2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 17, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Statements

Shooting at Virginia Tech

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

CanSpell National Spelling Bee

finalists

Hon. S.

Bond

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Winners of Canadian Open snowboard

cross

McIntyre

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Knowledge Network Corporation Act

(Bill 23)

Hon. M.

Coell

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Holocaust remembrance

Chudnovsky

Vaisakhi

D. Hayer

Greater Victoria Business Awards

Fleming

Battle of Vimy Ridge

McIntyre

Chinese Canadians

J. Kwan

Jay Drew

Roddick

Oral Questions

Vancouver Convention Centre

expansion costs

C. James

Hon. S.

Hagen

Macdonald

Fleming

H. Bains

Simpson

Order-in-council on log export

approval

Simpson

Hon. R.

Coleman

Impact of raw log exports on

Hammond Cedar mill

Sather

Hon. R.

Coleman

Appeal of sentence in De Patie

case

Farnworth

Hon. W.

Oppal

Safety violations at Weyerhaeuser

mill in New Westminster

Puchmayr

Hon. W.

Oppal

Petitions

D. Chudnovsky

S. Fraser

C. Trevena

Committee of the Whole House

Security Services Act (Bill 15)

(continued)

Farnworth

Hon. J.

Les

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Security Services Act (Bill 15)

Second Reading of Bills

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 19)

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Robertson

Hon. R. Thorpe

Committee of the Whole House

Coroners Act (Bill 8)

Karagianis

Hon. J.

Les

MacKay

Sather

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education

and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy

(continued)

Cubberley

Hon. S.

Bond

Macdonald

Chouhan

Chudnovsky

J. Kwan

C. Evans

[ Page 6695 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Statements

SHOOTING AT VIRGINIA TECH

Hon. G. Campbell: Today we all heard of the tragic news that came from Virginia, where again violence stalked a campus at Virginia Tech in the community of Blacksburg, Virginia. I know that all of us here today would want to reach out to the families and to the university community there to give them our support.

This is unthinkable in many of our lives. We live here in British Columbia, in Victoria, with the great University of Victoria. I can't imagine how we would feel if this kind of event took place here. The families that are going to be touched, the university that's going to be touched…. A place that should be there for learning and openness has become today a place of violence and fear.

I think we in this House should send our support and our prayers to all the people of Virginia and all the families and faculty of Virginia Tech.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to thank all the Members of the Legislative Assembly who came from both sides of the House earlier today to join with the Holocaust survivors in observing Yom ha-Shoah, or Holocaust Memorial Day. On this day we remember more than six million victims lost between 1933 and 1945. We pay tribute to the memories of men, women and children whose lives were extinguished by the cruel hand of fate, racism and intolerance. We also honour those who have survived.

It is our honour in this House today to be joined by 66 of these survivors: Rita Akselrod, Holocaust survivor; Ben Akselrod, Holocaust survivor; Nikki Basuk, Holocaust survivor; Roslyn Bellin, Holocaust survivor; Janos Benisz, Holocaust survivor; Bob Boekbinder, Holocaust survivor; Esther Caldes, Holocaust survivor; Rita Chapiro, Holocaust survivor; Carl Charles, Holocaust survivor; Katherina Chernyavska, Holocaust survivor; Karl Choit, Holocaust survivor; Saul Cohn, Holocaust survivor; Eva Derton, Holocaust survivor; Abraham Deston, Holocaust survivor; Susi Deston, Holocaust survivor; Mariette Doduck, Holocaust survivor; Mark Elster, Holocaust survivor; Henry Erlichman, Holocaust survivor; Miriam Erlichman, Holocaust survivor; Esfira Esther Golger, Holocaust survivor; Jack Fraeme, Holocaust survivor; Margaret Fraeme, Holocaust survivor; Izzy Fraeme, Holocaust survivor; Peter Gary, Holocaust survivor; Matilda Gertner, Holocaust survivor; Benji Gorodnitsky, Holocaust survivor; Katerina Gorodnitsky, Holocaust survivor; Myer Grinshpan, Holocaust survivor; Vladimir Hopner, Holocaust survivor; Anita Hopner, Holocaust survivor; Margot Howell, Holocaust survivor; Sarah Ingelberg, Holocaust survivor; Arieh Ingelberg, Holocaust survivor; Serina Jordan, Holocaust survivor; Rachel Katz, Holocaust survivor; Mary Knopp, Holocaust survivor; Robert Krell, Holocaust survivor; Susan Krug, Holocaust survivor; Alan Le Fevre, Holocaust survivor; Shalom Lichtmann, Holocaust survivor; Sarah Mandelbaum, Holocaust survivor; Judith Nagy, Holocaust survivor; Haya Newman, Holocaust survivor; Malka Pishanitskaya, Holocaust survivor; Joseph Polinsky, Holocaust survivor; Alla Polinsky, Holocaust survivor; Deborah Ramm; Holocaust survivor; Agi Rejto, Holocaust survivor; Edith Rothfels, Holocaust survivor; Horst Rothfels, Holocaust survivor; David Shaffer, Holocaust survivor; Sidi Shaffer, Holocaust survivor; Rachel Sheryaev, Holocaust survivor; Louise Sorensen, Holocaust survivor; Gerald Stanford, Holocaust survivor; Elizabeth Stern, Holocaust survivor; Evelyn Teichmann, Holocaust survivor; Henry Theilheimer, Holocaust survivor; Bente Thomsen, Holocaust survivor; Paula Verhoeven, the mother of the member for Richmond Centre, Holocaust survivor; Leo Vogel, Holocaust survivor; Robbie Waisman, Holocaust survivor; Jacob Wardy, Holocaust survivor; George Wertman, Holocaust survivor; Frieda Wertman, Holocaust survivor; Veronica Winkler, Holocaust survivor.

[1340]

Together we honour your experiences, your memories and your commitment to never forget. We thank each of you for joining us today. We hope that the work done in this House in the name of democracy and freedom remains a tribute to all that your families and you have sacrificed.

As we learn the lessons of history, we remember that in the world today — while it is stalked by violence and hate and terror — it is people like yourselves who hold up the picture of faith, of love and of our common humanity that gives us all hope. It is our hope that we will rid the world of racism, we will rid the world of that violence and we will rid the world of that terror. We will do so by always remembering. We will never forget. [Applause].

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my privilege today to introduce a large delegation visiting us from the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, starting with three visiting legislators that are on the floor of the House with us. Hon. Jim Kenyon is the Minister of Economic Development for the territory of the Yukon. He's the president of PNWER. The vice-president of PNWER, Idaho State Representative George Eskridge is with us, and also Dave Coutts, a past president of PNWER, who is an MLA in Alberta. I ask the House to make these visiting legislators welcome.

Also, we're very privileged to have with us today Liz Luce, the director of licensing for the state of Washington, who is working with us on our B.C.-Washington driver's licence pilot project, and her staff Sharon Whitehead, the deputy director of licensing, and Becky Loomis, the project manager of border crossings.

[ Page 6696 ]

We're also pleased to welcome Lewis Lukens, the U.S. consul general in Vancouver; Peter Lloyd, the Canadian consul general in Seattle; Prof. Don Alper of Western Washington University in Bellingham; Darrell Bryan, the CEO of the Victoria Clipper ; Valerie Boxall with the Yukon government; Matt Morrison, the executive director of PNWER; and Brandon Hardenbrook, the deputy director of PNWER.

I want to mention to members of the House the reception this evening. They're all welcome, and I ask the House to please give the PNWER delegation a warm British Columbia welcome.

A. Dix: I want to welcome to Victoria and to the legislative precincts students from Windermere School in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. They're here today to learn about this place and what we do here. It's a remarkable school, Windermere School — an incredible community spirit and a great place to learn. I ask all members of the House to please wish them welcome today.

Hon. P. Bell: From the Pacific Northwest to the Pacific southeast, we are also joined today by two individuals from New Zealand: Her Excellency Kate Lackey, who is the high commissioner of New Zealand to Canada, and the New Zealand Minister of Maori Affairs, Parekura Horomia. Would the House please make them very welcome.

N. Simons: On behalf of someone we all know and count as our friend, Luana Daoust — the cashier hostess in the legislative dining room — has friends visiting from Calgary. I have the pleasure of introducing them to the House, and I hope the House will make Floyd and Helen Wheeler and Dan and Wilma Daw from Calgary feel welcome.

[1345]

Tributes

CANSPELL NATIONAL

SPELLING BEE FINALISTS

Hon. S. Bond: Ten British Columbians were on the national stage this past weekend, and the question is: how do you spell success?

Today I would ask the members of the Legislature to celebrate with us the ten amazing British Columbians who were part of the CanWest CanSpell National Spelling Bee. Ten of our students made it to the finals: Leila Clark, Brennan Phillips, Curtis Bogetti, Daniel Leonhardt, Matthew Anderson and Haley Unger. Four of our competitors actually made the final round of 15 competitors: Theo Terry of Denman Island, Rachael McDaniel of West Vancouver, Athena Nghi Huynh of Prince George and Sonja Olsson of Prince George.

Rumour has it that one of the spelling words was oligopoly, but I can't actually….

Mr. Speaker: If the member for Nelson-Creston was a little younger, he might have participated.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I'm pleased to introduce a very special guest in the gallery today visiting from the great city of Surrey, representing a very popular local newspaper, Surrey Now . We have with us today Brian Howell, who is a very well-known photojournalist. He is here today to shoot a photographic account of a day in the life of an MLA. I will ask the House to please make him feel welcome.

Tributes

WINNERS OF

CANADIAN OPEN SNOWBOARD CROSS

J. McIntyre: I'd also like to honour the achievements of two residents of my riding, West Vancouver–Garibaldi. Two Squamish residents, Maëlle Ricker and Tom Velisek, just won the women's and men's events, respectively, in the Canadian open snowboard cross finals, which is a NorAm event.

The other very exciting news is that this was the first event held at the brand-new venue at Cypress Mountain. It's three years ahead of schedule, and we had two winners from Squamish. I'm so delighted. I ask the House to join me in congratulating them.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Hagen: As the minister responsible for volunteerism, I'd like to acknowledge National Volunteer Week, April 15 to 21, by thanking each and every British Columbian who contributes their time and talent to improving their community. About 1.58 million individuals currently volunteer an average of 199 hours each year in this province.

I'd say to all of you: you strengthen our arts and culture communities, keep our amateur sports system vibrant and provide a wide range of caring support to those in our community who need a helping hand.

Today I had the honour of having lunch with eight outstanding individuals from the Greater Victoria area who deeply care about their community, and they have joined us in the House today. I proudly introduce to you Cindy Donatelli from the B.C.

Cancer Agency; Tony Wass from the Land Conservancy; Rob Greenwood from the Inter-Cultural Association; Rob Taggart from the Victoria Association for Community Living; Ruthe Tiessen from Our Place; Julian-Anne Cameron, who won the humanitarian award, which is the Manning Cup at Oak Bay high school — she is accompanied today by her parents; Heather Goode and Rachel Hill from the Children's International Summer Village here in Victoria; and Lori Elder, Volunteer Victoria.

Please accept my sincere thanks to all of you. It is your generosity, dedication and commitment that help make British Columbia the best place on earth to find a strong, healthy community.

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, mindful as I am of the rules surrounding commentary about the presence or ab-

[ Page 6697 ]

sence of members in the House, I trust you will allow me to bend the rule today and welcome back to the chamber the hon. Attorney General.

[1350]

R. Fleming: With us today are two of my constituents, Ben Johnson and Emily Ann Paul. They have a vantage of the House this afternoon from the gallery, although only a few months ago they sat in these very chairs as part of the youth model parliament. Will the House please make these two youth welcome today.

G. Robertson: It is my honour to welcome two special guests today, Mira Oreck and Lena McLeod from the Canadian Jewish Congress, Pacific region. Would the House please make them welcome and thank them for the work they did to organize today's remembrance ceremony as well.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK CORPORATION ACT

Hon. M. Coell presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Knowledge Network Corporation Act.

Hon. M. Coell: I move that Bill 23 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Coell: The Knowledge Network is operated by the Open Learning Agency and funded through the Ministry of Advanced Education. It has been British Columbia's public education broadcaster since 1981.

The network is a high-profile public service and is greatly valued by British Columbians. The Knowledge Network Corporation Act will support government's 2005 election commitment to maintain and improve the Knowledge Network as B.C.'s public education broadcasting network. The act continues the Knowledge Network corporation under new legislative framework that outlines the network's new vision and opportunities. It is consistent with the Crown agencies accountability system and reflects the licensing requirements of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. The proposed legislation will also enable the repeal of the Open Learning Agency Act.

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

Bill 23, Knowledge Network Corporation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE

D. Chudnovsky: My mother has a photo of her grandparents in their tiny town in Poland. Two old people stand beside a rough shack, wrapped in overcoats and mufflers against the cold and snow. That photo is the last that our family in Canada ever heard from them. They and their family were rounded up by the Nazis, sent to a concentration camp and murdered.

My wife's father was sent away from home as a teenager, first to Holland and then to England. His parents and sisters stayed behind in Berlin. He kept and later translated the hundreds of letters he got from his family that described in mundane detail their increasing desperation as the noose tightened around the necks of the Jews of Berlin. Then the letters stopped. They were deported to a concentration camp by the Nazis and murdered.

I tell these stories because it's easy to regard the Holocaust as an abstraction, an outrage too big to think about. But it's really about individual human beings — six million people just like us who were murdered because they happened to be Jewish.

Today is the international day of remembrance for Holocaust survivors. It's important that we celebrate the lives of those who survived and vital that we remember the lives of those who did not survive. But more important than all of that, we must make sure that such an outrage never happens again — not to Jews because they are Jews, not to Muslims because they are Muslims, not to Christians because they are Christians. No human being should ever suffer because of their beliefs, and there is never an excuse for racism.

We have an obligation to remember those six million individual Jewish lives and the countless others: the gypsies, the homosexuals, the Catholics, the disabled, the trade unionists, the socialists and the communists — each life as precious as yours or mine, all murdered by the Nazis. We, every one of us, have a responsibility to make sure that such crimes never happen again — never again.

[1355]

VAISAKHI

D. Hayer: Last week brought some very important events: for Christians, celebration of Easter; for Jews, Passover; and for the Indo-Canadian community, Vaisakhi festival, which began April 14. It is a time of renewal for both earth and faith. It is also a time for families and communities to come together.

Vaisakhi is when tens of thousands of British Columbians of Sikh faith observe the founding of Khalsa in 1699 by the tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh. At the same time, Buddhists celebrate because Lord Gautama Buddha was born on the full moon of Vaisakhi in 559 BC. For Hindus, it is called the Hindu/Vedic new year, and it is similarly celebrated throughout the world.

[ Page 6698 ]

For all, Vaisakhi is the start of harvest season. It is a special time to celebrate our future and our togetherness. While we all look back over historic teachings, we also look forward to the hope and promise that our new homeland of Canada is providing us. There's no better place in the country than British Columbia to celebrate the success that so many of us have achieved.

Vaisakhi is also a time of tolerance, respect and honour. Like Easter and Passover, it is a time of rejoicing and reflection, a time to observe the past while celebrating harmony and peace. So as the House resumes its spring session, I would like all members in this House to remember the significance of the past two weeks and to join me in acknowledging all faiths and nationalities as we observe the sacred celebrations now and throughout the year.

GREATER VICTORIA BUSINESS AWARDS

R. Fleming: Last Tuesday evening the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce held their 2007 annual business awards and recognized winners in 14 categories. Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce works very hard on a daily basis, promoting business vitality in the capital region, and the Greater Victoria Business Awards are awarded to outstanding businesses and business persons that have demonstrated a significant and sustained commitment to positive business development, economic growth and diversity within our region.

I'd like to recognize just a few of the 2007 award winners. For business leadership, Dockside Green Windmill Development. This incredibly innovative, sustainable green community is being developed in Victoria West. It has been recognized for leadership by their business peers. Dockside Green is in fact already being studied by urbanists and planners from around the world because of its mix of residential density, its commercial and industrial zonings and its carbon-neutral power generation.

The award for small business was shared by Fuller Pearlman McNeil, which are employment, labour and human rights specialists, and Atomic Crayon, which is a graphic design firm.

For medium-sized business, the award was given to local broadcaster 98.5 The Ocean and Jack FM.

For large business, Monk Office again saw recognition for their excellence as an incredible Vancouver Island company.

The Young Entrepreneur of the Year went to Elton Pereira of ParetoLogic Inc.

Businessperson of the Year is awarded to Richard Gray, the station manager at A-Channel Vancouver Island.

Lastly, John Chew of Chew Excavating Ltd., a well-known company in this part of the province, was honoured for his passionate entrepreneurial spirit, earning the Governor's Lifetime Achievement Award. This self-made entrepreneur built Chew Excavating into the Island's dominant earth-moving company and used a work ethic and street smarts to spin other profitable ventures. I know Mr. Chew and his company have always generously supported the community with in-kind services, whether it's clearing the way for a new community centre or building soccer pitches with local sports organizations. I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating and thanking the award winners this year.

BATTLE OF VIMY RIDGE

J. McIntyre: I rise in the House to pay tribute to the soldiers and families of the brave men who fought in the Battle of Vimy Ridge, on the 90-year anniversary of the battle that made a colony a nation. I am very proud that the province of B.C. officially named April 9 Vimy Ridge Day in honour of the 3,598 Canadian soldiers who lost their lives and the more than 7,100 wounded in the intense military barrage involving the 30,000-man Canadian corps that took the ridge.

[1400]

Much has been written and said over these last few weeks about this battle and its importance, ensuring that today's generation and generations to come will remember and take time to stop and thank those who made the ultimate sacrifice to enjoy the freedoms and quality of life that we enjoy in Canada today.

My grandfather was one of those courageous Canadian soldiers who fought for our freedom. He was a member of the 3rd Battalion, which subsequently became the Toronto Regiment and now the Royal Regiment. He left the military with the rank of major.

My family is especially proud, as my grandfather was awarded a military cross for his heroic efforts in the Battle of Vimy Ridge. Today, in his honour, I'd like to share with you the citation on the medal which my father, John B. Gillespie, QC, has framed and that hangs proudly in our family home. When you hear the precise words, it provides a glimpse into the horrors of World War I and the memories that survivors had to live with, which have been graphically depicted in stories and books such as Pierre Berton's Vimy and Sebastian Faulks's Birdsong .

"Lieutenant John Krause Gillespie of Toronto for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty when both his guns had been destroyed and a number of his crews had become casualties. He rallied the remainder and pushed forward, killing a number of the enemy and taking prisoners."

I ask the House to join in acknowledging the sacrifices that so few made for so many following. We will remember them.

CHINESE CANADIANS

J. Kwan: Chinese Canadians have a long history in Canada. Since the 19th century Chinese Canadians have been pioneers and builders of this country. Their contribution to building the railway helped B.C. connect to a united Canada. Their photographs from that era are important historical artifacts in understanding the development of this province.

However, one of the first bylaws ever passed by the city of Vancouver put a geographic restriction on where Chinese residents could live. It is present-day Chinatown in my constituency of Vancouver–Mount

[ Page 6699 ]

Pleasant. In 1907 the anti-Asiatic riots happened in my riding. Although Chinese Canadians were unjustly treated for many years, they proudly fought in Canada's armed forces, constituting the largest ethnic group to serve in World War II.

The history of Chinese Canadians is a testimony to the great virtues of Chinese culture. This community is hard-working and has displayed persistence, forgiveness and generosity in Canada. The history of Chinese Canadians is also testimony to Canada's continuing progress in social justice and human rights. In April 2007 the federal government formally acknowledged the damaging effects of the racist head tax immigration policy with a formal apology and redress for the surviving head tax payers and their spouses.

Since the 1980s Chinese Canadians have become a vibrant force which has brought culture, wealth, human capital, investment, experience and connections to their homeland. We also now have a vibrant Chinese Canadian media in the lower mainland, which enriches our public sphere with new ideas and new voices.

Chinese Canadians are an integral part of our society socially, culturally, economically and politically. They enrich our culture in diversity. They're an asset to our culture and are instrumental in building an economic advantage for British Columbia to the largest market in the world.

The future and prosperity of B.C. will be enhanced by recognizing the important contribution of Chinese Canadians in this province. I certainly support the call for the province to proclaim Chinese Canadian Week during May 14-20 to honour the contributions of Chinese Canadians, and I trust all members of this House will also join me.

JAY DREW

V. Roddick: There are certain people in this world who absolutely shine, and Jay Drew is one of them. Jay lives in Tsawwassen and runs his own company, United Lock-Block Ltd., on Mitchell Island in Richmond — those interlocking concrete blocks, retaining-wall blocks, that you're seeing all over the place these days.

Jay is a mechanical engineer from UBC and began to work with the Tetra Society of North America in 1991, a non-profit organization dedicated to creating inventions that enable people with disabilities to overcome barriers. Since then, he's added more than 200 inventions to his name.

The Tetra Society was started in 1987 by current Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan after he learned that engineering solutions could revolutionize not only his life but others' as well. Speaking of Mayor Sullivan, Jay was the designer of the now world-famous flag holder that allowed Sam to receive the Olympic flag in Italy to start the countdown to the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games.

[1405]

Jay was one of eight British Columbians to receive a Governor General's Caring Canadian Award at a ceremony here in Victoria in January, presented by Her Honour Iona Campagnolo.

Currently he's working on a beeping puck for visually impaired hockey players. "It's real tough. I can get it to beep, but I just can't get it to stay together when it hits the goalpost at 40 or 50 miles an hour."

No one can say it better than Jay Drew himself: "Helping other people gives you the sense of fulfilment, and that's what makes you happy. People striving to find happiness only for themselves are doing everything wrong." Thank you, Jay Drew.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER CONVENTION CENTRE

EXPANSION COSTS

C. James: Last Friday the government quietly announced the merger of PavCo and convention centre boards. After years of denial and massive cost overruns, the government is finally acknowledging just how badly they've mismanaged the entire convention centre project.

Can the Premier confirm that his government received the Auditor General's draft report into this project, and will he release the details today so British Columbians can see — finally see — how deep the mismanagement really runs?

Hon. S. Hagen: I certainly have not received the Auditor General's report. It's possible that someone else has. I have not seen it.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's pretty clear that British Columbians just can't trust this government to actually put the facts on the table. The Auditor General's draft report was due a month ago. His final report is due the end of this month. If the Premier is sitting on the draft report, he's hiding those recommendations from the public.

We know some facts, Mr. Speaker. We know that this project is grossly over budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: We know that the government engaged in a public relations exercise on Friday. British Columbians have absolutely no idea whether this governance structure actually answers the criticisms that may be in the report.

Again to the Premier: will he release the recommendations today, and if he's already acted on them, what is he hiding from the public?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said in my earlier answer, I'm not aware of the Auditor General's interim report being released. Certainly when it is released, we'll be taking a look at it, and we'll be looking at whatever recommendations we need to follow, if any.

It always amazes me with this opposition. They won't take a stand on whether or not they're in favour of something. All they want to do is criticize what we're doing. I want to remind the opposition and the

[ Page 6700 ]

people of this province that, yes, we're talking about a project in the range of $800 million. That's a big number.

But I can tell you this. We already have 50 conventions booked, and 27 of those conventions would not have been booked in the old facility because there wouldn't have been enough room. Those 50 events alone generate over $850 million worth of economic….

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The minister wasn't aware of cost overruns a few months ago, either, and now it appears he's not aware of the fact that the Auditor General was doing a report and the draft was in. Again, I speak to the overrun of the Trade and Convention Centre — now close to $400 million and climbing. The minister may not think that's much of an overrun, but I can tell you that taxpayers care about that overrun in British Columbia. That overrun alone could cover off the deficits crippling health authorities with bed cuts and nurse layoffs.

[1410]

The Auditor General's review explicitly deals with the governance structure. The governance structure changed dramatically this past week. It also reports on financial management. British Columbians want the facts. The facts are in the information that has not been released by this government.

My question, again to the Premier, is: will he release all of the details today, including the financial details, or is he just once again protecting his friends?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, the rhetoric is interesting, but it's meaningless. This facility that is being built in Vancouver is going to be one of the best convention facilities in the world. Back in…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: …the dismal decade of the '90s — 1997, '98 and '99 — the NDP government of the day promised a convention centre. Here's what they said. Back in 1999, without partners and with a $900 million budget, Glen Clark said: "I've always been dubious that the federal government will contribute" — which is not the case, because the federal government is a partner in this one — "and I've always said that the province should go for it on its own."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: If those members opposite care so much about cost overruns, why did they build those three fast ferries that are sitting across the water from the convention centre?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

N. Macdonald: Let's bring this back to what the minister currently responsible for the mismanagement of the Vancouver convention expansion project says himself — bring it back to his words, because what he has told the public is that he is not worried about massive cost overruns in the project. It doesn't worry him. He's told us that he can find no one to blame for the doubling of costs.

Obviously, an average taxpayer does worry when they're asked to pay 100 percent more, and we all know that there is someone at fault. The people at fault are the people who have made every single decision on this project. It is the B.C. Liberal board that is handpicked by this Premier. Each one of those people is an associate, a friend, a donor of this Premier.

The question is…. Mr. Dobell and each member of the VCCEP board should have been fired on Friday. Why were they not?

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, at the end of the day we're going to have the most incredible convention centre in the world.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat. Minister, continue.

Hon. S. Hagen: The convention centre will have the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Continue.

Hon. S. Hagen: The convention centre will have the capability of helping us double tourism revenues by 2015, which is a goal that we have set for tourism in British Columbia. There will be 10,000 journalists in that building during the 2010 Olympics. They'll be flashing images all over the world about beautiful British Columbia, the best place on earth.

[1415]

We've already, as I said, booked 50 conventions, 27 of which we would not have without this new facility. It is the most environmentally sustainable building of its kind in the world.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, there are two points in that. The first point is this. Every single number this government has put out that relates to this convention centre has been wrong. That is the first point. They have all been wrong — from the price in 2003 straight through to the present.

[ Page 6701 ]

Second point. That is beside the point. People still want a project that is not mismanaged. This project has gone up so that it is twice the price that the government promised it would be — and promised repeatedly with each of the various ministers responsible.

Here's a quote from the Premier: "There is no one in the private sector who could possibly maintain their job when one of their projects has doubled in price and is overdue. They should be fired."

By the Premier's own standards, this board should have been fired. The question is: why are they being protected?

Hon. S. Hagen: We took the opportunity on Friday to carry out what we've been working towards for the last several months, and that's combining the boards of VCCEP and PavCo. We've added some expertise to that board. It's a strong board, and it's got the construction experience. We're going to carry out this project, and the people of British Columbia are going to be very proud.

R. Fleming: Well, the minister is apparently totally unconcerned at $400 million of cost overrun. Can he tell this House at what price he shows concern? Is it $600 million? Is it $1 billion over? Will he tell this House at what point he gets concerned about the convention centre cost overruns?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm sure the member is aware — he's just forgotten — that we've been totally transparent on this project. Every time there has been a cost increase, we've been transparent as a government. We've told the public what that cost increase is and why.

Let's not forget about the size of this project. This is the largest construction project underway in the province — 1,500 piles being driven….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: There are 1,500 piles being driven. This building is built over water and also over land. It's a huge construction project and takes lots of expertise and engineering. They had to get cranes from Germany because the economy is so hot — because, I might add, of our economic policies….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Hagen: The other thing is…. They don't even talk about the jobs that have been created here. There are 7,000 people from seven provinces working on this site. I've got to tell you that they're proud to be in British Columbia.

H. Bains: The minister can look to the side. The minister that is sitting right next to him said $495 million, on budget, on time — guaranteed. Wrong.

Next, our current Solicitor General said he would say no to any more funding requests — not a nickel more. Wrong again. Then last year the current Minister of Labour added $50 million to the budget and said that was the final budget. Wrong again.

Now this minister says more is needed. We are over $800 million, and he isn't even sure. This is a gross mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars.

My question: did Mr. Ken Dobell, the chair of the board and a friend of the Premier, properly brief the ministers? Or were the ministers misleading the public with their assurances?

[1420]

Hon. S. Hagen: Again, the member hasn't done his homework, Mr. Speaker. There has been no misleading of the public here. We have been totally open. Every time the government was given a new number by VCCEP, we put the number out.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. S. Hagen: I mean, I don't want to refer to the opposition as being hypocritical, but the word does come to mind.

We are going to end up with a project that is the pride of British Columbia. We're going to be hosting conventions. It's going to be there for the media and for the 2010 Olympics. It's going to be something that the people of British Columbia will be very, very proud of and want to visit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Let's talk about doing the homework. This minister's numbers don't add up at all. Mr. Dobell said that the cost of inflation of the construction was rising at the rate of 10 percent to 12 percent. Since 2005, between the two budgets of two different ministers, the cost has ballooned over 30 percent.

Tell us today, Mr. Minister: what is the final cost of the project today, and how much are the taxpayers asked to pay to bail out the government for its management by the friends of the Premier?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer to that question is that we have, for this fiscal year, a budget in the range of $800 million to complete the Trade and Convention Centre.

S. Simpson: We've seen the budget double for this project. We now have a minister saying that the budget is in the range of $800 million. Will the minister tell us: what is that range, and will he commit that no more money will be spent over and above that budget?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said before, the amount in the budget is in the range of $800 million.

[ Page 6702 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL ON

LOG EXPORT APPROVAL

B. Simpson: On March 1 of this year the Minister of Forests and Range extended a log export approval from public lands on the mid- and north coast. My question to the Minister of Forests and Range is this: can the companies Interfor and TimberWest export logs from public lands under that order-in-council?

Hon. R. Coleman: The communities and the first nations up the midcoast and to the central coast of British Columbia asked for the extension of that particular OIC. It was extended to August. They asked for a longer period of time. I only extended it to August with the intention of being able to deal with it in the coast recovery plan on log exports.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I do. Can I get my first question again? Because I didn't get it answered. That's a redo, I think. Maybe it's just too technical for the minister when he's not versed on his file.

[1425]

I'll answer it for him. Yes, Interfor and TimberWest can export logs on that order-in-council at a time when the number one constraint on the coast is the shortage of logs to keep mills open, including TimberWest's and Interfor's mills.

My question to the Minister of Forests is this: why would he allow 35 percent of the licences on the mid- and north coast to go to log exports at a time when we cannot keep mills open on the coast because of log shortages? Why did that happen?

Hon. R. Coleman: I understand that the member opposite doesn't care about the small communities on the midcoast and central coast and north coast. I understand that the member doesn't care if the people in the first nations communities in that area of the province are working. But they came to government and asked for the extension of the OIC for a very specific reason: so they would have opportunities to have some economy in their communities in a very tough time in forestry in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

IMPACT OF RAW LOG EXPORTS ON

HAMMOND CEDAR MILL

M. Sather: I wanted to find out if the Minister of Forests and Range has some concern about the forest industry in my community. Hammond Cedar has been an integral part of my community since 1910, and it's the largest red cedar mill in the world. That mill is not antiquated. It's a modern mill, and it's been profitable every year for 35 years. Now it's running a million dollars or more in debt every month, and the reason for that is the raw log export policy of this government.

Has this minister gone to the workers of Hammond Cedar? Has he talked to them about how he's going to assist them in the crisis that they're facing?

Hon. R. Coleman: That question just shows the lack of knowledge of the species in specific areas of the coast and in forestry. It also shows one other lack of information that the member obviously doesn't know. We don't export red and yellow cedar from the coast of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker. I wish the minister would actually come out some time and talk to the workers in the affected areas. He hasn't done that. We have major problems. We had the Western Forest Products mill close recently in New Westminster, a loss of 300 jobs. Flavelle Cedar in Port Moody is running every other week. Half of the people at Hammond Cedar are sitting at home. They tell us they can't get enough logs, and they say it's because of the problems that this government has brought on.

I want to ask the minister again if he's going to go and talk to those members and how he's going to help them to ensure that that mill doesn't go down like the others have done.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's going to be interesting when the coast recovery plan is released — whether these members will actually support it — because it's going to take some big changes to build a strong future in forestry on the coast of British Columbia. Tough decisions are going to have to be made — ones that you refused to make in the '90s, which may have to be made today to make a future for forestry in B.C.

APPEAL OF SENTENCE IN

DE PATIE CASE

M. Farnworth: My question is for the Attorney General. Do he and his ministry intend to appeal the sentence in the Grant De Patie case?

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue regarding whether or not an appeal is in order is something that the criminal justice branch within my ministry determines. They do so on the individual merits of any case. I can tell the House this. The last avenue of appeal in this case would be the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada rarely hears cases regarding sentence appeals unless the matter is of national importance or

[ Page 6703 ]

the issue is one of policy that will affect the law across the country.

[1430]

In this particular case, the trial judge imposed a sentence of nine years. The Court of Appeal reduced that to seven years. In those circumstances, it is rather doubtful that the Supreme Court of Canada would grant leave to the Crown to appeal in the particular circumstances of the case.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: The seriousness, hon. Member, of this particular issue, I think, would expect that you would give the question and this House the respect that it deserves.

The public has expressed concern and indeed a considerable amount of outrage over this particular sentence. The Attorney General has expressed concern about the reduction in the sentence.

So I think it is fair to ask that the leadership that is lacking on the government side needs to be addressed. The public expects leadership. Just because the Attorney General's ministry feels that an appeal may not be successful is not a reason to not proceed with what many people in this province feel is an important issue on a sentence that the Attorney General himself said he was concerned about.

My question again to the Attorney General is: why will this government and this minister not show the leadership necessary and appeal the sentence in the Grant De Patie case?

Hon. W. Oppal: The question of whether or not an appeal is warranted in the individual circumstances of the case is not a political one. It's determined on the merits of any particular case. The issue of whether or not an appeal is warranted depends upon the law and the circumstances.

The lawyers in the criminal justice branch determine these things on an individual case-by-case basis. The fact that some members of the public are outraged regarding a particular outcome of a case in and of itself is not grounds to launch an appeal. Keep in mind here that the Court of Appeal was unanimous in its decision. It was a 3-0 decision.

In those circumstances, the Crown would have to seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. In other words, the Crown would have to ask permission and convince the Supreme Court of Canada that this is a matter of national importance. The lawyers in the branch are the best suited to determine that. It has nothing at all to do with political leadership. The whole issue is dependent upon whether, in law, an appeal is warranted.

SAFETY VIOLATIONS AT WEYERHAEUSER

MILL IN NEW WESTMINSTER

C. Puchmayr: On November 17, 2004, Lyle Hewer, a 55-year-old millworker, was crushed to death while clearing a jam in a hopper at the Weyerhaeuser New Westminster division sawmill in my community. WorkSafe B.C. states this was a high-risk violation and that violations by senior management were committed wilfully and with reckless disregard.

Will the Attorney General commit to this House that he will appoint a special prosecutor so that this matter can be dealt with through the courts as recommended by the New Westminster police?

Hon. W. Oppal: The question of whether or not a special prosecutor is appointed is a decision that's made by the criminal justice branch. Special prosecutors are appointed under the Crown Counsel Act only in specific and particular circumstances. They're appointed where there is a perception of bias or there's a cause for a particular interest that's involved. Another circumstance may be that some member of government may be affected directly or indirectly.

So those are the circumstances under which, under the act, special prosecutors are appointed. I would point out that the Attorney General does not appoint special prosecutors. The criminal justice branch independent of the Attorney General appoints special prosecutors.

Interjection.

[1435]

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Certainly, WorkSafe B.C. is involved in this, and a division of the New Westminster police department has recommended charges. WorkSafe B.C. levied a fine against Weyerhaeuser Canada, saying that mill management ignored safety concerns and condoned a culture where complacency in the face of danger became the norm.

WorkSafe B.C. said that violations were committed wilfully with reckless disregard. The investigating WorkSafe officers said that Weyerhaeuser management knew about hazards Hewer faced but did nothing about it.

Communications counsel for the Crown stated that the evidence presented to the Crown counsel was in the public interest to prosecute but did not support a substantial likelihood in a conviction. Again, this government is failing workers in British Columbia. What will the minister do to ensure that this process goes forward so the courts can deal with the justice and merits of this case?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, these are not political issues. If members of the Crown counsel office have determined that based on the whole of the evidence, there is not a substantial likelihood for conviction, then we don't proceed with charges.

It may be that something has happened. A death has resulted. But that in and of itself doesn't mean that in any particular individual case, criminal charges are warranted. Criminal charges are only warranted when in the opinion of Crown counsel, based on the evidence

[ Page 6704 ]

produced to them by the police, there's a substantial likelihood for conviction, and secondly, whether it is in the public interest to prosecute some particular individual.

If the Crown counsel in this particular case has determined that charges are not warranted, then that's the end of the matter.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

D. Chudnovsky: I have a petition from constituents concerned about cuts to the child care resource and referral programs.

S. Fraser: I have a petition with 386 signatures from the students and staff of Ballenas high school asking this House to support the safe antifreeze bill.

C. Trevena: Petition from residents north of Campbell River supporting Tom Bakken in his claim to homestead land.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 15, Security Services Act, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued debate on the Ministry of Education estimates.

[1440]

Committee of the Whole House

SECURITY SERVICES ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

section 10 (continued) .

M. Farnworth: The last time we were engaged in this discussion, I think, was two weeks ago. So I'd just like to go back over and have the minister bring the House up to date, and those at home who may have left off at our last episode, on the issue of out-of-province private investigators and the changes that are taking place.

"The registrar may grant an exemption from the requirement to hold a security worker licence if an individual (

a) is a private investigator licensed or registered in a jurisdiction outside British Columbia…."

One of the concerns we had was the possibility of firms operating outside of the province that don't have the same standards as we would have here in British Columbia, but because of the close proximity of, let's say, Calgary or Edmonton — not to pick on them, but just geographically they're close — to engage in investigations that would otherwise be done by British Columbia licensed investigators.

How does he see this

section dealing with that, or is that still an issue and a problem? If it's not, why would it not be a problem?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. We are dealing here with private investigators as opposed to other categories of security professionals who might from time to time come into the province to conduct work. When they apply for the exemption, we clearly will have a record of who these people are, for whom they work and for how long they will be working within British Columbia. Typically, that will be for a relatively short period of time. We, of course, rely on the fact that they are licensed in another jurisdiction as evidence that they are qualified to undertake that work.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us what qualifies as a short period of time? Is there a set determination?

My second question is: what if a jurisdiction is not licensed?

[1445]

Hon. J. Les: The typical period of time for which these exemptions are granted is usually, on average, about five to seven days. If an individual is not able to produce evidence that they are registered or licensed elsewhere, that exemption will not be granted.

M. Farnworth: Does that apply to jurisdictions in Canada, or does it also apply to jurisdictions outside of Canada? Outside of Canada, if they have a licensing, would that qualify as recognition for the ministry?

Hon. J. Les: That provision would apply to all potential applicants from all other provinces of Canada, and we would expect that it would apply to those who would be applying from other countries as well, although I should hasten to say that heretofore we apparently have not had an application like this come before us.

M. Farnworth: While we may not have had an application, the fact is that there is always a first time for everything. We are going to be hosting the Olympics in 2010, and that is a two-week period. There are questions around that in this act that I'll get to in a minute or during the course of this debate. That may be an obvious place where…. Because you will have so many people here, it may be something that might occur at that particular point.

I would just ask the ministry and the minister to think about how this particular

section could apply to outside investigations and some of the problems. We often assume just Canada or the United States, and in fact it could be much more outside those jurisdictions than we have seen in the past.

Section 10 approved.

[ Page 6705 ]

section 11.

M. Farnworth: In

section 11, hon. Chair, my question to the minister is this: are there any circumstances where the carrying on of the security business licence would not be required?

[1450]

Hon. J. Les: In discussion with staff, it's not readily apparent that there would be exemptions that would be granted from the requirement to get a security business licence. The regulation, however, is provided to perhaps look after that rare circumstance where that provision might be required.

There's some speculation…. Just as an example, workers who are engaged in the security business vis-à-vis casinos, because they are regulated by other legislation that might be equally as effective or may in fact supersede this legislation…. That might be the type of application where this provision could be used. But if the member opposite were to ask me today who all is going to be exempted pursuant to this provision, I would say at this point the answer would be no one.

Sections 11 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister outline exactly, in terms of…. It says: "…maintain the prescribed books and records…." Could he detail what's intended by that statement? Is it general records? Is it specific records related to the activities of the security worker?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I should point out that

section 21 is the same as the corresponding

section in the current act, so it represents no change. What we would be looking for would be the typical things: payroll records, personnel records, shift records, contracts with clients of the firm and that kind of thing.

M. Farnworth: So if one was concerned about records of incidents that occur…. For example, if you have a security officer who's dealing with, let's say, a store, and there's an incident involving someone and they are apprehending someone or holding someone until the police come, where would a record of that be kept, and when would a record of that be kept — what section?

[1455]

Hon. J. Les: I think what the member is looking for is a record of incidents and enforcement activities that are out of the ordinary day-to-day routine of somebody engaged in this business. There will be a requirement to carefully document those activities, but they will come under a different section. As part of the complaints process, there will be a requirement that these companies keep a careful record of those kinds of instances.

M. Farnworth: We'll be exploring that in the complaints process. I take the minister's comments, and I focus on the issue "out of the ordinary."

So what about the ordinary day-to-day events that occur? What is out of the ordinary to somebody is quite often run of the mill and ordinary to somebody else. In order to determine what is out of the ordinary, it often helps to know what the ordinary events are that occur in a routine day and in a routine doing of the job. So where is the requirement to keep those records and those types of events — or is there?

Hon. J. Les: Under

section 21 we're looking for general business records and evidence of the appropriate insurance and that kind of thing. What we're not looking for here is the kind of documentation of significant events, such as the security investigator having to call in the police to have someone arrested or where there's possibly even been some kind of physical altercation between a security investigator and someone else. Documentation of that nature is not what is contemplated by this section. I'm sure we'll be discussing that later under a further

section in this act.

Sections 21 to 24 inclusive approved.

section 25.

[1500]

M. Farnworth: Can the minister indicate whether there have been any significant changes between this

section and the previous act?

Hon. J. Les: There have been no changes.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the carrying of firearms, in this

section it of course makes provision for armoured vehicle personnel. Are there any other circumstances or areas in which the minister would see that the carrying of firearms is allowed?

Hon. J. Les: The answer is no.

M. Farnworth: This would not have any impact in terms of security measures on anything that's required, for example, during the 2010 Olympics?

Hon. J. Les: No.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

section 28.

M. Farnworth: In terms of licence cancellation and licence suspension, can the minister indicate what the differences are between this particular

section and un-

[ Page 6706 ]

der the old section? Has there been any significant change between the old act and this act?

Hon. J. Les: The major change that's being made here is one that requires the registrar to hold a hearing. That is optional now, but there will be an absolute requirement under this legislation.

A. Dix: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Dix: I want to welcome students from Windermere Community Secondary School who are here in the gallery listening to the debate today, learning how legislation is made. I ask the House to give them welcome.

Debate Continued

Sections 28 to 33 inclusive approved.

section 34.

M. Farnworth: This particular

section is a new section, and it's one that the minister has said in his second reading remarks was an important part of this particular piece of legislation. Can the minister tell me what levels of consultation took place in terms of developing this particular

section and who the minister consulted with?

[1505]

Hon. J. Les: In the working up of this act, and specifically with respect to this particular process, there has actually been very extensive consultation. I should point out that this act has been several years in gestation. During that period of time there's been consultation with a lot of different people within industry and with stakeholders in the industry. We've had consultation with inspection team members, with the police, with other regulators within the provincial government, with industry groups and with ministry staff as well.

In terms of the stakeholders that we consulted with, they were — just to give you a few: the locksmiths, alarm services, security patrol businesses, armoured car businesses, private investigators, the law society, the Industry Training Authority, the Safety Authority, the Justice Institute, the human rights committee, the fire commissioner's office, the police, the commissionaires, the bar owners and retail associations.

M. Farnworth: I would assume, then, that the minister would have also taken into account advances that were taking place in other provinces during this several years of gestation?

Hon. J. Les: That's correct. We consulted widely, and we took advice from wherever we could find it.

M. Farnworth: The reason I asked that question is because one of those provinces that has brought forward new legislation is the province of Ontario. In their particular piece of legislation they included a code of conduct, which is something that is not in this particular bill.

Can the minister tell this House if he examined the Ontario legislation and their

section dealing with a code of conduct?

Hon. J. Les: We in fact have consulted with the province of Ontario. We have had them send to us all of the work that they've done with respect to the development of their code of conduct. We find a substantial amount of work there that is of interest to us.

We will be incorporating that into the regulations that will flow from this act. There are several places in this act where the word "conduct" is used. Pursuant to that, we will be developing code of conduct regulations once the act is proclaimed.

M. Farnworth: I understand the minister's remarks, but is there anywhere in this current act where it specifically or explicitly states that there will be a code of conduct?

Hon. J. Les: No, there isn't a specific reference to the words "code of conduct." However, as I said — and the member can take my word on this — we will be developing such a code in the regulations.

M. Farnworth: I do take the minister's word that they will be developing a code of conduct, because I think that's important. In light of that, I would be pleased to move an amendment, at this point.

[SECTION 34(1) to add: including any allegation that a licensee has breached the code of conduct established under the regulations.]

[1510]

On the amendment.

M. Farnworth: I'm moving this amendment — to the minister — because I think it's important that we spell out…. I understand the issue in terms of code of conduct in regulations, so if we're going to do that, then I think we should start to mention that or to have that in this legislation. The complaints process is key.

It comes back to what I talked about a few minutes ago in terms of records and in terms of making a complaints process that's effective. We should be able to say or people should be able to know that there is a code of conduct and that if they feel that code of conduct is breached, then they have the ability through the complaints process to actually be able to take it up on that basis.

That's why I am moving this particular amendment, because what it will do is strengthen this piece of legislation. The government and the minister have indicated that it is their intention to have a code of conduct under the regulations. So it's only appropriate that

[ Page 6707 ]

that be inserted at this particular point — in accordance with practices "established by the minister, the registrar must deal with complaints from the public respecting matters that relate to this Act."

That would include an explicit reference to a code of conduct because at the end of the day, when the public has a complaint, they need something to judge it against. They need to know: at what point do I have a complaint?

Well, if there's a code of conduct — and the minister says there's going to be a code of conduct — someone can easily refer to that and go, "Wait a second. Here's the code of conduct, and here's what was supposed to have taken place or how I should have been dealt with. I've been dealt with this way. I've been dealt with by the rules. Okay, that's fine," or: "I haven't, and therefore I wish to make a complaint." That's why I think this is the appropriate place to put in that particular section.

Hon. J. Les: Frankly, I don't see a need for this amendment to go into the act. The

section is clear. The registrar must deal with complaints from the public. So if there are complaints, whether they be against the code of conduct or pursuant to the Criminal Code or pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Act or many other statutes I could enumerate that the public are concerned about with respect to the conduct of an individual who is licensed by this act, clearly the registrar would have to take all of those complaints into consideration.

I don't see any necessity to limit to a code of conduct that will be developed. I think the act as it's written now is very clear that all matters dealing with complaints from the public must be considered by the registrar.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister tell us at what point and how long after implementation of this particular piece of legislation he expects the code of conduct to be developed?

[1515]

Hon. J. Les: As I have said earlier, we have been working for some considerable period of time in developing this act. There are many reasons why this act is timely, certainly not the least of which is that the existing legislation is old and dated. I would be working with the ministry staff to ensure complete implementation of this act sooner rather than later. But in reality, what that means is that probably in October or November of this year, this act would be in force and effect.

M. Farnworth: I take it from the minister's statement that in October or November the act would be in effect, which would include a code of conduct being in place by regulation and in effect by October or November of this year.

Hon. J. Les: That is correct.

M. Farnworth: I'm glad the minister has been able to be specific in a particular date because one of the things that does concern me is the fact that this legislation has taken several years' gestation. We have looked at other jurisdictions. There is in place, for example, in Ontario legislation — a code of conduct. The minister recognizes that there is a need for a code of conduct. It is something that he wants to put in the legislation.

I hope and want to see it in by October or November. I'm just concerned that in bringing this much-needed piece of legislation to the House, knowing that these things are going to be in it, knowing that we are going to make the regulation and knowing that there are examples out there….

Ontario is not that much different from British Columbia. They operate under the same legal system as we do. They operate under the same parliamentary system as we do. The last time I checked, people put their trousers on — if they're wearing trousers — one leg at a time, the same way as we do. I am still a little puzzled as to why it's taking so long to develop a code of conduct when this legislation has been in the works for so long.

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the member opposite's impatience, actually. I suffer from that myself from time to time. But I have come to learn that on matters such as these, it indeed does take a bit of time — generally a few months at least — to properly implement a piece of legislation. There are numerous regulations that will have to be developed.

As far as the code of conduct is concerned that the member refers to, we already have the material from the province of Ontario. Indeed, there is much there that we will be able to adopt into our regulations.

I should point out that the code of conduct regulations in Ontario are in fact just that. They are regulations. They are not written into the legislation itself, but they are adopted by regulation, as we propose to do.

We obviously will utilize that kind of material wherever possible, but we will always have unique situations here in British Columbia. We clearly come from a unique background as opposed to Ontario, where they had different legislation previously. With all of that, it will take us a bit of time to work through it, but I certainly intend and expect that this legislation will be in effect well before the end of this year.

M. Farnworth: I will take the minister's word and comments on that, and I look forward to seeing a code of conduct in October or November.

[1520]

My final comments and question on this particular piece of legislation come back to why I think the amendment is important. Regulations are one thing. Many people often don't have access to the regulations.

So my final point to the minister would be: by ensuring that this is in here, by ensuring that that goes in

section 34.1, it's readily accessible and available to just about anyone who wants to look at it — that there is in fact a code of conduct, and they can go and look for it.

I think it would strengthen the minister's hand in developing a code of conduct. I know the minister may well go back to cabinet with the regulations, but I also

[ Page 6708 ]

know how cabinets work. Sometimes the best-intentioned regulations of a ministry can somehow find their way to not being enforced because of other cabinet priorities or other views around the cabinet table.

I would ask the minister this question. Given the government's stated policy that for every regulation brought in, two would have to be eliminated, would the bringing-in of a code of conduct by regulation have to result in other regulations being removed?

Hon. J. Les: The member raises an important issue. Legislative simplicity and regulatory transparency are objectives that I hope we all share.

Of course, with the adoption of the new act, the existing act disappears with all of its attendant regulations. I'm not sure there is actually a hard-and-fast rule that for every new regulation, we have to get rid of at least another. I know there have been cases where in fact we have had a net increase in regulations. But that is more than offset by other regulations in various ministries that are becoming redundant.

In this particular case, we are going to adopt whatever regulations are necessary to make sure that we have a viable act that does what it sets out to do. If we are looking for regulations that we might want to offset against any new regulations that will come into being as a result of this particular act, I am sure that in the 240,000-some-odd regulations that still exist within government we could probably find a few candidates.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's comments. I asked them slightly tongue-in-cheek but also because it has been an issue with the government, and it is wise to review regulations from time to time and make sure they are current and up to date. I also don't want to see an approach to stand in the way of implementing what I think is going to be and needs to be a crucial part of an important bill. It is something that I think needs to be addressed right now.

With that, I will finish my remarks on the amendment.

[1525-1530]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Brar

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 43

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Christensen

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

Section 34 approved.

section 35.

M. Farnworth: In terms of administrative penalties, can the minister explain if there are any differences between this particular

section and the old act, and what they are?

Hon. J. Les: This is, in fact, one of the areas where this new act is a significant improvement over the old act in that not only

section 35 but sections 35 through 41 are all new. Previously, it was a bit of a slapdash approach to administrative follow-through, but here we clearly set out the penalties and procedures. I think this is a significant step forward in

section 35.

Sections 35 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

M. Farnworth: In terms of the two-year limitation date for imposing administrative penalty, is this in line with other administrative penalty options, or is this a standard one?

[1535]

Hon. J. Les: In fact, this provision is consistent with similar provisions that are found in the Safety Standards Act and in the Debt Collection Act.

Sections 41 to 51 inclusive approved.

section 52.

M. Farnworth: There are a number of issues around regulations, and the minister has commented around the code of conduct. He's indicated that October or November is when we can expect a code of conduct, the regulations and the act to be enforced and in place.

[ Page 6709 ]

Can the minister comment on the issue around recording and reporting of critical incidents and how they will be dealt with? Are they going to be dealt with by regulation? In what form will they have to take place? For example, can he start to tell us what type of incidents will have to be recorded?

Hon. J. Les: The complaints process under the relevant section, which I believe is

section 34…. Clearly, we're going to be consulting with relevant stakeholder groups and other agencies who have an interest in these matters. We want to be sure that we have something that is transparent yet relevant to people who wish to utilize those provisions. Again, I think it's important that we do this work quickly, as the current act is very much out of date. We need this new act to bring us into the 21st century, if you like.

M. Farnworth: What I think people are concerned about…. We've talked about the importance of having a code of conduct and that that will be developed by regulation. One of the things a code of conduct does is say what you can do and what you can't do — the types of things that are your responsibilities. It indicates to the public: "Okay, here's what a person can do; here's what they can't do."

[1540]

What I'm concerned about is that you have records of those events. What types of events are required recordkeeping — for example, someone who has been handcuffed or someone who has been turned over to the police? Has force been used? Was there an assault involved? Was anybody injured — either the employee or the individual? Did you require calling for assistance from other security individuals, or did the police have to be called? At what point?

Where are all those things kept? What are the regulations going to be that make sure those things are in fact documented so that you have a record? Because if you don't have those records…. Was there an incident? How many incidents occurred in an industry? Well, if there's no requirement to keep things like that, then you're not able to have a proper sense of exactly what's taking place and whether or not your legislation is doing the job you want it to do.

So I'd like the minister to look at, in terms of the regulations, where those things are going to be dealt with.

Hon. J. Les: We referred earlier to the fact that a code of conduct will be developed as part of this legislation, and by regulation it will enumerate those things that must be recorded and reported.

In particular, I am sure that the member opposite would agree with me that issues arising from physical contact between a security investigator and a member of the public…. A situation where a physical arrest of a person is required — I think that the member opposite used the example of handcuffing an individual — or clearly, any interference with the freedom of another person would be something that ought to be recorded.

Any instance where injury occurs or where the police need to be called, any items of that nature, would be required to be documented under a code of conduct. Then, of course, the registrar can refer to those things and those records as he or she makes various decisions with respect to individual licensees.

M. Farnworth: Again, I come back to this issue of…. Okay, we're doing this by regulation. We recognize the need for this, and it strikes me that it would be pretty straightforward that you would want to know the type of — I don't want to use the term "offences" — activities that are taking place, such as if there are searches taking place or seizures or uses of force or if there are apprehensions taking place, so you get an idea of exactly what's taking place within the industry.

This is useful not only for the industry itself but for ensuring that the act is doing what it's supposed to be doing. It's also of great importance in terms of…. If I were a small business owner, I could look and see what's happening in my particular store, and I'd be able to get that type of information and what's happening in other retail outlets, for example, or other licensed establishments. The fact that we don't have that currently enumerated, even though we've had several years of working at this piece of legislation, does cause me some concern. I think it's the type of thing that we need to have now in place.

[1545]

I'm going to ask the Chair's clarification here. I have two amendments that I'm contemplating moving. One would deal with sections 52(1) and 52(2), but also

section 52(3). I'm wondering: do you need to have them in order, or can I go now to 52(3), which is actually the topic which I'm currently engaged on?

The Chair: You can deal with it as you deem.

M. Farnworth: In that case, I would move:

[Section 52(3)(j): that records must be kept in relation to the use of force, arrest, detention, searches and seizures.]

The Chair: It's accepted. Continue, Member.

On the amendment.

M. Farnworth: Why I'm asking the minister to accept this amendment is that I think we need to be specific that if this piece of legislation is to do the job it's required to do, we should be enumerating a whole series of issues in terms of recordkeeping that should take place relating to the work of security people who are covered by this act.

I think the act has a significant weakness if we are not doing that type of recordkeeping, if we don't have those types of statistics kept. I think they relate not only to the effectiveness of the act, as I said a moment ago, but also to things such as the code of conduct.

If you really want this act to do what you want, I think you have to look at ensuring that you're able to catalogue and understand exactly the type of pressures

[ Page 6710 ]

that are being placed on security officials in the course of them doing their jobs.

[1550]

Hon. J. Les: While I appreciate the intent of the amendment, I would submit that it is unnecessary. The legislation as it is written is clearly enabling. A number of regulations will be adopted as part of this legislation, and once that is done, it will form a complete package that will capture the intent of what the member intends with this amendment.

There are several other sections in the act that we've already covered today where licensing can be done on a conditional basis. I think that the powers of the registrar are certainly sufficient to ensure appropriate conduct within the security investigators industry. While the member opposite may want to become very specific in terms of the legislation itself, clearly that is the purview of the regulation development process that will follow the adoption of the act.

M. Farnworth: I don't doubt what the minister is saying, and I understand what he is saying. But I guess the point is that one of the key elements of this piece of legislation is to improve the security industry in British Columbia. It's been a piece of legislation that's been long in gestation, as the minister has rightly pointed out.

It's very necessary. It's a growing industry. It would seem that one of the key things of that is that you would want to know exactly what is taking place within the industry regarding such things as the work that individual security personnel will be doing. How many people are being handcuffed? How many people are you having to use force on? How many seizures are you making? How many arrests are you making?

And it would seem that you would want to know that information, not just to make sure the piece of legislation is doing the job it's supposed to — if you need to make amendments, you're able to make amendments based on sound information — but also to ensure that in terms of a complaints process, you can determine whether something is an extraordinary event or whether it is an everyday occurrence in the duties performed by security personnel.

I am concerned that that's not specifically recognized in this particular piece of legislation, even in the regulations — to say that we will be doing this. I think it's one thing for us to say it in this House — and we all have good intentions — but I think that it would have a much stronger effect, it would be a much more powerful message, if that was clearly spelled out in the legislation. Either spell them out now or definitively say in this piece of legislation under this

section that regulations governing this will in fact take place.

If that's not in here, then I think that will cause problems down the road. I think that despite the minister's best intentions, it may be some time. So I will ask the minister this question: if it is his intention to, by regulation, enumerate those activities that I've outlined, when will that take place, and when could we expect to see those regulations in place?

Hon. J. Les: I understand the member opposite's interest in the legislation being very specific, but what we are suggesting is in fact not at all out of ordinary in that legislation enables a certain direction to be taken. Pursuant to that, you develop a suite of regulations that give effect to that general framework. I think to a degree, with all due respect, the point the member is making is somewhat rhetorical.

When I talked earlier about the implementation of the legislation occurring well before the end of the year, I certainly envisioned that this piece of work would be included in that so that we would have this act fully operative well before the end of 2007.

[1555]

M. Farnworth: I accept the minister's explanation about the specific and the legislative framework. I'd have a lot more comfort on that question if the regulations stated that there would be records kept in relation to force, arrest, detention, searches or seizures or even if the minister were to say that those events that occur during the day-to-day duties in the course of security personnel doing their job…. But they're not mentioned in here.

Even in the broad context it's not mentioned in here, and that's my concern. I'm going to ask the minister this question: even though it is not specifically mentioned in here, is it the minister's intention to have in place a regulation that will require the keeping of records related to the types of events that I have outlined in this amendment — related to the use of force, to the number of arrests made, to detentions that take place, to searches and seizures?

Hon. J. Les: As we develop the regulations that will flow from this act, we are obviously committed to working with all of the stakeholder groups to make sure that at the end of the day, we have an effective suite of regulations. It's my concern as well that when we do that, we have requirements around the recording of significant events — particularly, as I said earlier, dealing with the impediment of personal freedom that security investigators will perhaps experience from time to time.

[1600]

I would say to the member opposite that while the exact framework through which that will occur is not yet completely developed in regulation, it will be in time. When that is developed, I am confident that we will have a legislative and regulatory framework in place that properly accounts for the conduct and the behaviour of security investigators and protects the public at the same time.

M. Farnworth: I got from the minister's answer: regulations if necessary, but not necessarily regulations. I'm going to try a different tack on this particular issue, because I think it's an important one. When we talked earlier in second reading debate, we said this was an issue of major concern about this particular piece of legislation. Was it going to have the teeth to do the job or would it not have those teeth?

[ Page 6711 ]

We've mentioned Ontario. The minister has mentioned that they've looked at different pieces of legislation. Can the minister tell us if, in the course of their review of the Ontario legislation, they looked at how they keep records? Did they look at how these types of issues are dealt with in the Ontario legislation?

Hon. J. Les: We have received legislation and regulations from a variety of provinces — Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, to name just a few. We will look and have looked closely at each of those. We are of course not yet at the regulation-writing stage of this legislation. But when we do, we will be looking carefully again at each of those sets of regulation to determine what best works in British Columbia, so that we can gain from their experience and so that we have something that is, hopefully, the best available at that point in time.

M. Farnworth: The minister says he wants the best available legislation. Part of that means having the best available information and the best available sense of whether your legislation is working or not. Would the minister agree that it would be the right thing if we could say we know how often the use of force takes place, how many arrests take place, how many detentions end up as a result, and how many searches and seizures take place as a result of security personnel doing their duties?

[1605]

Hon. J. Les: I have no doubt that once this act is implemented with the regulations, we will have a much better ability to monitor the industry and, specifically, the issues that the member opposite refers to — what is happening in the field on an ongoing basis, when we have a code of conduct, when we have a better iterated complaints process. Those are all mechanisms through which we will be able to better monitor the industry.

I gather that the member is frustrated that we don't have the regulations here, but that simply isn't how the system works. We're here to pass the legislation that allows for the regulations to be developed in time. The package — the regulations and the legislation together — is the mechanism through which this industry is going to be regulated and monitored.

Of course, the success of this project, of developing the new legislation, will be commented upon in time. Again, I think we have mechanisms within this legislation that I've already referred to that will allow the registrar and others to have a much better picture of how the people who are licensed pursuant to this act are performing and whether their conduct needs to be addressed in some way.

M. Farnworth: I ask these questions because I am not getting the answer from the minister that I'm hoping to hear — not necessarily even in the specific but also in the general. You can't monitor if you do not know what it is you're wanting to monitor. If you're not asking that certain records or certain activities be kept, then you cannot monitor what's happening.

I mean, police keep records of drinking-and-driving offences. By doing that, they are able to monitor what's happening with regards to drinking and driving. You know, water quality. You keep records of the coliform count in water. As a result, you are able to monitor the quality of the water and make decisions on that basis, because you've got specific information.

If there are no specific requirements to say we want to monitor these particular areas or we want this particular information and do it in regulation, then fine; do it in regulation. But at least commit to this House, to the public, that in the course of development of the regulations we will monitor these issues. There should be records kept every time there is a search and seizure. There are records to be kept every time there is an arrest. There should be a record every time you use a handcuff. It doesn't have to be very…. It's like you check a box: was this used? Yes, it was.

That gives you an indication, and if you need to get more information later, then the registrar or the complaints process has the ability to do that.

If you're not doing that right from the get-go, then your process really isn't going to accomplish what you want it to accomplish. It really doesn't have the teeth it should have, and I don't believe that it will give the public the satisfaction they should have to know that not only do we have good legislation but guess what: you're keeping a record of things such as the number of arrests. You're keeping a record of when handcuffs are used; you're keeping a record of when there is a search and when there is a seizure. That's what I want the minister to commit to.

The minister has heard the point I'm trying to raise here. I've heard he doesn't want to support the amendment, but will he at least go on the record and say that those issues that I have addressed — those ones specifically, which may in fact be expanded to include others — will be part of a regulation that his ministry and his officials will develop, that will be in place by October-November, when the minister said, for example, that the code of conduct would be in place and this piece of legislation would come into force?

[1610]

Hon. J. Les: Again, I guess this might be an area where the member and I won't quite agree. However, we have already discussed this afternoon where in this act we are going to see an enhanced code of conduct, as well as a more robust and transparent complaints process.

Clearly, when issues arise with respect to how members of the security investigation industry behave and conduct themselves, they are going to be more readily and easily dealt with. At least, that is our expectation.

[1615]

When it comes to a code of conduct, clearly the professional behaviour required of individuals in this industry will be canvassed, I would think fully, within that code of conduct so that members of the public will be able to avail themselves of that, as to the kind of behaviour that is expected of people who work in this industry.

[ Page 6712 ]

As well, of course, there are many other relevant statutes that apply to the behaviour of anyone in the industry. For example, you simply don't go around assaulting people without just cause. The member used the notion previously of somebody in the security industry handcuffing someone. In very exceptional circumstances that may be necessary, but you don't go about doing that unnecessarily or at random.

Clearly, there are behaviours that are never acceptable, regardless of what profession one finds oneself in. Once the regulations are developed under this act, and when you put that into context with all other relevant legislation and laws that govern individual behaviour, I think we will have a situation in British Columbia where the security investigators of this province will have a responsible piece of legislation.

M. Farnworth: I'll use the minister's comments to illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Can the minister tell us…? The current situation in regards to handcuffing is that if you're a security guard working in a department store, for example, you cannot handcuff someone at the current time. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: That's correct.

M. Farnworth: Under this new legislation, you would be able to do that. Is that not correct?

Hon. J. Les: There is nothing in this act at the current time that would permit an expanded use of handcuffs. If in consultation with the industry and other stakeholders it was determined that this is something that should be allowed in the future, there may well be provision for the registrar to allow that. But it would be in consultation with the industry, stakeholders and other people who have an interest in these matters and would, I think importantly, involve additional training.

We need to always draw a clear distinction between the powers that are vested in security investigators and the powers that police have. Clearly, they are two very different things. This legislation, of course, regulates more carefully the conduct of people who are in the private security business but does not seek to turn them into quasi police officers.

M. Farnworth: No, it doesn't seek to turn them into quasi police members, but it does anticipate that they have the ability to do that. Not wanting to turn them into quasi law enforcement officers, but the issue of handcuffing is something that is anticipated in the sense that the registrar would have the ability to do that — as the minister says — through consultation. That is one of the things that the industry has been wanting to do.

[1620]

Whereas before you couldn't, now you can. So that's an important change moving with this legislation. I think it's fair, then, to ask that if this change is allowed — and there is no reason to suggest that it wouldn't be…. After proper consultation — and as the minister says, the necessary training is in place — you would be able to handcuff. It would seem to me that you would want to know when it's happening so you get a good understanding of the frequency with which something like that was occurring and that you would want to spell that out by way of regulation.

I know the minister is reluctant at this point to spell that out, but I'll ask this question. If the registrar deems that handcuffing can in fact take place after the proper training and consultation process, would there be a regulation in place that also states that you should be keeping a record of every time that does take place — that the handcuffing does occur?

[1625]

Hon. J. Les: Of course, it's important to keep in mind, in the first instance here, that no decisions have been made with respect to expanding the use of handcuffs. I can say that it's certainly not my primary preoccupation at this point in time. This legislation seeks to do quite a range of other things that I think are a lot more important than that, long before we ever get to using expanded powers of impeding personal freedom.

That aside, however, I think that if there is consultation within the industry and amongst the public generally and if it is decided at some point in time that this would be an important new power to invest in security investigators, at that point there is, I think, considerable discretion made available to the registrar to determine exactly how those new powers would be utilized by the security investigators.

Again, I think we have all of the tools available to us within the act. Once the act, coupled with the regulations, is proclaimed, I think we will have a very workable situation.

M. Farnworth: I agree that the registrar would have huge discretion to do what the minister is talking about. So in order that the registrar, if it comes to that point, is able to exercise his discretion effectively, does the minister not believe it would be appropriate to then keep a record of those types of incidences if handcuffing takes place?

Hon. J. Les: Again, as we develop the regulations and the powers of the registrar, these are all areas that will be given careful consideration. As we do that, we will consult with everyone, with a view to making this legislation responsive to the public so that the security investigators can do their work, but in a way that doesn't in any way impede personal freedoms unnecessarily and, also, in a context of a complaints process administered by the registrar under the act, that responds more fulsomely to public complaints than has been the case before now.

M. Farnworth: Okay. Does the minister believe that if someone was handcuffed, there should be a record kept of that event taking place?

[1630]

Hon. J. Les: I think it's important to maintain a little bit of perspective here. What we are trying to guard

[ Page 6713 ]

against, of course, is the excessive use of force by anyone, whether it's the police or whether it's a security investigator. There may well be — if, and I say if, the registrar under this act were ultimately to allow to some limited or other degree the use of handcuffs — numerous instances of the use of those that are not a cause for any particular kind of alarm. But in the case where there are problems and it results in a complaint, then obviously there would have to be a full investigation and a full disclosure as to what happened.

In terms of how that happens in the future — what the regulatory framework is around that and how the registrar deals with that…. First of all, I think that needs to be left to the regulation-writing process and, ultimately, to the discretion of the registrar who will be administering the act.

Clearly, I think we share the same objective. How we get there, whether we specifically spell it out in legislation or whether we rely on the regulation-making process and then the discretion of the registrar, I think is almost semantic. We clearly, I believe, share similar objectives.

M. Farnworth: The registrar would have a lot of discretion. The regulation writers would clearly look at the legislation, the intent of the legislation, and they would write the regulations. One of the things they would also look to in determining the intent of the legislation, both the registrar and the regulation writers, is not only what's in it but what the minister has said the legislation should do. So if there is a reluctance on the part of the minister to say if someone is handcuffed, for example, that there should or should not be a record of that occurrence taking place, then they're not sure exactly what is meant.

That's why a statement in this House on the record from the minister saying that if someone ends up, because the registrar has allowed handcuffing to take place — which is a very distinct possibility given, as the minister says, consultation and proper training….

[1635]

For the minister to say there should be a record of that event taking place if such an occurrence occurs is a strong signal to the drafters of regulation. It's also a strong signal to the registrar that that's important. Wouldn't the minister agree with that?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, I agree that everything I say in this House is actually recorded, and that does give direction to staff, ultimately, in preparing regulations and actually interpreting the intent of the act.

In terms of restraining individuals, clearly that is something that one would want to see exercised only by exception. But there are numerous situations in which that can occur. For me to make a blanket statement to say that anytime that happens it must be recorded, reported and what have you would, I think, be somewhat irresponsible.

Even the police in carrying out their duties from day to day do not record all of those types of events. The police report out only on those events of the most significant nature — for example, when they draw their firearms and those kinds of things. But the other normal things they do in the course of exercising their responsibilities are not necessarily specifically reported upon.

Again, as I've said earlier, what we are not doing here is creating a quasi police force. Clearly, the activities of security investigators are extremely limited in scope as compared to police. I think we need to allow the public consultation process to work. We need to allow the discretion of the registrar to be brought to bear here, to determine ultimately what is the best code of conduct for security investigators.

M. Farnworth: The minister's point about police is appropriate. In the case of drawing a weapon, it is recorded because it is an unusual circumstance. Likewise, the use of handcuffing someone you would not expect to be a normal occurrence. That would hopefully be something unusual. But you're not going to know that that's in fact the case unless there's some record, some indication of how often that's being done.

Surely the minister would recognize that you've got to have something to start from. A record of when someone is handcuffed would be an event that is worthy of recording. It doesn't have to be a full-scale report. It could be something as simple as just checking a box, saying: "Were handcuffs used?" Check. Nothing onerous there.

Particularly in the event, for example, if police were called…. An indication from the minister that police being called and handcuffs being used by the security official is something that he would consider should be recorded clearly would send a message to the drafter of the regulations and to the registrar that that is something that should be recorded. So I would ask the minister: would he at least think that is something worthy of being recorded?

[1640]

Hon. J. Les: Of course, at any time in the future if new powers were to be granted to security investigators, there could be conditions imposed on those new powers. One of the conditions could be that anytime that additional power was used, it would be required to be reported upon.

I think we should also give some consideration to the fact that with a more robust complaints-processing ability in this act, that will provide another window on the industry for the registrar as to what is happening out there — whether there are more problems and whether there are more complaints from the public. If there are complaints, what is the nature of those complaints? Are there more complaints of assault or more complaints of the use of restraint where that is not warranted?

I think there are at least several mechanisms by which the registrar and the ministry generally can monitor this industry to see how the professionals within the industry are performing and whether there is a need for further regulatory change.

M. Farnworth: One of the things we want to do is try and avoid the need for further regulatory change by

[ Page 6714 ]

doing it right the first time. I'm dwelling on this, and I'm dwelling on it for a reason.

I'll move off the issue of handcuffing, to which the minister seems reluctant to give a definitive statement in this House that would serve as a guide to those who write the regulations. It would serve as a guide and as a signal to the registrar about the importance it would have in terms of ensuring when someone is handcuffed, even if it involves calling the police….

I'll ask the minister a similar question on detention. Does he think that detaining somebody is something that should be monitored by the keeping of a record?

Hon. J. Les: Actually, the ability to detain an individual is not a terribly unusual event in the life of a security investigator today. However, they can only be detained and the police have to be called in a relatively reasonable period of time, and that individual then has to be turned over to the police. That event then becomes a matter of the police record. Given that that seems to work fairly well today, I'm not sure there is a lot of renovation required of that process.

M. Farnworth: There is a police record. Does he not think there is value, though, in there being a record with the security firm itself? If, for example, there is a complaint made, the registrar can deal with it directly and determine that someone was detained and the police were called. It allows for an efficient way of dealing with the complaints process, as opposed to now. We now have to go and involve the police,

whereas if the record had been kept by the security company in the first place, the registrar would be able to deal with it from that point. Does the minister not see the benefit of having a record to deal with those types of situations?

[1645]

Hon. J. Les: I think that anytime we want to develop new requirements or processes, we actually have to be able to anticipate that it will add something of value at the end of the day. In the hypothetical example that we're using here — where a security investigator detains, let's say, a shoplifter — those individuals must be turned over to a peace officer within a short period of time.

If there are problems with how that individual was detained…. As a matter of fact, from time to time police officers today report on that. When there is a problem, I'm not sure that we will gain anything by requiring the security company or indeed even the individual to report. If there is an investigation, clearly they have to report. As part of the investigation — and certainly if they are ever asked to give evidence — they will indeed report under oath.

Again, I think that the situation with respect to the detention of individuals under the current act is actually working quite well. I think we can adopt much of those kinds of procedures under this legislation.

M. Farnworth: Well, adopting those procedures or much of that would in fact, I suggest to the minister, mean keeping a record. I think it's important, and I keep coming back to this.

There needs to be some documentation, some taking of record, of what is occurring during the fulfilling of duties of security officers. It makes it that much more effective when you have a complaint that you are not just dealing with what someone says under oath, but there is a record there that says: "Yes, we used handcuffs," or "Yes, someone was detained and turned over to the police," or "No, they weren't," or " Yes, there was a search," or "Yes, there was a seizure."

It makes it that much easier for an investigator to get right to the heart of the complaint about what did or didn't take place, how that search or seizure was carried out and how it goes with the code of conduct. It protects the security personnel, and it protects the public.

That's why I think it's important, Minister, that you send a signal to the people drafting the regulations and to the registrar that keeping a tally, a running score or some sort of documentation…. This number of seizures was carried out, this number of searches was carried out, and this number of handcuffs — if they get the power to do it — was applied. It makes for a much more effective process, and it will allow you as a minister and a ministry to have much better information in terms of whether the legislation is working and about what improvements or changes should be made — if they need to be made — in the future.

So, Minister, seize the moment. Take this opportunity.

An Hon. Member: Carpe diem .

M. Farnworth: Exactly. Carpe diem . Send a message to your officials in the ministry, who look to you for guidance. They look to you for guidance, Minister, with the tablets, to say: "I, Solicitor General for the province of British Columbia, think it would be a really good idea, when we are doing the regulations for this piece of legislation, that the registrar recognize that I as a minister think it's important that there is a record."

If and when a search and seizure is made or if and when at such point in time handcuffs are allowed to be used, that is in fact something that should be recorded.

Do that, Minister, and you will be doing your legislation a great service. You will be making this act that much better. You will be doing a service to the legislation and a service to the public of British Columbia. So I ask you.

[1650]

Hon. J. Les: It is obviously important that we develop legislation to the very best of our ability. At the same time, however, it's always important to keep in mind that we need to be practical as well.

In years past, on the odd occasion I would ride along with a member of the local police department. It wasn't all that unusual that we would be called to a local department store, where someone involved in providing security for that store would have apprehended an individual for shoplifting. Typically, they would have been detained in a small office or other

[ Page 6715 ]

room designated for that purpose and held there in the company of the security investigator until the police arrived.

When the police arrive, they typically take a statement as to the circumstances of that apprehension, and a full report is eventually developed by the police. So we can prescribe all kinds of additional regulatory requirements that don't really help very much or don't provide much in the way of new or additional or valuable information.

At sporting events there are often significant security personnel on site, and in fact there are quite often a lot of seizures, usually of the liquid variety. Do we really think it would be useful that all of those interactions — could be many hundreds in one night — would actually be documented? I am not sure that is necessarily useful.

What all of that points out is that, yes, documentation where necessary, but not necessarily documentation. I think that would be one of the rules of thumb I would use here. Clearly there are, as I've said before, several other processes and requirements in this act that will enable the registrar, and by extension government generally, to develop a much clearer picture as to what's going on in this industry.

I think the framework we've laid out here, with the regulations that will be developed, will deliver the kind of improvements that the member opposite is looking for and indeed that I am looking for as well. It's results that count.

M. Farnworth: I recognize that you do need to use common sense. We do have events, and liquor seizure is one of them. I think anyone would recognize that there needs to be common sense in terms of regulations, but there also needs to be a sense that there are things that are important.

That's what I have been asking for from the minister today — to give us some level of confidence that there are things that are important that should be recorded as part of the duties of doing the security job because it allows for a better complaints process, as I've said. It protects the security worker, the individual and the company.

It also allows for a better system of monitoring exactly what is taking place, exactly how the legislation is working and whether or not it is intended to meet what the minister wants it to meet. That's why I've been pushing the minister to give some sort of commitment.

I will take this from what the minister's comments are — which is that, okay, he wants this legislation to work. He wants the registrar to recognize that the legislation needs to be effective. I won't put words in the minister's mouth, but the impression he has left me is that we want this to be the best legislation it can be.

[1655]

If that is the case, then we need to recognize that if we don't keep a record of issues such as detention or handcuffing or search and seizure…. It doesn't have to be liquor at a football game, but certainly in terms of a department store, if you wanted to get a sense of what's happening in terms of shoplifting and the number of offences of shoplifting, I think that would be very important to know.

I think it would be very important to know not just for governments and in terms of policies developed within the Attorney General's ministry in dealing with shoplifting crime but also within the retail business itself. Those things are important in terms of the ability of the registrar to expand powers, given proper training. All those things require and cry out for the ability to document or the requirement for documentation of these things.

I will close my remarks in terms of the amendment and say that we will be monitoring this very closely. We look forward to seeing the regulations that do come forward and urge the minister to recognize the importance of what we have discussed here today to ensure that this piece of legislation works. Without that, then I do not believe this legislation will do the job that the minister wants.

[1700]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Brar

S. Simpson

Farnworth

James

Kwan

Ralston

B. Simpson

Cubberley

Hammell

Coons

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Gentner

Routley

Fraser

Horgan

Dix

Trevena

Robertson

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Austin

Chouhan

Wyse

Sather

Macdonald

Conroy

NAYS — 41

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Ilich

Chong

Les

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Whittred

Horning

Cantelon

Thorpe

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Hansen

Abbott

Penner

Neufeld

Coleman

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

Sections 52 to 59 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 6716 ]

Hon. J. Les: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:05 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SECURITY SERVICES ACT

Bill 15, Security Services Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate of Bill 19, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Second Reading of Bills

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 19, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be read a second time.

This bill proposes a number of amendments to the taxation and revenue statutes administered by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. The amendments in this bill reflect our commitment to continuously improve customer service, streamline and simplify regulations, collect all outstanding amounts due to British Columbians and make British Columbia the most small-friendly jurisdiction in Canada.

This bill proposes amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Mineral Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Tobacco Tax Act.

Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act will enhance taxpayer fairness by ensuring that advanced tax application rulings received from our ministry are binding under circumstances established by regulation. A taxpayer will be able to submit a set of facts and ask for a ruling on the related application of sales tax and be confident that the ministry's written tax ruling will be binding.

Amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act will broaden the administrative penalties available for use in tobacco enforcement and leave the use of court time for more serious offences. This will be more timely and cost-effective for all involved.

Amendments to the Property Transfer Tax Act allow beneficiaries of critical illness or critically injured insurance policies to maintain their eligibility for a first-time-homeowners exemption where their indebtedness is reduced or eliminated by the proceeds of their critical illness or injury insurance. To ensure homeowners under the program are treated fairly, this amendment mirrors the exemption already provided to homeowners who receive a payout under a life insurance policy.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Amendments to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act will allow government to send a replacement tax notice to taxpayers who do not receive their tax notices due to changing their place of residence around the same time that tax notices are mailed. These amendments only apply to address or ownership updates received from the British Columbia Assessment Authority. This improves customer service for those homeowners whose change of address is not received by government by other means.

Amendments to the information-sharing provisions of the property acts — the Home Owner Grant Act, the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act — streamline and simplify administration by eliminating the need for taxpayers to provide the same information several times to government. These amendments also enhance the administration of the homeowner grant and property tax deferment program and help identify applicants who are eligible for tax relief.

[1710]

Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act provide the commissioner the authority to refuse or cancel a registration certificate if the commissioner knows the retailer is not or will not comply with the government regulations or proposes to commit an illegal or regulatory offence. This will prevent retailers from procuring a registration certificate as the government's approval to collect social service tax for illegal activities.

The amendments are also being made to the Social Service Tax Act to clarify the authority of the commissioner of the act to make a valuation on goods or services for the purposes of taxation. This will support the government's administration of the Social Service Tax Act by ensuring amounts owed to government and all British Columbians are received.

Amendments to the Income Tax Act will ensure provincial income tax administration harmonization with the federal income tax system and ensure

definitions in provincial and federal acts are consistent. This amendment will ensure that the province's intent behind the tuition and education tax credit and the British Columbia mining flow-through share tax credit programs is maintained.

Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Hotel Room Tax Act will provide clear legislative authority for netting of moneys owed to government by taxpayers against moneys owed to taxpayers by government when both a refund and a payment are due at the same time.

The government is also streamlining and simplifying tax administration in British Columbia by clarifying

definitions within the tax acts — for example, the defi-

[ Page 6717 ]

nition of a purchase price under the Social Service Tax Act, commercial vehicle under the Motor Fuel Tax Act and taxable insurer under the Insurance Premium Tax Act.

Other examples of striving for tax administration and customer service excellence include amendments to the Social Service Tax Act clarifying how tax applies to discount transactions. Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act also clarify how sales tax applies to items businesses buy, or lease and then re-lease to their customers. These amendments to the Social Service Tax Act support the intent of the act: the end user should pay the tax.

Amendments to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Mineral Land Tax Act provide the appropriate authorities with discretion to not issue tax notices for small amounts. This change provides for better customer, improved administrative flexibility and reduces the administrative costs of preparing and sending these notices for small amounts.

Finally, all of the amendments proposed in this bill are consistent with our government's goal of providing customer service excellence, a streamlined regulatory environment, competitive small business growth and the collections of revenues owed to all British Columbians.

G. Robertson: I rise just to voice general support from the opposition side for Bill 19 and its many initiatives around streamlining and simplifying regulations and tax issues. No doubt there can be further simplification and streamlining done, as long as it's done very carefully.

I'll start by applauding the staff of the ministry for the careful work they've done to put together many of the pieces in this legislation that do streamline and simplify the regulatory and tax framework for small business, in particular, and also the general initiatives within this bill that will both improve the administration within the ministry — hopefully, that can save the taxpayers some costs in terms of administering the complex tax and regulatory framework that we do have here in the province — and, at the same time, are capable of improving customer service.

This is no doubt very important for small business owners who are faced with an incredible array and complexity in the amount of paperwork required for them to comply with regulations and to live up to their tax responsibilities.

It's with pleasure that I'm able to stand in general support for this b