is some kind of guaranteed buffer zone, and I wonder if the minister has some comment on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: I think it would be helpful to the member if I was to just read a short paragraph out of the actual OCP that deals with green areas and specifically with the park. There's a lot of protective language in this particular section of the OCP, but this is what this particular paragraph says. It says: "The planning and development of areas adjacent to Pacific Spirit Regional Park will only be done in a manner that protects the park values contained in the Pacific Spirit Regional Park Management Plan." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That's the OCP that's in place today, so it would certainly be the government's position that there is protection for the park and park values under the current OCP. Certainly, the ministry would not support removing that kind of protection at any time in the future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments. The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim has wisely pointed out to me, though, of course, that an official community plan really has no enforceability process to it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure the minister's going to tell me, but essentially it's a plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's an official community plan. It's a statement of desire, but it doesn't mean, nor does it actually stop, the development taking place in that area. Now the minister, I'm sure, will provide me with his comments in response to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: I hope that I'm responding specifically to the member's question. He'll let me know, I guess, if I'm not. UBC, in their land use planning and their efforts to pass land use planning bylaws, would not be able to pass some sort of a bylaw that's inconsistent with the existing OCP. So that language that I just read out — that does give protection to the park, to the perimeter of the park and the values of the park internally — would have to guide whatever land use planning UBC is doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: Another point that the group has raised is a concern around UBC apparently not having an effective, state-of-the-art stormwater management regime to avoid polluting the foreshore area, which, as we all know — all of us who had the opportunity to attend the campus or be on the site — is a significant portion. So I wonder if the minister has any comment on that and whether this issue has been raised to him by UBC, Metro Vancouver or others. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: I might need a bit more detail from the member to fully understand what he's asking me. Maybe this will help. I can say that UBC will be involved, and already is involved, in managing stormwater. But as the member knows, the university lands are, for the most part, up fairly high, and the foreshore is down below the cliff. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

They actually don't have management responsibilities for the foreshore, that I'm aware of, other than that they have to manage the water that flows from their land to the foreshore, obviously. I don't know if that captures what the member is after or not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments, because obviously, the issue of stormwater management on the site is a concern, particularly of the Wreck Beach Preservation Society, naturally. The cliffs are certainly subject to significant erosion. There is the issue of pollution. I want to raise this as an issue for the minister to understand and be concerned about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The second thing is…. This is important, because essentially, what this legislation does…. I understand that the minister will say that right now he is the final authority with respect to what happens in municipal government in the province anyway, but the reality is that very rarely, if ever, does the minister disagree with what the city of Nanaimo, the city of Vancouver or the city of Cranbrook does. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In this particular case, there is no elected body, the way we understand it, that will be electing officials who will be making these decisions, passing bylaws, etc. In this circumstance, the minister's view, with great respect, of what happens at UBC is extremely important to this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The decisions that will be made will be advanced by an unelected board, largely. The minister does talk about their election, but the reality is that you've got the chancellor, the president, 11 persons appointed by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and eight elected persons — three students, three faculty members and two employees. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The reality is that the majority are appointed by the provincial government. The minister is the person ultimately responsible. So I'd like to hear from the minister today: what is his view of development at UBC in a general way? I'm looking for a statement of philosophy and his viewpoint, because clearly his viewpoint is going to have a significant impact on how these sections are actually implemented. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I think there are two parts to my answer. The first part deals with the first part of the member's question. Just to set the record straight, the minister in this ministry actually does not sign off on or approve bylaws for municipalities. Regional district bylaws do come to this ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

You know, I think the member describes that process fairly. The minister is certainly not obligated to sign off on these bylaws. But typically, by the time they get through staff who look at these things and send them back, often, until they're done properly in terms of their formalities…. By the time they do get to the minister, they usually are signed off. But that's not the process that we're setting up through this legislation. The minister will actually have more authority in this situation than, typically, the minister would have in a regional district situation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To the second part of the member's question, there is an existing OCP there that provides…. From everything that I have been told, all of my advice would indicate that the existing OCP is a reasonably good one and that it addresses issues of sustainability. Of course, UBC is known around the world for its grasp of sustainability principles and how it implements them there at the campus. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So in terms of the minister's role here, the minister would be guided by the existing OCP but also by the legislation. When the member has a look at the legislation that's proposed here, he will see, for example, that any changes are supposed to be consistent with a regional growth strategy. There are actually a number of restrictions on what UBC can do to change the existing OCP. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As I said before lunch, this is probably going to be about a two-year process, at least, where we'll be dealing with the existing OCP. For whoever happens to be minister in this ministry, their job will be to make sure that any changes, any bylaws, are consistent with the legislation and with the existing OCP. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: Given, as I understand it, that this is an interim measure in a sense, what's the minister's long-term view of how this issue — and I will try and state it objectively — between Metro Vancouver and UBC is going to be resolved? In other words, what's in the minister's contemplation on this? Are we doing this strictly as a stopgap with a view to creating a municipality? Are we going to get something in place, throw it back and let them settle it on their own at some future date? What's the minister's thinking behind this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member has been around here long enough. I suspect he has a pretty good appreciation of the complexities of these kinds of negotiations between these entities — an entity like UBC and an entity like Metro. Any time you do any sort of a local government amalgamation or boundary change or anything like that — service sharing, anything like that — it takes time and effort. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To answer the member's question, what I would foresee is that we get started, after this legislation is passed — assuming that it's passed — and take our time to make sure that everyone understands what their roles are. Over a period of time…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We do agree with Metro and with UBC that there is a need for more representative local government there on the Point Grey peninsula. There's significant population growth estimated there, and we think there will be some benefit to moving towards some form of municipal governance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We do not know what that will be, and this is not unusual. From the year that I've been in the ministry, I can tell the member that we often get into discussions…. I've got discussions happening all over the province on a myriad of different local government issues where we don't know what the result's going to be. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The culture, frankly, in this ministry is one that I think is almost unique in government, and it's that we don't go with necessarily preconceived notions about what the result will be. We want to work with our local government partners and have them help us determine what the result will be, and that's precisely what will happen in this case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: If the minister could explain the effect of section 38. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the narrow purpose of the particular section the member asks about is to ensure that the director of finance must, in a report to council, set out objectives and policies for each year in relation to the use of tax exemptions for eligible not-for-profit properties under this new section 396F. More generally, what we're doing with this legislation is that we are amending the Vancouver Charter to allow the city of Vancouver to provide permissive tax exemptions on part or all of the land and improvements owned or held by local charitable, philanthropic or other not-for-profit organizations such as legions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

N. Macdonald: This is a reorganization. The minister and I had a discussion on it. Essentially, this is, as I understand it, the forest renewal money. It's being reallocated into a form that is going to broaden the scope of the funds that were still in forest renewal. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The question I have for the minister, just to put it on record, the amount of money that we're talking about here, if this is the appropriate section, and the changes, the necessity for the changes…. There's quite a lot in here, but if the minister could characterize those changes and the amount of money that we're talking about and the purpose for the reorganization of these funds. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the amount of money is approximately $14 million, and as the member and I discussed the other day, that amount varies to some extent because we're talking about loan proceeds. We're talking about money that was loaned out under the Forest Renewal B.C. program and has been out there, and that is being repaid. So the amount does fluctuate to some extent. My advice is that it's approximately $14 million now that is sitting idle, essentially because of lower uptake on these loans than what Community Futures expected. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think the member wanted me just to give a little bit of context for why we're doing this and what we're doing. Essentially, what we're doing is we're transferring the responsibility for the administration of the — and this is a term of art — forest community business loans program, that portfolio, to this ministry, the Ministry of Community and Rural Development. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This legislation will authorize the ministry to expand the program's lending terms beyond the forest sector to a wider range of sectors, and that includes aquaculture, clean and renewable energy, innovative development and use of technology, manufacturing and tourism. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These loans will still be available to the forest sector in the same communities that they are available today. I think there are something like 33 Community Futures Development Corp. offices involved here and six aboriginal development corporations that have responsibility for disbursing these loans. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So they will have more latitude in terms of where the money is loaned out. Otherwise, our concern is, based on the evidence, that that money is going to sit there and not be able to get out and help our rural communities. So that's the basis of the legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

N. Macdonald: Just one final question then, just to paraphrase what the minister has expressed here. People on the ground that would be going for these loans would not notice an administrative difference. All that they would notice is that the types of loans that will be offered have been broadened. But in terms of how they would apply, all of those processes would remain very familiar to people. If that's correct, then I think that will be the end of the questions on this section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Bennett: To answer the member's question, the only thing that will change with this legislation is the terms of reference for what kinds of enterprises will be successful in getting loan funds. Now, under the current legislation, it's limited to forestry-based or forestry-related enterprises. That scope will expand so that the Community Futures offices and the aboriginal offices, the development corporations, will be able to choose — for example, in the member's riding, tourism enterprises, tourism projects as opposed to simply forestry projects. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I will tell the member that although this is not in the legislation, I am advised by staff that the loan amounts will also be able to be higher than they have been in the past. I think the limit right now is $75,000. The proposal will be to the lenders that they go as high as $150,000 — again, thinking that that's going to enable more economic development, more job creation, in rural B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can just confirm that presently, the use of video cameras in the school system in the province…. If she could just comment on it. How extensive is it? Does she have any knowledge of it? Is it permitted, presumably, under the statute already? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, I'd like to say that with me today from the Ministry of Education are Sherri Mohoruk, superintendent, liaison division; and Mary Shaw, who is the manager of governance and legislation and also registrar of student appeals in the student appeals branch. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We missed the last few words of what the member said, but I'll answer the part that I did hear. Then if I've missed part of his question, he could let us know. All three of us missed it, unfortunately — the last few words. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But with respect to the… Prior to the legislation we're aware that…. We actually surveyed the school districts. We did not hear back from all the districts, but of those that we had replies from, 36 of the districts have policies in place regarding video surveillance, but in fact 26 of the districts have video surveillance cameras in operation in some of their schools at this time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I'm sure the member for Skeena will be able to tell me the number of school districts in the province of British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So approximately half of the school districts in the province of British Columbia have cameras already installed now. Is the minister satisfied that the use of those cameras is, in fact, presently permissible under the School Act, or is that the reason for this statutory change? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The current use of video surveillance cameras is governed under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. It would continue to be governed under that after the legislation, should the legislation pass. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: Given that we've got half of the districts using video surveillance cameras and half not using them, was this legislative amendment a request through the B.C. School Trustees? Was it a request from the school districts? I mean, where does this come from? I must say to the minister that on our side of the House we're not aware of any public outcry or demand from any sources for this legislative amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This was an election platform commitment. We had heard from parents that they would like to have the option to have video surveillance equipment installed in schools if they believed it would add to the safety of their children. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I want to thank the minister for her answer. As I recall, it was a campaign commitment in writing that the Liberal government wouldn't institute the HST, and that campaign commitment seemed to go by the wayside and meet with what I think can be fairly described as a significant public opposition to that position. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Is the minister telling this House that the real reason — indeed, it appears to be the only reason — that this legislative amendment is before the House is because in some obscure part of the Liberal platform a commitment was made to basically give government sanction to the installation of video surveillance cameras across the B.C. school system? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We previously had a situation where school boards were making the decision about video surveillance cameras in isolation, and we heard from parents that they would like the option to have input. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Further, through the use of school planning councils, it will not only be parents that will have a voice, but it will also be the principal, teachers and, in the case of secondary schools, students, as well, that will have a voice. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We certainly do support parents. We think that parents are an integral part of the school community and that it is important for them to have a voice where they wish to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: This amendment falls into the section of the School Act that's defined as division 2, "Powers and Duties." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The concept that a board, with the approval of a school planning council, which may or may not be functioning very well, is in a position to have cameras installed in the school facility means, as I see no restriction on this, that in theory — and I'm asking the minister to comment on this — in our wonderful democratic system, as we can elect anyone…. A school board could in theory install cameras in a grade 1 classroom. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The way I read this legislation, it literally gives the authority to a school board to install video surveillance cameras in a grade 1 classroom. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The current status is that a school board is governed by current legislation, by freedom-of-information and privacy legislation. The change here is that if a board was contemplating video surveillance cameras or if a school planning council requested it, the consultation has to take place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are clear indications for when these surveillance cameras could be installed. A board may install and operate a camera in a school facility or on school land for the purposes of protecting the safety of individuals in a school facility, an individual's belongings or school property. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So there are specifics in the legislation that talk about the circumstances under which a surveillance camera…. But the main difference between the current state and the legislation is that the school planning council now must be consulted with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister in a somewhat lengthy way give a yes to my last question. She talked and referred to the purposes of protecting, and she's quite right. The legislation is specific. It said you may install them "for the purposes of protecting (a) the safety of individuals in a school facility or on school land." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

If there's regular bullying and beating going on behind the backstop at the school, we'd want to stop that. But this section, with great respect to the minister, I would suggest…. When we get to section (b), it says: "an individual's belongings in a school facility or on school land." It means, quite literally, that if Jane is stealing Dick's lunch, you get to install a camera. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

That, I would respectfully suggest to the minister, is the literal and appropriate legal interpretation of this section. If there is a mass of stealing lunches in grade 2…. In the law you always try and look at the most extreme cases. That's why law is drawn narrowly. That's literally what that section says. Does the minister agree or disagree? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Although he does not seem to be taking this matter very seriously, I believe that the boards of education involved as well as the school planning councils would, in fact, take the video surveillance camera issue very seriously and would contemplate carefully the use of these cameras and would do it wisely. There's no indication that they're doing other than that at present. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Although, as I've said, he seems to be trivializing it, I'm very doubtful that either the boards of education or the school planning councils, both of whom would be involved in the decision-making, would take this anything other than seriously. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I'm somewhat disappointed that the minister would suggest that the protection of privacy in our society is trivializing — the government's view of this legislation, as it's proposed. There is a time to use a sledgehammer, and there is a time to use a fly swatter. What this legislation is giving is the power to school boards, if a school planning council consents to it, for the installation of cameras in literally every room in a school. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Now, I'm not going to suggest for a moment that you're going to have school boards across this province or school planning councils in every district doing that. But the fact is that when you open up the door in this way and, with great respect to the minister, for what is the most trivial of excuses that I've heard for legislation, which is simply that it was in the campaign platform and some parent advisory councils and school planning councils requested it…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

With the greatest respect to the minister, why are we doing this? What great mischief is going to be remedied by the passage of this section? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Can the minister tell me: has the B.C. School Trustees Association, the governing body of the school districts of this province…? Does she have a letter she can produce in this House today that says they approve of and request and want this legislation, or a letter even remotely resembling any of the things I suggested might be in such a letter? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: From the president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. She stated that people seem to think that this is something new, but in fact, it isn't. She stated: "I think it's better than what we had, and I would prefer that parents have at least some input, which we did not have before." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, Connie Denesiuk, stated that Bill 20 is not going to lead to more cameras in schools. Instead, it adds another step to the process by giving input to school planning councils. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"The amendments are helpful to boards that decide to establish video surveillance systems in schools in that they specifically authorize boards to collect information about students in this way, for the stated purpose of protecting individuals' safety, personal belongings and school property, in schools and on school grounds. The amendments also limit the authority of boards and principals by requiring approval of the school planning council before cameras can be installed in a school or on school property."

L. Krog: I don't think I heard a letter from the School Trustees Association saying that they thought this was a good idea or requesting it. So I come back to this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Apart from the fact that you have some school planning councils who have some interest in this…. We know that the school planning councils aren't working that well. Indeed, there are schools that don't have them. We know that teachers aren't participating. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Given all those circumstances, did the minister, before this was prepared for approval by cabinet, consult widely with school districts, with the BCTF, with the school planning councils, with educators generally? Did she engage in some kind of process apart from the insertion of something to this effect in the B.C. Liberal Party platform? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What this legislation does is actually put into place consultation that wasn't previously there. It allows for consultation. In fact, it mandates consultation with the school planning council that previously wasn't there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Previously boards of education could and have put video surveillance cameras in place without any consultation. They've made the decisions on their own. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In terms of the survey that we did of the districts that currently do use video surveillance cameras…. As members pointed out, it's nearly half of school districts that are currently using them. The response to us from the districts in terms of what they viewed as to be the effectiveness of the cameras was overwhelmingly positive, with many school districts noticing less damage and vandalism. We did not have any negative feedback from the districts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response, but my question was about consultation before this amendment was in fact introduced. I take it from the minister's answer — which focuses on the process now, because you'll have to consult the school planning council — that there wasn't really any significant public consultation prior to the introduction of this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I do note the minister, along with every other member of this assembly, received a letter yesterday from the Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils expressing significant concerns, setting out the policy that Victoria has adopted and asking for guiding principles. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These include ensuring that consultation processes used are thorough, adequate and appropriate in the circumstances; ensuring that there is a compelling reason for each deployment; ensuring that video surveillance is only used after all other reasonable and less invasive alternatives have been considered; ensuring that deployment is for a time frame realistically tied to the problem that led to the deployment; ensuring that video surveillance records are secure and that access is severely restricted; and ensuring that reporting procedures are designed to build empirical evidence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm just wondering — as I have no doubt that the minister read that letter before today: does she have any comment on the principles that have been suggested by the parent advisory councils? If so, why not consider ensuring that those in fact are the principles, assuming this legislation passes? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: I seek leave to make an introduction, Madam Chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: I have great pleasure in introducing 27 grade 5 students from Hawthorne Elementary in my riding. They are here with Miss Grace Yan, their school teacher, and seven of their parents. I hope that the House makes them welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have not received that letter, I have not seen that letter, and the colleagues that are with me today have not seen the letter. But from what I could understand of what the member articulated, many of the principles that he has read from the letter are in fact embodied in many of the school district policies. Certainly they are in the legislation, the freedom-of-information and privacy-protection legislation, which already was in place to guide the use of these video surveillance cameras prior to this legislation being brought forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What this legislation does is to allow a school planning council to actually have a voice so that if they are opposed when a board comes forward proposing a new use of a video surveillance camera, they actually can block the use of those cameras. It's adding an extra layer of consultation and an extra step. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I'm somewhat surprised that the minister hasn't seen it. I thought the public affairs bureau would be working overtime — or some MLA's office. It was sent to every member of the assembly. It was sent at 9:22 a.m. yesterday. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

With respect to the minister's comments, the way I understand it is that this was supposedly more consultation, more consideration. The minister would surely acknowledge, then…. If you don't have a school planning council, then, is the minister suggesting — and correct me if I'm wrong — that this legislation means: unless you have a school planning council, the board cannot install video surveillance cameras? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That is the case. If there's not a school planning council that's up and running, then one will have to be formed, because a board would have to put that matter forward to a school planning council. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: My reading of the legislation — and I'm not skipping ahead to section 43 yet — is that it indicates that the principles, which involve the purposes of protection that are referred to in the act, mean that if you've got cameras installed already, then those are grandfathered, so to speak. In other words, existing cameras will remain in place across the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The legislation does provide for so-called grandfathering for existing cameras, but it also states that these would be subject to annual review. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I'm not trying to check up on the minister's correspondence section here, but I presume she did receive the submission of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association with respect to this amendment? That's a joint submission. Has the minister received that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I want to quote from paragraph 2, and this is from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"The BCCLA and the BCFIPA urge the Legislative Assembly not to pass the school surveillance amendments. We submit that the amendments are not needed, that they lower the standard for justification of video surveillance in schools and that the facilitation of increased video surveillance in schools undermines the democratic values that public schools should exemplify."

They go on to say in paragraph 4, and I think it quite appropriate: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

"The BCCLA and the BCFIPA are concerned that this steep downgrading of the need for justification for introducing video surveillance in schools — from a demonstration of necessity to the mere ostensible aim of providing safety or property protection — is (a) part of the creeping repeal of FOIPPA that is undermining the citizens' privacy protections in a range of areas, and (b) apt to facilitate an unwarranted and harmful increase in video surveillance in schools."

I wonder if the minister can advise the House: was any reaction sought from the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly know that districts have worked with the Privacy Commissioner in the past in assessing the implications of using video surveillance, and we have no reason to think that they will do other than that in the future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The intent of this section is not to replace the previous procedures from boards but rather to add a new level of accountability. The head of the B.C. School Trustees Association, the president, has certainly stated her view that Bill 20 will not lead to more cameras in schools but rather adds another step in the process by giving input and, in fact, a veto to school planning councils. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: Of course, the school planning councils are hardly what one would call democratic. In a high school they're made up of the school principal, three parent volunteers, one teacher representative and one student representative. In elementary schools, I believe, you don't even have the student representative. That's the democratic forum that will be able to make the request to the board to install the video surveillance camera in the grade 1 classroom to ensure that Sally doesn't steal Dick's lunch. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has argued — and I'd be interested in hearing the minister's comments, as I'm sure she sought legal advice in this matter — that the potential effect of this is to indeed lower the standard that exists under FOIPPA now, that it provides a specific statutory provision, and that as long as a board in its wisdom decides that an individual's belongings have to be protected, you can install these and therefore bypass the existing legislation and protection under the information and privacy act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to the composition of the school planning council, in fact, they are democratically elected. The parents are elected by the parent advisory committee. Every parent of a child in the school is able to have a vote, if they wish to, for who will represent them on the school planning council. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

With respect to what will govern the use of the video surveillance cameras, they will continue to be governed under the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation that's currently in effect. It will continue to be in effect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I just want to hear it again from the minister, just to make sure. What she's saying to the House is that, notwithstanding the specific provisions in sections 42 and 43 of this bill, FOIPPA will still govern and that this will not provide a reduction in the standard, which is exactly the point of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association's fairly lengthy and, I might say, cogent presentation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, the Freedom of Information Act still applies. In terms of what this legislation does, it actually provides some limits for boards, because there most likely will be cases where school planning councils will say that they do not wish to have video surveillance cameras in cases where the board is considering it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Chair: Would members please take their seats so the division members can be counted. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

YEAS — 47
Horne	Letnick	McRae
Stewart	Coell	McNeil
Chong	Polak	Yamamoto
Bell	Krueger	Bennett
Stilwell	Hawes	Hogg
Thornthwaite	Hayer	Lee
Barnett	Bloy	Reid
Thomson	Falcon	Penner
de Jong	Campbell	Hansen
Bond	MacDiarmid	Abbott
Lekstrom	Coleman	Yap
Heed	Cantelon	Sultan
McIntyre	Rustad	Cadieux
van Dongen	Howard	Lake
Foster	Slater	Dalton
Pimm		Huntington
NAYS — 26
Fleming	Farnworth	James
Ralston	Popham	B. Simpson
Austin	Karagianis	Brar
Hammell	Lali	Thorne
Horgan	Bains	Dix
Mungall	Chouhan	Macdonald
Chandra Herbert	Krog	Gentner
Elmore	Fraser	B. Routley
Coons		Sather

The Chair: We'll wait a moment until the chamber is empty. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: This section applies specifically to the Francophone Education Authority. I'm just wondering: were they specifically consulted on this, and did they provide their position to the minister? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What this section does is make the previous legislation actually apply to the CSF. As mentioned previously, what the legislation does is add a consultative process through the school planning council that wasn't previously present. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I hope it's not the soft voice, but my question was, quite specifically: did the minister or the ministry consult with the Francophone Education Authority with respect to this section? In other words, did they request that these surveillance provisions apply to them as well? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, what the legislation does is make…. For the francophone parents, they will have the same ability for consultation as the anglophone parents through school planning councils. That's the point of this section of the legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

As we did with the other school districts, we did survey the CSF and found that they were currently installing video surveillance cameras in two of their schools. That's underway at present. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I take it from the minister that there was a survey done, but what I'm asking is: was the Francophone Education Authority asked specifically if they approved of or supported this legislation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I've said, this legislation was developed based on our election platform. The specific promise that we made there was with respect to parents — that we'd heard from parents that they would like to have a voice with respect to the video surveillance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We certainly believe that parents are an integral part of the school community and that they should be able to have a say. That is what is additionally added for both francophone and anglophone parents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Specifically, to the member opposite, we did not consult with school boards when we were preparing this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: My question was specifically with respect to the Francophone Education Authority. The minister's answer was to school boards generally. I take it that answer applies to the school boards of British Columbia. In other words, they were not consulted specifically with respect to this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I've said, this legislation specifically is to allow school planning councils to have a say where they previously did not, where decisions about video surveillance cameras were made by boards. The consultation process now has to include school planning councils, and we did not discuss this with the CSF. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: With great respect to the minister, the desire to keep the information private is quite remarkable to me. I mean, this is…. Regardless of what the minister may characterize as simply being a tool or an opportunity for schools and students and parents to have a say now in the installation of video surveillance cameras, it is in fact a step down the road to further surveillance in our society, which is an increasing problem around the privacy issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would have thought that rather than implement this legislation, there would have been at least some consideration given to the issues of privacy, as opposed to the concerns of parents — some parents, I might add, some PACs, some school planning councils — to the concerns that have been raised by the opposition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to assume that given the nature of this section…. I'm not sure where it fits in the School Act. Is there at least existing provision so that regulations can be approved by cabinet, which is the last thing I generally like to see, that might in fact limit the application of this section or provide some guidelines, as discussed in my earlier line of questioning? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Freedom of Information Act still applies, as it did prior to this legislation. We know that boards previously worked with the Privacy Commissioner, and we expect that they will continue to do that in the case where they're considering installing new video surveillance cameras. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Before we begin questioning on this portion of the bill, I would like to introduce Paul Wieringa, who is my acting ADM for oil and gas, on my right, as well as Michael Rensing, who is the manager of renewables in the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: This part of the miscellaneous bill is an opportunity for the government to get the low-carbon fuel standard right. What I mean by right is actually plausibly achieving the goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuel by 10 percent by 2020. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The government is aware of a number of reports that cast doubt on some of the flaws in the legislation. There has been a comparison in some detail between B.C.'s low-carbon fuel standard and California's. The differences come down to how carbon intensity in the fuel is measured, the source and the reporting out of suppliers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are obviously very high-carbon-intensity sources of crude oil and conventional crude sources that are not as high. One of the problems in our low-carbon fuel standard is that there is not adequate accounting for that and a reconciliation in the legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We have an example of better legislation in California where this is done. The fluctuations of the carbon content of certain types of oil can be as great as 40 percent. The problem with the legislation as it's drafted now is that in striving to achieve a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity from fuels by having a biofuel additive, if the source of the crude is of a high-carbon intensity — and I'm, of course, speaking of sources from our dear neighbour here at this point in time — then the fuel standard could be completely counterproductive, and it raises the prospect of completely misrepresenting the emissions savings. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What I would like to do is propose an amendment to the definitions of this section of the renewable and low-carbon fuel requirement act by adding a new definition that reads…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: I would like to add, as subsection (1) at this portion of the bill, a new definition that reads — and I've given a copy to the minister: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

By adding a new section numbered 47.1 that reads "Section 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act S.B.C. 2008, c.16, is amended by adding a new definition that reads 'High carbon intensity crude oil' means any crude oil that has a total production in transport carbon-intensity value greater than 15.00 grams of carbon dioxide equivalence per Mega-Joule."]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The amendment you've put forward is unnecessary. We actually already incorporate the oil sands. It's already calculated in our baseline number. So I think that's where the member is looking at. I'm guessing that's where he was referring. He talked about our neighbour to the east, and I think he's talking about the oil sands probably. I would let him clarify that, but it's already utilized in our calculation of our baseline number. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain to the House…. The changes in section 48 seem to me to push forward or bring back compliance periods previous and next. Can the minister explain how that balances out over a calendar year, or is it a fiscal year? How is that calculated? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is based on a calendar year, Member, and what it does is allow for…. If there was an overcompliance in one year, they could use a portion of that overcompliance the following year to meet their numbers. Likewise, if there was an undercompliance in year 1, they could actually, in year 2, achieve that by overcomplying in year 2. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Did suppliers raise this issue with the ministry? Were they concerned about balancing out year over year or compliance period over compliance period, or was this amendment driven by the ministry staff? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This amendment was a result of significant consultation with the fuel suppliers themselves to talk about how we could ensure that we could meet these standards and these numbers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: So the consultation that took place, initiated by the supplier or the ministry, was a result of some concern that the existing statute was less flexible than it could have been or should have been, and is that the rationale for the change? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The flexibility was built in so that the suppliers could meet their numbers, as I said. For example, there may be a global disruption in the supply for what they needed for their fuel to meet these standards at the end of one year, so they may not have met it there. The carryover to the next year would allow them to actually meet their numbers through overcompliance in the case of the way I've just explained it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I don't see, in these miscellaneous amendments, but perhaps with staff available…. Is it anticipated that suppliers can continue to miss targets year after year after year provided they're able to push that forward? Is there any…? Do you get three strikes, two strikes, one strike? How many misses do you get before you're called on the carpet? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, you can only carry forward for one year or utilize from the one year back to bring yourself into compliance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: Again, in the low-carbon fuel standard there is a flaw that has been discussed at length in 2008 when we debated the original legislation around land use and the carbon intensity of the biofuel additives to the blended fuel. While the legislation that British Columbia has does talk about some of the direct carbon inputs where biofuel is made — just looks at fertilizer use and some of those types of offsets associated with the production of the fuel — it does not account for indirect land use changes, where land is taken out of either the natural environment or the use of the land is switched. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

California's regulation, again, is more comprehensive, does force suppliers to report to government about that. It's a loophole that the opposition thinks should be addressed for the credibility of this legislation and for the achievement of the 10 percent reduction target by 2020. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I would move an amendment at the appropriate time to deal with that and ask the minister for a comment at this time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, rising to speak to the member and comment on the amendment he's put forward, I would, obviously, at this point speak against it, but for the reason that it's about indirect land use on this and utilizing it in…. I know he's studied California's model — significantly, I believe — but right now it is changing on a regular basis. There's still a great deal of work to be done on this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I know California is changing as we speak here today. We aren't ruling it out, but at this time it is premature to look at that until further work is done, not just for British Columbia, but really California as well is doing a considerable amount of work, re-evaluating how they actually approach this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: The minister is correct. California has gone quite far with this. I think in terms of the life-cycle costing of it, they have taken some appropriate steps. They have tagged on to what is called the Global Trade Analysis Project. They look at where these biofuels come from and source them from the very first stage of production. They have created their own peer-reviewed model, which I understand is administered and governed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA in the U.S. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

These are things that if we changed B.C.'s law…. These are governance models and peer-reviewed steps that we could take that would not make it difficult for each supplier. It would make the regulation clear. It would be able to account for indirect land use changes. It's likely that other provinces and parts of Canada may also be able to participate in that when they have legislation like this. The point really is to get it right. It is to have full carbon cycle accounting done for the fuel. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm going to stop speaking to it now and allow this section to pass and then maybe propose an amendment that can address that and strengthen our legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: I'd like to propose an amendment to the bill by adding a new section, numbered 49.1, that reads: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

By adding a new section numbered 49.1 that reads "Section 6 of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) is amended by adding a new subsection that reads '(6) Beginning in the second compliance period, and for subsequent compliance periods, a Part 3 fuel supplier must apply an estimate of indirect land use impacts to the determination of the carbon intensity for biodiesel fuel and ethanol.'"]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Having just spoken briefly on this and knowing the intent, I'll speak against the amendment, Member, for the simple fact that you've laid out the second compliance period. We're not sure…. As I said, there's still a great deal of work ongoing on this to make sure…. And I will go back to the member's own words. We want to make sure we get it right. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We think that this amendment may be somewhat premature. We're very cognizant of the fact of what you're referring to when it comes to indirect land use on this, but I'm not sure that your amendment meets what's going to be needed here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

For that reason, I'm going to speak against it and vote against the amendment, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: I'd like to propose another amendment, adding a section in 49 that reads: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

By adding a new section numbered 49.1 that reads "Section 6 of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) is amended by adding a new subsection that reads: '(5) Beginning in the second compliance period, and for subsequent compliance periods, a Part 3 fuel supplier must identify any high carbon intensity crude oil (HCICO) that it supplies and apply a default carbon intensity developed specifically for the HCICO for the volume of each HCICO supplied in the determination of the weighted average of carbon intensities;'"]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We broached this earlier. I think under 47 we spoke briefly about it. We already have this in our default calculations, what you're recommending here. Actually, when you look at it, about 48 percent of the utilized oil here in British Columbia is from our neighbours to the east oil sands. We use that in our default calculations already, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

R. Fleming: This is the concern, that it already is a high content; 48 percent of the oil that's imported comes from that source. That could grow, perhaps, to three-quarters of the market. The attempt to reduce by 10 percent our emissions intensity in this sector, from transportation fuels, by 2020 would be unachievable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

While the minister says that it is accounted for, my understanding is that crude oil is in fact treated equally. Fuel suppliers are not part of a credit and deficit system when they account for where their crude comes from, unlike in California. So while it may be referenced in the legislation, it is essentially meaningless in terms of any economic incentives or disincentives to source high-carbon-intensity crude oil. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We've taken the approach, Member, that we are actually rewarding the lower-carbon-intensity fuels in British Columbia. Higher intensity — obviously, there it's the carrot and the stick. There are penalties for the people that don't comply. We think that that's the proper way to do it. The act, I think, addresses that, and we're comfortable with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, I'm not supporting the amendment you've put forward here today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Similar to the questions I had for the minister on section 48, can the minister give his assurance that the passing forward and backward of emissions compliance periods is similar — that there will be one forward, one back, and that's it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 47 dealt with part 2, which was renewable fuels. That was a one-year carry-forward, or utilizing overcompliance in the year out to meet your undercompliance in the first year. Part 3 deals with the low-carbon fuel. This one — there is no back-carrying. But what you can do is if you overcomply this year, you can carry forward that overcompliance for up to three years. What you can't do is if you undercomply this year, you don't have the luxury, under part 3, as a part 3 fuel supplier, of saying: "I'll overcomply next year." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Was the consultation that the minister referred to with respect to section 48 also conducted with respect to section 50? And why did the minister make the period of grace or moving forward three years — not two, not five? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We did consult, Member. This is truly a housekeeping issue. What happened before is that they couldn't carry forward their own overcompliance or credits. They didn't have that ability. They had to get rid of those. They could carry forward credits that they purchased. So this is really a housekeeping issue that allows them to carry forward their own good work, really, or overcompliance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I'm reading in the explanatory note for section 51: "…requires fuel suppliers to advise purchasers of the renewable fuel content of fuel by posting labels or giving notice." I'm wondering why we didn't put that in the original renewable and low-carbon fuel requirements — why we are adding that today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: In our discussions with industry it became clear that if we didn't enshrine this, it wouldn't be uniformly dealt with across. We think that the labelling is extremely important; thus, we've put it in the act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I agree with the minister that labelling is vitally important to this initiative, and that's why I'm curious as to how it got through the first time. Maybe it was the haste with which that legislation was passed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Those who just said "Aye" clearly haven't seen section 52 because we would never…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: It's one of those moments when I wish we could use props so that members in the gallery and people watching at home could understand what it is we're doing here with section 52. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What it does is it "corrects the formula for calculating automatic administrative penalties when carbon intensity requirements for fuel are not met for a compliance period." We've just been discussing compliance periods in previous sections where some compliance can be put forward and some compliance can be brought back. That in and of itself is interesting, but nothing in my time, my five years as a legislator, has prepared me for section 52 and the mathematic formula. Or I guess it wouldn't even be a mathematic formula, would it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It is a formula, and I don't know how to describe this. I'm looking at my colleague from Nanaimo, who suggests that rather than me explaining what we have here in section 52, why don't I just ask the minister to do that on my behalf? Could the minister advise the House how it is we came to the formula described in section 52? Mindful of the time, Minister, perhaps you could do it quickly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I, too, wish I could use props at this point, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This calculation is similar to California. The only change we're making on this one is that we're making now the EER portion of the formula, which is being added, which is the energy efficiency ratio. The energy efficiency ratio is utilized to calculate the difference between a gasoline vehicle and a vehicle powered by another source, whether that be an electric vehicle, a diesel vehicle, or so on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: As there is an administrative penalty as a result of this section, and we're trying to correct the formula for calculating an automatic administrative penalty, I think, although the minister made a valiant effort there, perhaps I'll explain to those in the gallery who are now on the edge of their seats, I can see, anxious to learn more about the formula contained in section 52. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I thought it might have been the secret to the universe, but the answer is not 43. So it can't be that. For those paying attention — I know my friend from Cowichan Valley is — the formula goes as follows. The administrative penalty equals — large bracket, small bracket — actual CI minus required CI, keeping in mind that the actual CI is the weighted average of the carbon intensities of the part 3 fuels supplied in the part 3 fuel supplier in the compliance period before taking into account notional emissions under section 8. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So that's the, bracket, actual CI minus the required CI, bracket, times the sum of, bracket, EER times EC for each fuel, bracket, over one million, minus the NE credit plus the NE increase equals times PR. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think I've done a fairly adequate job. I know I'm getting nods from the Minister of Mines, and those in the gallery now have a fuller understanding of the important work at committee stage here on a miscellaneous amendment bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But let me go back to the beginning of the equation, and perhaps the minister could just start there. The administrative penalty is the concern. Although I'm interested in how we arrive at it, perhaps we could just explain what we're going to do with that penalty as a result of this amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The administrative penalty, as you said…. I won't go into the detail. I want to commend the member for his fine reading ability on reading that formula. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The administrative penalty is based on the actual CI — what you have, what will go out, because this is a complicated formula, in all seriousness — then what your required CI was supposed to be. Then we apply the formula that the member rightly read out, and based on the penalty rate, which is being established in regulation, it is applied. The penalties will vary based on your compliance. If your actual CI is significantly less than required, you would be impacted to a greater degree than if you were very close, for example. So the administrative penalty varies with your compliance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: That's a good job, Minister. My hat is off to you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The penalty rate, which is at the end of the equation, is set by regulation. Can the minister advise what that penalty rate is today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We do not have that rate set today. We are working on it, but I can assure the member that once it is, obviously it will be well known. The key here is that it will be set at a significant rate that will ensure compliance. It would certainly be pointless, I think, to have a penalty that didn't ensure that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: We certainly don't want to be pointless in our work here, so I agree with the minister on that. As we go through section 52, we have some definitions of what the EER, the EC, the NE and the various other acronyms are. That's well outlined. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But I want to talk about the "notional emissions increased under section 8," which is at the very end of section 52. It goes as follows: "…means the net amount in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions transferred by or to the Part 3 fuel supplier under section 8 that the Part 3 fuel supplier must apply under section 8" — and so on for the compliance period. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm asking this because when we get to section 53, we determine when an administrative penalty will be issued. It's on a compliance date, and I'm confused, based on the previous sections. If we can move forward our compliance periods, then how do we set when the administrative penalty will be due? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm actually dealing with sections 52 and 53, I suppose, at the same time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There are two things, Member. As we go to section 53, I think we could explain that section a little better. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On the notional emissions increased under section 8, the issue that you're talking about, that notional transfer can only be used within the same compliance year. Section 53, and we're going to move to that, deals with should a company not supply a compliance report. But we can address that under section 53. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: If the minister could just continue on with the answer he was about to propose for section 53, I think we can fly through the rest of these. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What section 53 does is that if a company doesn't submit a report…. Let's just say three months passes, lapses, and then they submit their report. We find out that they're out of compliance. Previously you could only apply the penalty from that date forward. What this does is correct that and move it back to the start of compliance, based on the reporting period. So it's a correction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I thank the Minister of Energy, Mines and his staff for their time, and I welcome of Minister of State for Mining and his staff. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

To a number of sections in this miscellaneous statutes amendment act that deal with the Mineral Tenure Act. My first question to the minister with respect to section 62 would be: what consultation did the minister and ministry undertake before proposing these miscellaneous amendments? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: In order to put these amendments or these changes together, we consulted with AMEBC, Kamloops Exploration Group, Smithers Exploration Group, the Chamber of Mines of Eastern B.C. in Cranbrook, Vancouver Island Exploration Group, Boundary Mining Association and the Cariboo Mining Association. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I'm sorry. If the minister said it, I missed it. Did he include the Mining Association of British Columbia? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: The mineral titles industry advisory group has representation from MABC. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: In this section the explanatory note speaks of ranking. It ranks the terms or conditions that may be imposed in respect to a mineral reserve and provides that if mineral reserves overlap each other and the terms and conditions are inconsistent with each other, those having the highest rank prevail. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Can the minister advise how staff and legislative drafters came up with that hierarchy, and the impact of section 65? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: In the past the ranking has always been done just as a practice, but it was never set in writing. This does establish it in writing. Clearly, for example, an absolute prohibition on mining would be the highest priority. So it's ranked in the priority that would actually occur on the land base when you're dealing with these four conditions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Again, this is a miscellaneous amendment act, and it changes and amends numerous acts in the process. When I look at the Mineral Tenure Act, section 22, and I look at section 65 of this bill, I see prohibitions, reserves being established and retroactivity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm wondering again. Perhaps the minister will take the opportunity to be a bit more fulsome in explaining why it is that this amendment is coming forward today. Who asked for it, and why is it being proposed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: This is a staff request that reflects how they actually operate on the ground. This does provide some clarity to staff. It was a staff request, and it's an operational change. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Was that staff request put to the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. or the Mining Association of B.C. for their comment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: No, there was not consultation on this particular change, but it is considered to be a minor amendment. It does reflect the practice that has been actually on the ground. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I realize that we're pressed for time, but again, in my discussions with the mining association and AMEBC, they're concerned that amendments to section 42 have been brought forward without adequate consultation from their perspective. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm wondering, again. Very rarely do we see changes to the Mineral Tenure Act outside of miscellaneous amendments. The previous discussion on section 65 was a classic example of staff trying to put and codify the practice that they find on a daily basis in the field and in the office. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

But in this instance the issuing of a mining lease is the issue. Those that are on the ground with dollars invested are concerned that they would of, ought of, should have been consulted on this. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: We had at first looked at this as a fairly minor amendment. But you're correct. The Mining Association of British Columbia weren't sure, and they wanted some time to look at it. As the member may note, there is an amendment on the order paper that would bring these sections into force by order. That would give us time to do the consultation with MABC, which we intend to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Well, I'm looking through the order paper for the amendment that the minister's referring to. Perhaps he can help me. I see numerous efforts on behalf of the member for North Coast to strengthen and protect ferry users. I don't see anything in the name of the minister of state. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I see something in the name of the Minister of Energy and Mines with respect to the Clean Energy Act, but I see nothing on Bill 20. So perhaps if the Chair could assist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I thought that the amendment in the name of the Government House Leader was to do with the child representative, and I just assumed it wasn't to do with the Mineral Tenure Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Then could the minister explain, in his discussions with the mining association, how they've responded to this being enacted by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — or, in essence, by cabinet? Is that preferable to the Legislature? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: In fact, even today I've had discussions with Mr. Gratton, the head of MABC, who has again expressed great satisfaction that we're moving in this direction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

He's very pleased that now we are going to have a consultation. He does agree that this may be a minor change that doesn't really have big impact, but he does want the time to do the consultation, and he's quite pleased that we're doing it this way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Clearly, the minister has spoken to Mr. Gratton more recently than I have. Perhaps he could advise me what the extent of the consultation will be before cabinet runs this through. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: We will be talking to MABC about what their objections are. If their objections were very strong, of course, and if there was a compelling reason that we shouldn't proceed with this, we would consider that. But I would suggest that this would be put through when we have satisfactorily concluded our consultation. I am quite confident that it'll be concluded in a mutually satisfactory way between the government and MABC. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Again, in my consultation on this section, I'm getting a different message than the minister. If I understood him correctly, hon. Chair, what he's telling the House is that he's agreed to sit down with the mining association. The minor amendments that the government refers to are significant amendments in the eyes of the mining association. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In terms of the time frame, has the minister laid out a period of time for these discussions? Has he committed to starting next week? Has he committed to this moving forward by regulation, by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by a certain date? Or is it open-ended? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: It is open-ended in terms of…. We have not set a date. I can tell you that the government meets on an extremely regular basis, sometimes daily, with MABC. We have an excellent relationship. The rapport is very, very strong. We're working on a number of issues, including their great support for the HST initiative, as the member would know. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I would suggest that perhaps my conversation with MABC is more recent than the member's and, I think, on a much more frequent basis. I'm very, very confident, given the relationship that the government has with MABC, that we will reach a very satisfactory conclusion to this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: Well, I'm pleased that there's confidence in the minister's voice. When the Mining Association of B.C. talked to me, they said they'd never heard of these amendments. They didn't know what I was talking about. I had to direct them to the order paper so that they knew what the bill was all about. This daily contact clearly wasn't sufficient to bring these issues before the leadership of the mining association. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I suppose now we can take the minister at his word that he will get around to it sometime in the future. A specific question: have you set a finite date before you ram this through without consultation? Are you going to take six months, 12 months? How long is it going to take? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The Chair: Member, the use of "you" is not appropriate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Hawes: First and foremost, we don't ram things through. We are on a very, very…. We have a good relationship with MABC. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

MABC are taking a look at this themselves. Once they have concluded their analysis of this, they will get back to us, and that's when we will begin discussions. But MABC has not yet concluded its own internal consultation, which they are doing right now. I suspect that they will come to the same conclusion as us — that this is not a major amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the Minister of Energy and Mines would wrap up this section so that it's got a nice bow around it. Can he give an indication as to why we've decided that this would be going to December 31 and may be made retroactive to January 1, 2010? We've got a December 31, 2010, date that may be made retroactive. Could he just give a comment on that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this does is allows the retroactivity for part 2 and part 3 fuel suppliers on administrative penalties for retroactivity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I suspect the minister might want his staff. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: I would like to introduce some staff who have joined me. We have Alicen Chow, Laura Lapp and Lee Thiessen from the ministry who have joined us to canvass the next sections of this act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: This adds the definition of a contingency account, a fairly technical amendment. I'm wondering why we have to add a definition. Was it missed in the first act? Has it been discovered that it's not going to work without it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: The point of this contingency account is to allow for the potential possibility of acts of God that might lead to the collapse of offsets, of projects that have been established. It's important to have a contingency account as a mechanism to provide for these potential events. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I would be delighted to hear the minister explain the effect of section 78 after hearing his previous explanation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: This establishes the mechanism through which we provide a way for government to manage the risk associated with offsets using a portfolio approach. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I think the explanation was shorter than the actual section. Again to the minister: how does this fit in the scheme of compliance? The explanatory section refers to that it "provides that the compliance unit tracking system may include one or more contingency accounts." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Can the minister explain how contingency accounts figure in this and what exactly this section means to the average person? Just think of me not as an opposition critic but some poor, innocent person sitting in their living room in Dawson Creek as we speak and listening to this and asking: "What does this mean?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: The intent here is to allow for the addition of additional contingency units. For example, if an offset project were to provide 100 units of offset credits, we would require, say, 105 units. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Over the course of a portfolio with many such projects, 105 — with the five being the additional amount, the contingency amount…. This gives us the opportunity to be able to meet the potential should, say, an act of God happen in an offset project, such as a forestry project. If there's a fire and there's shrinkage in the amount of trees that were credited for reducing carbon, we would have this contingency account that would allow us to prepare for that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister say that this is the "get out of jail free" card for the government. Is that simply the way I can put it? This is the option? This gets you past the problem? This is a way to wiggle out of the actual provisions of the act so that we've got a contingency fund? Is that essentially what he's saying? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: This is really a backstop to ensure that in the event there is some kind of catastrophe or act of God, we would have, within a contingency account, sufficient units in the contingency to cover the potential risk of such an event, should it occur. In effect, we're saying that for a hundred units — hypothetically, through this contingency — we would require 105. This ensures that we would have — over the course of a portfolio of offsets — sufficient offsets. With the offset contingency account, we'd be able to cover the risk should the need arise. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could explain the effect of this section and what sort of organizations we'd be talking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: Organizations would include: the Standards Council of Canada, the American National Standards Institute and other members of the International Accreditation Forum. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: This makes reference, I gather, specifically to information-sharing agreements. I guess the obvious question is: what sort of information would be shared under the terms of these kinds of agreements? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: This is about quality assurance to ensure that with a cap-and-trade system where we want to ensure the integrity of the information, if we have a verifier that is collecting the information and providing that assurance…. Should it come to our attention that it's somewhat lacking, we would have the ability to share this information with these accreditation organizations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if the minister has any concerns about this whole concept, because we're clearly considering authorizing the acceptance of verification from other jurisdictions outside of Canada. It talks about Canadian provinces and other jurisdictions outside of Canada or with an agent of any of them. So arguably speaking, it could be the equivalent to a Crown corporation for the government of Zimbabwe, and I don't think I'm far wrong in saying that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What this provision is doing is basically saying that you can enter into agreements, and you'll then be happy to rely on the information provided by the Crown corporation in Zimbabwe that, in fact, British Petroleum, for instance, is engaging in appropriate practices to qualify for credits. Am I understanding this section correctly? And if the minister can comment on my example. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: We are talking about emissions within British Columbia, and we are talking about jurisdictions within the Western Climate Initiative — which, as the member knows, are the 11 members, including four provinces and 11 U.S. states. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can just explain this particular section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: This section would allow the minister, through regulation, to specify the types of offsets and the descriptions regarding how to calculate the baseline for the project and project reductions and the different types of offset projects and the ongoing monitoring and risk-mitigation measures. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I take it from this section — because it adds to the minister's ability, not the cabinet but the minister's ability, to make further regulations — that the minister at this point is satisfied that he doesn't have that authority under the act. Has some specific situation arisen which led to this provision being proposed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: This is not in the act. We're adding this, and it's absolutely needed to ensure that we have consistency in terms of projects, whether they're in British Columbia or in any other WCI jurisdiction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: If I may, I might assist the minister in getting through this. The previous sections — 85, 86, 87 — all add significant regulatory powers to the minister's regulatory powers that exist already. So I take it that it's fair to say that what these proposals are telling the Legislature is that the act wasn't terribly well-thought-through. Indeed, these regulatory changes that are being proposed — are they, in fact, with respect to sections that have even been proclaimed at this point? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. J. Yap: The member will recall that when this act was first brought into effect, it was really intended as a legal framework to build a carbon emissions–trading regulatory system, cap-and-trade system, with our WCI partners. Having said that, we have two sections, sections 41 and 42, that are not in force, but section 45 is in force. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister just acknowledge in his answer in a very subtle sort of way that, in fact, we'd really created the framework, but there wasn't much substance to this. So now what we're really doing here today is actually putting some — I don't know — siding, if you will, on the house — that we really have something now which was formally just sort of a political hot-air balloon, so to speak, to solve the government's environmental problems. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So really, what we're getting here today is an acknowledgment by these sections that the plan wasn't thought out. It hasn't really been proclaimed, and it's not terribly effective. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I'm delighted to hear the member for Kamloops–South Thompson entering the debate, as he always does. Whenever he enters the debate, I know I must be getting close to home, because he's the government's main defence minister, and that's delightful. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Having said that, I'm happy to see these sections, 85 through to 87, pass. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: The minister has kindly indicated she's ready to start with the section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The opposition is just fascinated that we have this provision amending the Tobacco Control Act before us. I assume we'll call this the…. I forget the name of the store in downtown Victoria that faced this tremendous problem. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm glad the government's moved on a specific revision to preserve the heritage nature of Victoria. But I must say I'm a bit surprised that given the significant concerns around smoking in the province, the minister has chosen to make this a priority, when the B.C. Cancer Society, the B.C. Healthy Living Alliance and others have all — how shall I say? — raised concerns. When we're devoted to lowering tobacco consumption, why this is a priority, as opposed to moves that would in fact limit the use of tobacco in our society…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'd just like to know how this moved so quickly up the priorities of the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. I. Chong: I know that the member will appreciate the investment that government has made with respect to dealing with the issues of tobacco use and smoking cessation. We will continue to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

However, currently we do have a situation whereby the Tobacco Control Act restricts the display and advertisement of tobacco and tobacco products by means of a sign or otherwise. In this particular case we have one situation, where there is the one property that the member is aware of, a heritage property. Without this amendment, it would require this business to have some considerable, I guess, renovations made to a heritage site, which is not what is desirable. It would have left the health authorities no other option, so we are bringing forward this amendment for that purpose. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think it's fair to say that government will continue to work towards helping reduce smoking rates. That is a goal that I think all of us in this chamber would agree with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: Again, I'm really just wondering in terms of priorities. The groups that I've mentioned are arguing for the issues around allowing the sale of tobacco in pharmacies; subsidization of nicotine replacement therapy; provincewide bans on smoking in patios, parks, playgrounds or on provincial beaches. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Yet somehow, ahead of all those priorities which might in fact have a significant impact on the health of British Columbians, particularly non-smokers who are subject to the secondhand smoke of others…. Why are we moving this amendment and not doing something with those issues? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. I. Chong: Certainly, the member is aware that we continue to work with our stakeholders and the B.C. Lung Association, the Canadian Cancer Society on a number of initiatives, as we have done in the past several years, and we will continue to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

In some instances, as well, there will be some changes that can be introduced by way of municipal bylaws. He mentions smoking in the playgrounds. That is a possibility that can occur as a result of local governments having authority to do so. So there are initiatives that are currently underway that can have other levels of government take on responsibilities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There are other issues that also required some consultation that local governments want to have more input towards, and we will continue to work with them on that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is a minor amendment, in the sense that it is dealing with a very specific case. There was no reason to hold this up any further. It was creating some concern within the business community, the heritage community, as well as with the health authorities, which had no other alternative but to enforce what was at that time available in legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It is dealing with the one specific case that we're aware of, and it was, as I say, a miscellaneous item that we felt could be advanced at this time. But we will continue to work with our other stakeholders to ensure that we deal with reducing smoking rates wherever possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: As I understand it, the effect of this section, and these sections generally, is to move horse racing out of the control of the Lottery Corporation. I'm just wondering: what's the point of doing this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'll introduce my staff — Derek Sturko, who is the assistant deputy minister of the gaming policy and enforcement branch. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The question is pretty general, and maybe we could just work through the sections, because there are about three different issues that are being dealt with in these amendments. The first one actually deals with certificates of affiliation and gaming event licences, and it goes on to each section being a bit different. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The general question the member asked isn't properly canvassed by each section. If we could deal with the sections, maybe we could do it that way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: Noting the time here, I'm going to try and speed this up. I'm happy to see section 90 go, and then we go into section 91. I think that may lead to the area where the minister is going to answer my question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister is now prepared to talk about why we are moving control of horse racing out of the Lottery Corporation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: I was just waiting for the minister's answer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: The only regulatory function that doesn't take place with the gaming policy and enforcement branch — and it's been this way for some time and needed to be corrected — is the collection of the horse-racing betting fee, which is today collected by BCLC. Then they give the funds to government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Basically, it's the only regulatory function that isn't at the gaming policy enforcement branch. What we're doing is moving that regulatory function and the management of that fee to where it belongs in GPEB. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: This section makes reference to the betting fees that will be payable to government instead of the Lottery Corporation and provides for the application of the revenue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I just wonder if the minister can confirm that this is going to be divided, as it notes in this section, "firstly, by paying into the consolidated revenue fund an amount equal," etc., blah, blah, and, "secondly, by dividing between or among prescribed organizations, that the minister may recommend, in prescribed proportions, that may differ for different organizations, any balance of collected fees." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What are the organizations the minister is contemplating? With great respect, this section reserves a power unto the minister which I thought we'd taken from King John at Runnymede, which was absolute authority to take in the money and distribute it unequally to the organizations that the minister may choose or not choose. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think the minister, in fairness, will acknowledge that this is a pretty broad discretion. What are we contemplating by this section? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: In moving this, they're the exact same powers that exist now. There's no change in the powers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Basically, for the member's information, the people that would be receiving the betting fee…. The government actually doesn't make money on horse racing. It all goes back to the two breeds. It's the standardbreds; it's the thoroughbreds. There's also a small part of the industry that still operates in some of the Interior racecourses, but it's a very small piece of the amount. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Obviously, the dollars that are required to operate the tracks are part of that total package, as well, with regards to how the money is managed. It's all managed by GPEB in relationship with those organizations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: Just so I can understand. These organizations — are they not-for-profits? Are they for-profit organizations? Do they have shares? Do they have members? How do they operate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: They're non-profit organizations that represent the two breeds particularly. There's the HBPA, which is the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, I think it's called, which represents the thoroughbreds. There's another organization, which is the Standardbred Association and represents the standardbreds, which are the sulkies. They basically run the relationship between their breeds and government. But the purse pool and all that is managed by government, not in the hands of those organizations, so that horse racing can have some fiscal idea as to how their business can be run. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: This section disentitles participants in a voluntary self-exclusion program to any monetary prize or winnings. This issue was raised, actually, by a constituent of mine. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What that means is that if I've entered into the arrangement that I'm not to gamble, and I go in and gamble and I win, then I don't get the prize. That's my understanding of the effect of this section. The next question, obviously, is: who gets the money? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll just spend a second on this one. This basically specifies that a person must leave a gaming facility if requested to do so by BCLC or the service provider and must not enter the game if they have been served with written notice as per a section of the act where they've entered into the self-exclusion program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This adds a provision to that section that disentitles the participants in a voluntary self-exclusion program to any monetary prize or winnings if they participate in gaming in a gaming facility contrary to written notice delivered to them under the section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The reason is that basically, it is to act as a part of the deterrent to the entire self-exclusion program with regards to people going back into our facilities after they've agreed not to go in. Any moneys they would win would be held back and have to be spent only on problem gambling research. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: Section 121 of the amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act allows regulations to exempt certain classes of licences or licensed establishments from requirements to consult with local governments. Could the minister please tell me precisely what those requirements are and what classes are and how he and his staff intend this to operate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I've got with me Karen Ayers, who is the general manager of liquor policy and liquor licensing and everything else in British Columbia — she is the statutory authority, which means she makes the decisions and nobody can tell her what to do — and Barry Bieller, the director of policy, planning and communication. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is really for prescribed categories of licence. It's really a regulatory-making power that we're giving to the general manager once we do the regulation. Basically, it's to provide some flexibility to have different processes for different types of licences prescribed by categories of licence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've been asked by a number of municipalities over the last number of years to do this. For instance, today if a golf cart that serves liquor on a golf course would be considered to be a liquor primary, we'd have to go through exactly the same lengthy process to approve that golf cart for its operation on a golf course as, for instance, it would be if you had a large cabaret or bar opening up in a community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So this is to allow for the discretion. We will actually prescribe the types of licences in regulation that wouldn't require as high a process, because frankly, they're low-risk licences that do not really need to have the same level of scrutiny as other licences do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: Can the minister confirm, then, that those regulations, as you develop the list, will be discussed with local governments prior to their adoption? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: I should have said earlier to the minister…. I'm sorry. I didn't forewarn him about my interest in some of these sections. I am learning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Section 138 is curious. The section itself suggests it's a restrictive power, and yet when you look at the explanatory note, the section is allowing "inducements for the sale of liquor subject to regulations." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I prefer the sense of the section itself, where the general manager may specify that a licensee must not offer, accept or receive — or agree to accept or receive — money, gifts or remuneration for promoting or inducing the sale of liquor. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I wonder if perhaps you could explain this a little further. I am concerned that you are opening up a situation where inducements will, in fact, be possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is really removing something that is somewhat arcane in our ability to enforce and manage the operation of liquor in British Columbia. The section actually prohibits a liquor manufacturer from offering or giving a licensee, for asking or accepting inducements to favour the product of that manufacturer…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Today we've modernized to the point where we're not going in and saying that you can't give somebody a T-shirt from a beer operator that one of your staff might want to wear or some gifts you might want to put up for door prizes or whatever for people in your establishment — or even coasters. We have actually gotten past that, yet we still have some rules on the books that would legally, theoretically, prohibit that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

This is to modernize, frankly, the trade practices relationship between licensees and liquor suppliers. When these rules were put in place…. There were only a few liquor suppliers in the entire marketplace decades ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It was all about tied houses and things like that, where people would come in and offer: "You become a specific beer for the whole operation, and we'll do this, this and this for you." That would be called a tied house, and there was concern about those breweries coming in and owning the brewery as well as owning the retail. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The reality is that today the consumer has a number of choices that they want when they go into a licensed establishment, and so they do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The historical reasons for the policy are no longer very applicable. The rules don't help us protect public safety, and experience has shown us that the rules are widely ignored and virtually impossible to enforce because of…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

What we really want our people concentrating on is four things. We want them concentrating on four public safety issues with regards to enforcement of liquor. These are overservice to people, serving of people under-age, overcrowding in liquor establishments and the sale of illegal liquor. Those are the four priorities we want our people to be concentrating on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We've always felt that as we modernize and we learned, prior to the Olympics and going through the Olympics, how we could handle these things with regards to the operation of liquor establishments, we can take this next step in modernization and still protect the public safety. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

V. Huntington: I can certainly understand that explanation and appreciate it. It's very helpful. I'm really concerned about abuse, though, and I'm wondering if you can describe how the regulations will be developed and who they will be discussed with. And will they prescribe certain types of inducements that are permissible and others that are not? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, certainly in our work leading up to this, I and the branch have had extensive discussions with the entire industry, but we didn't know when we would get this to the House. So the next step would then be to go into the next level of consultation with industry particularly, which this has the most effect on with regards to how trade practices will change and how they will be able to do their business a bit differently. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Some will embrace it; others won't. But that describes the entire liquor file. Some embrace it. Some don't, no matter what change or whatever we do on the file. There's always one piece of the industry pushing and pulling against the other. It's just the nature of the beast, I guess you could say. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Having had the liquor file for four years, from 2001 to 2005, and now having it back again for two years, I do believe that we've actually matured to the point where we can handle this properly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: To the minister: I think I may be able to save him some time today if he's prepared to answer a couple of general questions at the start. I'm sure that would please him. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The amendments, as I understand it, to the Civil Forfeiture Act that are proposed are essentially to ensure that the province doesn't get sued if in fact someone makes a claim arising out of seizure of assets that were deemed to be the proceeds of unlawful activity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have Rob Kroeker with me, for the benefit of the House, from the civil forfeiture section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I don't think, in this case, that the summary that the hon. member offered would be applicable to section 174. Section 174 relates to a specific issue around allowing the proceeds of a sale of an asset to stand in the place of that asset, but I may have misunderstood the general supposition that was being offered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

L. Krog: My understanding of the thrust of this is that these amendments will provide the government with additional indemnity for the province when selling assets that were acquired from civil forfeiture. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

There's a risk that…. Perhaps you've bought a house that was a grow op, and there's a mould issue. So the purchaser goes ahead and sues the provincial government. My understanding is that that may in fact be the impact of some of these sections. I'm trying to save the minister's time here. If that's the case, I just want to know it, and if it's not, he'll tell me. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. M. de Jong: That is the case with respect to one of the sections. I believe section 180 affords that protection. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: I'm just thinking that the minister is having some staff come in, but I'll just start and look at section 206, where there are some definitions. I also know that the competitive service and the drop-trailer service in the definitions tie into section 219 also. So I'll ask a few questions about the drop-trailer service and just ask the minister: what were her concerns about the drop-trailer service that B.C. Ferries was offering? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's apparent that our concern was to ensure that there was a level and competitive playing field. In fact, our concern was that there may be an unfair advantage. So Bill 20 was in response — in fact, the member opposite would be well aware — to the comptroller general's recommendations about ensuring that there is a competitive and equitable playing field. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: I'm sure, through the comptroller general's report that sort of brought this out and the expenditures that the comptroller general saw…. I'm just wondering: what were the expenditures that B.C. Ferries spent on its drop-trailer service? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to recognize the fact that I have Peter Milburn, my deputy minister, and Frank Blasetti, the ADM of partnerships with me this afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

We don't have specific information about the drop-trailer numbers. B.C. Ferries operates as an independent company, but the comptroller general pointed out that there may well be perception or in fact reality that there are assets B.C. Ferries has that could be advantageous to it in creating drop-trailer service. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: I imagine the concern, as 219 states, about the tax exemption, the subsidies…. I'll get down to the "qualified Authority candidate" and the qualified B.C. Ferry Services candidate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

It's pretty straightforward for the authority candidate, because we know in legislation and in the authority annual report that there are specific numbers for the authority. But as far as the B.C. Ferry Services candidates, how are they chosen? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Bond: They are selected by the authority, and the criteria are actually laid out clearly. There are certain criteria in terms of expectations for those selections, and they're laid out in the bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: The comptroller general said, as far as the directors for the B.C. Ferry Services: "We suggest the province strongly encourage B.C. Ferries to amend its articles to reduce the maximum number of directors from 20 to a number more consistent…." I'm just wondering: in the B.C. Ferries articles, is there a description of how the directors are chosen? Does the minister have a copy of the B.C. Ferries articles? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have a copy of B.C. Ferries articles with us. We'd have to bring the entire half the office if we brought every document. I'm sure the member recognizes that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The comptroller general, obviously, is providing suggested advice, and those articles would actually be amended by the Ferry Authority. In fact, we would assume that they would contemplate that, but we did not make that recommendation in the bill that's contained here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: Yes, I just find it interesting that the articles…. We don't have access to the articles either, because, I guess, freedom of information does not apply. The comptroller general refers to it, and the minister hasn't got them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

So I'm just wondering. As far as the authority works right now, there's a labour representative on the B.C. Ferry Authority. That comes from the authority requirements, I guess. Will there still be a labour representative on the B.C. Ferries board of directors? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Bond: Nothing in terms of that composition changes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: My last question: is it possible to get a copy of B.C. Ferry Services articles? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Bond: We're not certain, but we believe it may well be on their website. But it is certainly available under the Company Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: Just a concluding remark on that. It's not on their website. I've never heard of them, and I've been on the file for about five years. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: Section 207 looks at the purpose of the authority and "adds, as a purpose of the Authority, oversight" of B.C. Ferry Services. I see it's "in accordance with Division 2.1," which is coming up in section 215, I believe. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I'm just wondering: how will the authority oversee B.C. Ferry Services? Right now the purpose of the authority basically is to — and this is from the Coastal Ferry Act — "hold, administer and sell a voting share in British Columbia Ferry Corporation" after it's been converted into a company. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The section we're coming into will look at the appointment of director remuneration, of directors and executives and the limits of remuneration. I'm just wondering: what other oversights will the authority have besides just selling the share and remuneration of the executive and the directors? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Bond: They look after the articles of the corporation and remuneration and appointment of the board. Those are the general powers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: Again, when I refer back to the Auditor General's report in 2006, they saw that the authority — being either a Crown corporation or a private sector company — is answerable to no one owner or shareholder and that there's basically no person or agency that controls B.C. Ferries. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, when we look at the oversight, it seems like the oversight of the authority is somewhat lacking. I'm just wondering whether the minister agrees with that and, with section 207, whether the minister contemplated that there'd be greater oversight than in the past. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hon. S. Bond: I do disagree with the member opposite. In fact, the bill reflects the recommendations of the comptroller general, who made it clear that there was an important role to be played in terms of the shareholder and in terms of oversight. So in fact, the authority is appointed from a variety of places, as the member opposite pointed out, and it will have oversight of the professional board. These recommendations were provided by the comptroller general and are now contained in this bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: This is a pretty significant section here, I believe, where it looks at the remuneration of directors and the B.C. Ferries executive compensation plan. I believe, and I think most British Columbians believe, that one of the key determiners of us collectively in this Legislature getting some changes to the Coastal Ferry Act was the shocking and outrageous finding out of David Hahn, the million-dollar man at B.C. Ferries. This section, I believe, covers it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

When we go back to what we just looked at as far as the oversight of the authority, what's included in here is this section. So it's a pretty significant section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I do have an amendment for this section. It's been included on the order papers, and I'm sure the minister and their staff have seen it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

[SECTION 215, in Part 12 – Transportation and Infrastructure Amendments, in s. 215, under s. 21.4 (1) (a), adding the following underlined text:

21.4 (1) The Authority must take all necessary actions to ensure that the articles of BCFS include a requirement that BCFS not

(a) set or change the remuneration, except current performance incentives, for an individual who is an executive, whether or not that person is assuming a different role as an executive, or]

G. Coons: I would think at this point in time, when we look at the outrageous compensation for the executives at B.C. Ferries…. The comptroller general acknowledged that the CEO and president of B.C. Ferries made more than double of public sector organizations. She compared them to B.C. Hydro, ICBC, B.C. Lottery, and WorkSafe as far as their presidents and CEOs, and it was more than double. If we look at the vice-presidents, their compensation packages, it again was more than 75 percent of the vice-presidents of these comparative monopolies, public sector organizations. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

The bonus schedule for the CEO is a 55 percent short-term performance bonus and a 55 percent long-term performance bonus, so the CEO and president of B.C. Ferries is getting a 110 percent performance bonus on his base salary of $494,000. Even if these are looked at by the board of directors and for some reason they are eliminated, it would probably put the president and CEO in a pretty good stance. He would still be 30 percent over the presidents and vice-presidents of B.C. Hydro, ICBC, B.C. Lottery and WorkSafe, including his salary and his pension. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

I think that has a good feel for an amendment. Also, recently there was a study done that basically said: "Time to banish the bonuses of contention." That's the basic recommendation by three Ontario academics who basically said that paying target-based performance bonuses don't work: "Paying people bonuses is the most common compensation scheme in the corporate world because organizations think that offering a lump sum will push employees to excel. However, we've found this strategy is actually pushing people to cheat." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Again, recently there's been documentation that having performance bonuses would not cause the end result that we would expect. Also, I would continue this with the comptroller general, who saw that the performance bonuses that were given to the B.C. Ferries executives…. They had concerns with them. Most of the bonuses that we saw for the executives and for the vice-presidents would be commonly considered a normal requirement of their position. Basically, they were set too low to be challenging. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

On that, I would hope that the minister and her staff have gone through the amendment, which has been on the order paper this week, and that it would be considered as an appropriate amendment that I think British Columbians would agree with. It would be fair, as the minister said. It would be fair to the executives of B.C. Ferries not to go after their base salary and their pensions but to look at the questionable performance or incentive bonuses that they've been paid over the years — you know, 110 percent for the CEO and 70 percent for the vice-presidents. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

G. Coons: Noting the time, I move the committee rise and report progress and seek leave to meet again. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Committee of the Whole (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.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.