2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 35, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

Lakeland Mills sawmill explosion and fire in Prince George

Hon. C. Clark

S. Simpson

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Pharmaceutical Services Act

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Britannia Bruins basketball championship

J. Kwan

Organ donation and work of Eva Markvoort

M. Stilwell

Chef program for children

M. Karagianis

Arts and Culture Week and Burnaby student art

R. Lee

Donor Awareness Day and organ donor registration

K. Conroy

Mining industry processing technology

R. Sultan

Oral Questions

Government settlement with Boss Power Corp.

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

L. Krog

S. Simpson

M. Farnworth

Allocation of funding for arts and culture

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. I. Chong

M. Mungall

Government response to ferry system review

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Tabling Documents

Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia, 14 reports in respect of the lobbying activities of Michael Bailey

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012 (continued)

Hon. R. Coleman

Bill 32 — Energy and Water Efficiency Act

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 33 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

L. Krog

Hon. S. Bond

K. Corrigan

M. Elmore

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 33 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 34 — Limitation Act

Hon. S. Bond

L. Krog

K. Corrigan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

Hon. M. McNeil

C. Trevena

N. Simons

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Hon. B. Lekstrom

H. Bains

[ Page 11053 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. C. Clark: I rise today to recognize some of the hardest-working unsung heroes anywhere in government. We are joined by over 70 constituency assistants here in the chamber today. These are the men and women who go above and beyond, serving our constituents every single day. They truly are the front line of government — in some cases, the place of last resort for people who haven't been able to find their answers within the bureaucracy.

They are our ears and our eyes in our communities and the front line to our constituents' needs. They make sure that our constituents have a voice in the Legislature and in the government, and for that we are very deeply grateful.

On behalf of the government, I'd like to thank each and every one of them who is joining us today for the work that they do to make British Columbia a better place. I hope the House will please join me in recognizing the work that they do and making them very, very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: To members of the House: if you want to have an uplifting experience, take a few minutes to meet — as I and several members of the House did; the member for Kootenay West — with individuals associated with the organ transplant program. This, we're reminded, as we heard last week, is Organ Donation Awareness Week.

In the gallery today are some remarkable individuals who are the face of the dramatic change that occurs as a result of the gift that people make — the gift that they make during their lifetime and, in many cases, that they make when they are deceased.

A few of those members are people who are familiar to us. We may hear in a moment from the member for Kootenay West, who has a very personal story to tell. Two former members, Ed and Chuck, are in the House, but each one of those people in the gallery — and I'm not going to mention them all by name — has a story. They are heroes. The teams that supported them are heroes, and the team at B.C. Transplant that works to remind British Columbians about the value of registering to be part of the organ transplant program are all heroes.

We're getting there — over 800,000 registrants, up to 18 percent. The message today is that we can do more, and we can increase awareness. The best way to do that is for us to acknowledge the remarkable individuals, the heroes, that populate our gallery today. I know all members will want to make them feel very, very welcome.

M. Farnworth: I want to join with my colleague the Minister of Health and welcome 38 organ donors and recipients who are in the gallery with us today. Organ donation truly is a gift of life. One of the most selfless things that a person can do is to save the life of another individual.

The minister said that we're making progress and that the way to increase that progress and to make everyone aware of the importance is through weeks like this and recognizing the people in the gallery.

Our side of the House wants to join with the government and, in fact, the rest of British Columbia in welcoming 38 organ donors and recipients to this House and help spread the message that organ donation is a gift of life. It saves lives. Let's all participate.

C. James: We do have someone visiting us at the Legislature, mentioned by the Minister of Health, who is a transplant survivor. He is here, obviously, for the transplant and organ donation week. He is also a city councillor in New Westminster. He is a musician and an artist.

[1340]

Something the members of the House may not know is that he wasn't content to simply recover from his transplant. He actually decided to take on farming and ranching and started a society called A Beef with Hunger Society, which is an organization that actually raises beef and produce for food banks across the Lower Mainland.

He's a former colleague of all of ours in the House, and I'm very proud to call him a friend. I would like all of us, please, to welcome former MLA for New Westminster Chuck Puchmayr.

K. Conroy: It does give me a great deal of pleasure to formally introduce my husband to the Legislature — the former member for Rossland-Trail. In his very busy

schedule that he now has, Ed rarely gets time to get to Victoria, so Donor Awareness Day was a great day for him to be here, seeing as he has been the recipient of three different transplants. I would like the House to please join me in welcoming him here today.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is a former neighbour of mine from 30 years ago. Cheryl Wilson is a realtor in Abbotsford and is here with the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board for meetings yesterday and early this morning. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

V. Huntington: Also here celebrating, if you can call it a celebration, Organ Donation Awareness Week is a constituent of mine, Mr. Daniel Woo, who received a kidney in 1997 from his brother. Would the House please welcome Mr. Woo.

[ Page 11054 ]

M. Stilwell: I'd like to introduce Lisa Romalis, who is a grade 5 teacher at Vancouver Talmud Torah, and 56 of her charges who are in grade 5, who are here today. I hope the House will make them welcome.

S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce two guests who are visiting Victoria and are in the gallery. The first is an old friend of mine, Cheryl King, who used to be Cheryl Richardson, who has now left Surrey for the sunny climes of Osoyoos. And also Michelle Harman, a new friend, who is the sales representative for the Guildford Sheraton. Would the House please make both of them very welcome.

D. Routley: Joining us in the precinct today, but not in here to witness question period, were two classrooms and their teachers and some accompanying parents from North Cedar Intermediate School. I reminded those students, as I can tell these students, that Mr. MacMinn, who was the Clerk of this House, would constantly remind young people, the teachers and the parents who accompany them that if they were to witness question period, that the anger and passion in this place indeed does have a purpose.

We teach children to work cooperatively in our homes and our schools, but this place is different. In this place there is anger and passion in this chamber so that there isn't blood on our streets. I think that encapsulated very well the role of the passion that you might see in your House of the Legislature of British Columbia.

So welcome to students.

Statements

LAKELAND MILLS SAWMILL EXPLOSION

AND FIRE IN PRINCE GEORGE

Hon. C. Clark: It is with great sadness that today I rise in the House to mark a terrible tragedy that has touched all of us in British Columbia. Last night, just after 9:30, emergency crews were called to Lakeland sawmills in Prince George, which was engulfed in flames following an explosion. There were 50 employees on the site at the time of the explosion. All 50 were removed from the mill, 24 patients were treated in hospital, and tragically, one has succumbed to his injuries.

I'd like to extend my thoughts and prayers to the people of Prince George, to the families of the people who were directly affected. And on behalf of the people of British Columbia, I also want to commend the countless first responders, the volunteers, the health care workers who rushed to the scene to see what they could do to help. They are all heroes who risked their personal safety to save fellow community members.

Since last night, myself, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation have been receiving constant updates from the scene. I know that our MLAs for Prince George have been working tirelessly since the event to ensure that our government is doing everything we can to support the community during their time of need.

[1345]

WorkSafe is en route to start work with local authorities, the RCMP and the B.C. Coroners Service to determine the cause of the incident. They are also ordering a complete investigation and risk assessment of every mill in the province. Tomorrow the Minister of Labour will meet with representatives from labour, the forest industry and WorkSafe to address some safety concerns that have been voiced in the wake of this terrible incident. These investigations take time. They must not be rushed, and we must resist the temptation to jump to conclusions. We must get all the facts first.

As I said in my message to her today, I want Mayor Shari Green and all of the people of Prince George to know that they are very much in our thoughts and our prayers today and that as a province and as a government we are committing to do everything that we can to support them as they persevere through what for any community would be a terrible tragedy.

S. Simpson: On behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition and all members of this side, we join with the Premier and all members of this House in expressing our sadness at the tragedy that's happened in Prince George and to just say that all of our thoughts and prayers are with the family of the worker who unfortunately passed away and all of those workers who have been injured. We certainly wish them all a full and complete recovery as soon as possible.

We want to express our thanks to all the members of the community, the first responders and the emergency service workers for the courage and bravery that they showed, stepping up on behalf of the community to do everything they needed to do to ensure that because of their extraordinary efforts, this terrible tragedy was not even worse.

As we move forward, in the coming days and weeks we join with the government in the need to determine the cause of this, to do it properly, to bring all of the expertise needed to ensure that any measures that need to be taken are taken to ensure that we, hopefully, don't ever face this situation again.

The Premier is quite correct. This isn't a time to speculate. It's a time to get the evidence, to move forward and do what needs to be done. For today, it's our thoughts and prayers that will be with the family and the community and all of the people of Prince George who have stepped up in an extraordinary way for their neighbours.

[ Page 11055 ]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — PHARMACEUTICAL

SERVICES ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pharmaceutical Services Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 35 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: The bill that is being introduced today, Bill 35, does two important things. First of all, we should recognize that we have a PharmaCare program in British Columbia that is second to none. But that PharmaCare program, worth in excess of $1 billion, exists largely as a matter of policy and regulation. Bill 35 will change that and create PharmaCare on a firm legislative statutory foundation.

The bill does a second thing. It will also allow the province to lower the cost of generic prescription drugs in British Columbia. Members will know that the government originally negotiated a lower drug-pricing agreement with the parties in July of 2010. We did not see the savings that we were promised or that we expected. That agreement was terminated on April 1 of 2012.

[1350]

Through this legislation, we plan to lower generic drug prices to rates comparable in other jurisdictions. The ability to reduce those prices will come via the regulations that will be drafted following passage of the legislation. As I said, the legislation creates a framework to save the province — taxpayers — significant amounts of money which can be reinvested in the health care system. It will save patients and families money as well. As I said at the outset, it is about ensuring that our PharmaCare program is protected and sustainable over the long term.

I move that Bill 35 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35, Pharmaceutical Services 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 25B)

BRITANNIA BRUINS

BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

J. Kwan: March 10, 2012, was a momentous day. It was a day where East Van showed that we rock in the world of sports. It was the day that the Britannia Bruins secondary senior girls basketball team was crowned the 2012 provincial double-A basketball champions. Not only was this the first-ever B.C. girls varsity title in the 102-year history of Britannia girls basketball; it was the first-ever basketball championship at this level won by a Vancouver public school team.

The incredible members of the team don't achieve just on the court. They are also active in their community as volunteers at children's camps, after-school programs and special events. The younger students look up to them, and they're key role models in our community. As well, many members of the team are participants in the Strathcona basketball club program, a program that enables the girls to further develop their skills throughout the entire year.

In the game of basketball, where height matters, this team proves that hard work pays off. I would like to congratulate team members Angie Banh; Ashley dela Cruz Yip; Karen Li, the tournament's most valuable player; Naomi Morcilla; Kini Do; Jennifer Carpio, who was also named the best defensive player; JoJo Crossley; and first team all-stars Becky Fernandez and Jilliane Vina, Amanda Young and Helen Wilson for this incredible achievement.

A big thank-you also goes to the dedicated coaches, Mike Evans and Trevor Stokes, and the team managers, Wendy Lin and Sally Zhao. Of course, a special thank-you goes to the Britannia Senior Secondary School principal, Beverly Seed, and Ron Suzuki at the Strathcona Community Centre for all their tireless support and encouragement for all the students in our community.

Please join me in congratulating the Britannia Bruins, 2012 provincial double-A champions, and in wishing them many successes in the future.

ORGAN DONATION

AND WORK OF EVA MARKVOORT

M. Stilwell: We have heard a fair amount about organ transplants this week, but I think it bears repeating. Organ donors save lives, but despite the majority of British Columbians supporting organ donation, less than 20 percent of us are registered donors.

Most people waiting for organ transplants are in need of kidneys, but waiting for a compatible donor can take as long as eight to ten years. Sadly, many patients on the wait-list will die before a suitable match is found.

Two years ago the province lost one of our most vocal organ donation advocates. Eva Markvoort was barely 23 when she was put on the organ donor wait-list. Cystic fibrosis had robbed her lungs of breath and her voice of strength. While waiting for a lung transplant, she found a new voice on line, blogging about her battle with cystic fibrosis and giving inspiration and hope to people around the world. She championed cystic fibrosis and organ do-

[ Page 11056 ]

nation awareness and created an on-line community, connecting people with similar health issues, showing them they aren't alone.

Eva died on March 27, 2010, at the age of 25, after a lifelong battle with transplant rejection. Despite her short life, she was able to share her joy, her pain, her courage and her infectious passion for life with so many. She showed us that each breath is a gift, especially when you have to fight for each one.

As we observe Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, I'd like to ask members on both sides of the House to use their voices to spread the word about the importance of organ donation. Help someone in need breathe easier. Sign up now, and give the gift of life.

CHEF PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN

M. Karagianis: A few weeks ago I attended an event at the Esquimalt Recreation Centre in my community. Two young people in chef's hats and aprons assembled a variety of healthy and nutritious snacks for a small crowd of attendees. Then they passed around the tasty samples. The event launched the expansion of the Thrifty Foods young chef program.

[1355]

Now in its fourth year, the young chef program is a full- or part-time week-long summer camp that teaches kids aged nine to 12 how to read recipes and to learn basic cooking tips, nutritional guidelines and food safety skills.

The expanded program also includes leadership training for facilitators, a 12-month recipe calendar, plus pre-teen-specific information on nutrition and body health and wellness awareness. Each hands-on session is designed to familiarize young chefs with interesting food choices and delicious taste experiences, and the program includes a

section on reading food labels and how to shop for fresh produce.

The camps are available during the summer in Victoria through a variety of rec programs and recreation centres in Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Saanich, Sooke, Victoria and the West Shore. Mid- and north Island, the camps are also offered in Cowichan, Campbell River, Comox and Nanaimo recreation centres, as well as at seven rec centres in the Lower Mainland.

The sponsor is Thrifty Foods, and they help to ensure that the program is affordable to all families through subsidizing the registrant fees at each camp, plus they provide the training, the material, the food, the aprons, etc. Registration begins this May and is only available through recreation centres.

I hope all members will join me in thanking municipalities, rec centre staff and Thrifty Foods for this excellent program and, maybe, encouraging people in your community to participate.

ARTS AND CULTURE WEEK

AND BURNABY STUDENT ART

R. Lee: This week is B.C. Arts and Culture Week. Many art projects, exhibitions and performances will be showcased in communities throughout our province.

In Burnaby our local newspaper, Burnaby Now , has an annual "Design an Ad" special supplement, published this month with students from 16 local elementary schools participating. I would like to thank the students from Kitchener Elementary School for designing an ad for me. It's very interesting to see how children see and paint the world around them.

Many students really show their artistic skills in Burnaby. In 2010 Burnaby North School's Annie Yu became the national winner of the Canada Day Poster Challenge. In 2011 the honour went to Burnaby South student Serena Chan.

I've regularly attended many art exhibitions in Burnaby organized by the Burnaby Arts Council, the Burnaby Art Gallery, the Burnaby Artists Guild and many more around Richmond and Vancouver. I'm constantly impressed by the creativity and talent in our multicultural society.

I'm very pleased to see that a new group of B.C. artists is initiating a project to promote cultural and artistic exchange among youth and children from different countries, building a stage for them to shine. This group is organizing the First Children and Youth World Cup Live Painting Competition, to be held in British Columbia. At the same time they are launching a charitable event named One Dollar for One Poor Child to raise awareness about children living in poverty around the world — improving the lives of children, one poor child at a time.

I would like to ask the members of this House to support these worthwhile causes.

DONOR AWARENESS DAY AND

ORGAN DONOR REGISTRATION

K. Conroy: As the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about yesterday, this week is National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week. And today is Donor Awareness Day here in the Legislature — a day to ensure that members of the Legislature, as well as British Columbians, are reminded of the need for organ donors in this province.

There is a chronic shortage of organs for transplant in B.C., as the need far outweighs the number of organs available for transplant. The most recent stats show that there are 450 British Columbians currently awaiting transplants. Many people in this province support organ donation yet fail to ensure they are registered with the Transplant Society — a very simple thing to do.

Just go on to www.transplant.bc.ca, and you can check to see if you might already be registered. You just put in

[ Page 11057 ]

your personal health number, and it tells you the date you registered. If you haven't registered, you can do that too. Please share your intentions with your families. Some organs that could be available for transplant are lost because the decision of the loved one is not known to their family.

You don't have to be deceased to make a donation. You can donate blood, stem cells and, yes, even organs — gifts of life that mean so much to the recipients. We often talk about anniversaries in this chamber. For our family we have a number of them. February 10, 1996, Ed's first liver transplant. November 13, 1997, his second. Both of those transplants were due to the selfless act of a family who, during a terrible tragedy, were able to think of others and ensured that their loved one became an organ donor.

[1400]

Donor families are so very worthy of recognition, and every year on those dates I think of those families and quietly thank them for the gift of life to our family. Our next anniversary will be May 14, two years since the kidney transplant donation. Ed is doing great, and I, too, survived. I even managed to run the 10K in the Vancouver Sun Run last Sunday, so you can live just fine with one kidney.

If any of you are thinking of such a gift of life, please don't hesitate. The B.C. Transplant team do an excellent job of making sure you are up to it, both mentally and physically. Again, check out the B.C. Transplant website. It gives you all the information you need. Ensure that you, your family members, co-workers and friends are all registered donors.

MINING INDUSTRY

PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY

R. Sultan: Geologically speaking, British Columbia is a precious storehouse of minerals needed by a more prosperous world. However, unlocking those minerals can be a messy business. Teck Corp. is showing how technology can change all of that. Teck's proprietary hydrometallurgy process, developed in Richmond over the past decade, produces copper and nickel metal from mine concentrates. It combines such technologies as pressure oxidation, solvent extraction and electrowinning to process bulk, lower-grade and impurity-challenged mine concentrates.

Environmentally speaking, here's the best part. It's a closed-loop system consuming little energy, producing no liquid effluent, avoiding acid-generating sulphur dioxide and leaving only a small residue of gypsum, easily disposed of.

How was metal produced in the good old days? Well, often in a honking-big, smoky, energy-gulping, lots-of-hostile-by-product smelter, that's how. Economists lament Canada's poor R-and-D performance and our high energy consumption. The environmental community pounces on any industrial impact on the environment.

Teck is showing the world how we can safely process mine concentrates at home instead of shipping them out for messy processing abroad. Keeping the value chain Canadian turns out to be technically feasible, environmentally friendly, more economical in shipping and processing and more profitable too. Thank you, Teck.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SETTLEMENT

WITH BOSS POWER CORP.

J. Horgan: My question is to apparently the most open and transparent government in North America. It's taken 182 days, through the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, to finally receive the independent evaluations to the Boss Power uranium mine claim that we uncovered and discussed in this House last October. Unfortunately, the records revealed what we had feared. The Liberals paid five times the evaluation that they received in order to silence the courts on this matter.

My question is to the Premier. How is it that an independent evaluation paid for by her government of $5.6 million somehow became $30 million on the courthouse steps? It takes a lot of talent to wrestle someone to the ceiling and put five times more money in their pocket than your own advisers tell you that you should give them.

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is well aware that there was more than one evaluation done in this particular case, if he has done his research. I suspect he has decided to go down to the lowest number on one evaluation report but neglects to say there was one evaluation report that actually said the compensation could be worth as much as $96 million.

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, through a period of time…. I'm looking forward to this little discussion today, because I want to remind the members how much they really love uranium mining in British Columbia. But as a government we listen to the concerns of the public. Back a number of years ago we stated we wouldn't allow the production of uranium in B.C. in both the 2002 and 2007 energy plans. We also announced we would not support any uranium exploration or development.

[1405]

We made those decisions, and as the decision was made, we also knew — as the members knew on Windy Craggy — that there were mineral claims that were possible in these particular areas of the province of British Columbia. If you ask the people around Kelowna and the interior of B.C. whether the decision to not have uranium mining in British Columbia was the right decision, they would say yes. At the same time they would also have the expectation that if somebody did have a legit-

[ Page 11058 ]

imate claim, the province would enter into discussions about compensation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: If in fact the government was sincere in 2002 when they made the initial statement, they could have very well introduced a moratorium at that time. The issue here is that you didn't. You waited seven years to have put into effect the moratorium…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Horgan: …and you did it by press release — late, $2 short, two hours late. The challenge now for British Columbians is not to deal with the issue of uranium mining but the botched compensation process that the minister tried to outline a moment ago.

There were three evaluations. The minister is absolutely correct. The government paid for one that said the cost should be $5.6 million. Boss Power, not surprisingly, bumped it up a little bit to $96 million. What did the court do? The court hired a third party to weigh between the two, and the eventual number from that third party was $8.7 million.

Again, my question to the Premier, who was allegedly fully in charge at that time last October when this decision was made to shut down a court case: why did she allow the people of B.C. to pay 22 million bucks more than they had to just to shut down the incompetence of the B.C. Liberal government?

Hon. R. Coleman: The evaluation report, which is the third report, actually had the number $13.7 million and not $8.7 million. I guess the issue is that the member doesn't want to do his full research. Nor does he want to understand that when the decision is made…. Frankly, this claim goes back a long, long ways, long before the discussions with regards to uranium even in our government.

The reality is that a mining company had made investment in the land base. They made the investment in the land base on the basis that they wanted to have a mine. Government changed direction. They changed the direction, actually, and were supported, frankly, in the direction, as I would understand it.

I'll give you one example. "New Democrats strongly believe that the nuclear option is not and never should be an option for B.C., and we will continue to speak out against its development here at home and in our neighbouring province." That was the MLA for Victoria–Beacon Hill in 2008, I might add.

Now, at the same time as you make these decisions you have to decide to deal with compensation. I know that the member opposite maybe never has been involved in a court case, but the reality is that you start at one point, and you start at another point.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll get to your court cases as a government. I mean an individual, hon. Member. I hope not. Maybe you have had that pleasure.

The fact of the matter is that whether it's a debate between somebody's injuries with ICBC that starts at one point on one side and starts at another point on the other side, there's always negotiation. We have a very good criminal justice branch in British Columbia. They're the ones that made the decision relative to this decision and came back with a recommendation to government to settle at this number, and they did so.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: An expert report from Keith Spence to the courts in May 2011,"I reiterate that it was appropriate to use the discount cash flow method in this evaluation," the evaluation used by the party retained by the province of British Columbia. "On the technical side the Stephenson report was thorough and had well-developed and -presented technical analysis. I view this at a higher level of confidence than I do the Hodos report," which was the Boss Power report. In conclusion, this third party to the two other parties says: "Hence, in these circumstances, I suggest adding a discretionary premium of 30 percent to the top end of the evaluation range. This would be $8.7 million."

Again, the pattern of covering up incompetence in this government…. You can go to the Basi-Virk case — six million bucks to shut down that court case and now 22 million bucks to shut down the malfeasance and incompetence with respect to the uranium exploration moratorium.

[1410]

Will the Premier stand in this place and demonstrate to the public that she's in control now, if she wasn't then, and explain why it is we're out $22 million?

Hon. R. Coleman: We took the advice of our legal counsel on this. We did it in such a way that I thought was well done and reasonable, given the circumstances.

However, in a ruling leading to the judgment and settlement by Mr. Justice Parrett in the Carrier Lumber case, it said this about the provincial government. The provincial government "chose to cover its own failings…and to orchestrate matters to conceal its own breach. Through a series of manoeuvres and self-serving documents, they sought to frustrate Carrier's harvesting activities and then to proceed with the suspension and eventual cancellation of their licence," at a cost of $30

[ Page 11059 ]

million in cash, two parcels of land under the Crown and 1.5 million cubic metres of timber.

The fact of the matter is that we negotiated in good faith and came to a settlement and a way to deal with uranium mining in British Columbia. You evidently, according to your comments even last fall, do not support uranium mining in British Columbia.

L. Krog: Well, it certainly wasn't good faith that got us into this mess in the first place, was it. The facts are fairly simple. The Attorney General's ministry hired AMC Mining Consultants to determine the value of Boss's uranium claim for the court case. The report said: "On April 24, 2008, the day the former Minister of Mines issued a press release to implement a mining ban, the claim was worth between $4.4 million and $6.7 million, with the preferred midpoint value of $5.6 million."

Nearly a year later the Liberals finally got around to paperwork to actually impose a uranium-mining ban on March 12. The midpoint value at that point had come to $3.5 million. Two and a half years later $30 million was paid by this incompetent government to settle the claims. So the question to the minister is really very simple. Why did the Liberals pay so much for a claim that was worth so little?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess the member opposite could take down his halo the minute he pays back the charities in Nanaimo. The fact of the matter is that the NDP….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: The MLA for Kootenay West said this: "I'm well aware of the political firestorm that was brewing over uranium mining. The residents of the area did not want it." I suppose she supported a ban on uranium mining. But without compensation to the people who may have claims in the area, it would be inappropriate and wrong — not like the NDP government did in the Carrier Lumber case, where they actually frustrated the courts, frustrated the proponent.

We actually sat down and did the evaluations. Our lawyers did the work and came up with the conclusion of what the settlement should be. They did that on behalf of British Columbians.

You know what we did? We did something you didn't do, hon. Members. We put an end to the thought of uranium mining in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Every time there's an opportunity for real public accountability in an open courtroom, this government shuts it down as fast as it can.

The minister throws out a figure of $96 million. Well, you know what? I guess if you throw that out, $30 million looks pretty good. But in fairness to Boss, their job was to try to get the best dollar they could. But the minister should know it was his job to pay a fair price that reflected real value. That's defending the public interest.

The industry witness called by the court to evaluate claims made by the government in Boss Power put the claim at $8.7 million — still a long ways from $30 million.

Again to the minister, really very simple: was the price so high because the Liberals didn't want to have their embarrassment and be exposed in court for the bungling in the way they handled this file?

[1415]

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite, who wants to talk to us about negotiating in good faith: we decided that we would not be doing uranium mining in British Columbia. Some people had a claim on the land. They were entitled to actually file suit and ask for compensation.

Now, let's talk to the member opposite about acting in good faith. I just have one more little quote from Mr. Justice Parrett on the NDP's botching of the Carrier Lumber case. "It is difficult to conceive of a more compelling and cynical example of duplicity and bad faith. The words 'managing perception' may have a gloss which seems to carry with it some high purpose. The reality is, at least in this case, little more than a process of altering reality by concealing the truth and presenting a fabricated cover story."

Do you know what that acting in good faith cost us, hon. Member? Two parcels of land, $30 million and 1.5 million cubic metres of timber.

S. Simpson: This is about accountability. It's about competence. It's about transparency. We've seen the performance on those issues by this government before — $6 million to shut down the Basi-Virk trial because you didn't want to go to court. This time $22 million over the expert opinion to shut this one down, because it's another embarrassment.

This side's talking about where the fair compensation is, and that side's all about gross incompetence. How come you paid $22 million too much?

Hon. R. Coleman: The louder you yell, the less interested I am in your question, because I've spent too much time laughing at the question.

The fact of the matter is that we negotiated in good faith. We had a claim on the land after we got rid of uranium mining.

New Democrats, evidently, strongly believe that the nuclear option "is not and never should be an option for British Columbia, and we will continue to speak out against its development here at home and in our neighbouring province." Yet when we do it, they're upset. Then, when we find out there's a claim that has to be compen-

[ Page 11060 ]

sated, they're upset even more.

Now, there was a mine called Windy Craggy that was proposed by Geddes Resources back in the days of 1993 by the NDP. The NDP decided to go ahead and do a park there, and they ended up having to compensate. I'd love to see the evaluations. It actually cost them $166 million in loans, subsidies and other financial assistance to develop another site as compensation to that mining company.

You know what? On one side they say: "Don't compensate." The other side says: "Well, we'll compensate." And in the middle of it they say: "We don't want uranium mining, but by George, if you don't have uranium mining, you better not compensate anybody for any claims they have."

You can't have it on both sides, hon. Members. There's no uranium mining in British Columbia. We had to settle a claim. We settled the claim.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

S. Simpson: We have seen 11 years of this government developing its sense of privilege and entitlement sitting on that side of the House. We have seen 11 years of this government having no shame in spending tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, not on fair compensation but to hide the truth about what's going on.

Enough is enough. We know fair compensation wasn't paid here; $22 million extra was paid. Will this minister stand up, admit that they are hiding this — that they didn't want to go into court — and be open that instead they'll pay taxpayer money to bury the truth? Will the minister acknowledge that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just on the Windy Craggy one more time. The government was actually required to pay millions more in compensation due to what the arbitrator described as an unreasonable delay by the government.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the member opposite. I entered public life in 1996 so that my children and my grandchildren would have a future in the province of British Columbia. The last 11 years this government has given them that future, a future that they did not have under the NDP and they would never, ever have again under an NDP government. That's what's important to British Columbia — that these people on this side of the House are in government to protect the future of people in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: What this government has given the people of the province of British Columbia is disappointment after disappointment after disappointment, broken promise after broken promise after broken promise — Basi-Virk, B.C. Rail and now this fiasco.

The question is really simple. An independent arbitrator, an independent person, came up with a figure of $8 million. Yet this government, to shut things down, paid an additional $22 million over that. How is that accountability? How is that putting the public interest first? It's not.

The question is simple. Will the Premier stand up and say why they paid $22 million when an independent adviser said the claim is only worth $8 million?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've said to the member opposite at other times: "Blood pressure, Member. Blood pressure. Take it easy." You know, I know a man….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, an individual of his advanced years should be careful. You never know what could happen.

The only disappointment the people of British Columbia have is watching how these people blew up the issue with Carrier Lumber and also how they messed up Windy Craggy. The fact that they know…. What they are thinking is good is that we actually got rid of uranium mining in B.C.

They're also pretty happy about seven successive credit upgrades, a triple-A credit rating. I hear constantly that they're very happy about how we've attacked mental illness, homelessness and addictions in British Columbia and how befuddled the NDP are of our success there. The successes are incredible. The jobs plan — thousands of jobs, liquefied natural gas, all of these things taking place. And the reason they're successful is because we set the foundation for it.

The fact of the matter is that after evaluations, after negotiations, our legal counsel gave us a recommendation that they would settle the claim on this basis, and that's what we did. We didn't have any unreasonable delays like they had at Windy Craggy, and we certainly didn't have a judge telling us that we were absolutely, incredibly out of line with the way we handled Carrier Lumber.

[1425]

ALLOCATION OF

FUNDING FOR ARTS AND CULTURE

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister for arts has been rightly criticized for giving away $3 million of taxpayers' money with no application process, no criteria and, so far, refusing to tell the taxpayers where it went.

Recently we learned that she did decide to give $1 million of that money away to cities — cities that never asked for it. No application process was required. The cheque

[ Page 11061 ]

just showed up in the mail. The minister went through incorporation dates and decided: "Oh, I like 120th as a year" or "Oh, I like 75 as a year, but not 115, so we'll decide how to give out money that way."

Can the minister please explain why it's better for her to go through a list like that, choosing who she thinks deserves arts and culture funds, than going through the British Columbia Arts Council, who are dedicated to doing that job?

Hon. I. Chong: I think it's important to correct the facts for all members here in the House with respect to arts funding in British Columbia. Despite challenging fiscal times, we have still put funding amounts to the Arts Council at the second-highest level ever in British Columbia — far greater than what the NDP ever did.

We have maintained funding to arts and culture for this current year and for next year. We have provided additional dollars, as well, for arts and culture groups through the gaming grant program. An additional $15 million has been added to the gaming grant fund, which provides dollars to a number of arts and culture groups.

Again, I want to tell the member that he is incorrect when he suggests that the cities who have requested funding for their celebrations, for arts and cultural groups, did not come directly to me. In fact, cities had been asking for assistance for arts and cultural celebrations since last fall.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Chandra Herbert: It is Arts and Culture Week, so I guess I should have expected a performance like that from the minister. But I would suggest she get a new scriptwriter, since it wasn't correct, what she asserted. In fact, the government cut arts and culture funding — the deepest cuts in B.C. history. The additional money that the minister says went into gaming was only a small portion of what her government cut.

In estimates, when asked about the arts legacy fund, what it was for, the minister said that the objective was "to ensure that we had an ability to provide for some of the demands of the arts and cultural sector. What we have been able to do is take a look at the requests, pressures, that come from arts and culture groups." That was her quote in estimates about what the money was for.

Can the minister please explain how municipalities across B.C. were surprised to find cheques that they did not ask for? I talked to the minister's staff, and she confirmed for me that the ministry actually did not receive applications or request applications. The minister might want to talk to her staff about that. Can they please explain how it's better to give money to people who didn't ask for it than to provide funds for arts and culture groups who are asking for it each and every day?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I want to share with the member that despite challenging fiscal times, we have maintained funding for our arts and culture sector this year, next year and going forward.

I want to also, again, correct the member that in fact a number of cities did approach our ministry, requesting assistance in their celebrations. Victoria, for example, is celebrating its 150th birthday this year — the capital city of the province of British Columbia — and they did request assistance. They did so because they were going to bring in local arts and culture groups to be a part of this.

If the member suggests that the local cities should not have this, then maybe they should have it turned back. I got a very nice letter from the mayor of Burnaby, who thanked me for the dollars that they're going to use to celebrate arts and culture in Burnaby.

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: We're talking about a pot of $3 million. Not all of it was spent on these municipal celebrations. While they are worthwhile celebrations, this issue is about yet another Liberal hidden process involving taxpayer dollars.

Arts organizations are struggling across B.C. as a result of Liberal cuts — the deepest cuts to the arts in B.C. history. In my area the Nelson and District Arts Council laid off staff and closed its doors. They have been hurt by Liberal cuts, and now, to make matters worse, the minister won't disclose how she's spending the full amount of this pot of money.

This isn't the minister's personal slush fund, so why is she being so secretive about taxpayer dollars?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, let's have a look at 2000-2001 and the B.C. Arts Council, which in the last year of the NDP administration received about $14.7 million. Today they're receiving close to $17 million. I hardly think that that is a cut.

As I've indicated to members of this House, the B.C. Arts Council, who I have had a number of meetings with, has received the second-largest funding ever in the history of this province. In addition to that, the community gaming grant program provides additional dollars for non-profit arts and culture groups, and they are still receiving those dollars.

In fact, with the injection of an additional $50 million to that amount, more arts and culture groups are receiving funding. I think that it's inappropriate for members opposite to mislead, to suggest that there is a reduction

[ Page 11062 ]

this year and the year going forward.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

FERRY SYSTEM REVIEW

G. Coons: This isn't just a week-old story. This story is over three months old.

My question is to the Transportation Minister. The ferry commissioner's report has been sitting on his desk collecting dust since the beginning of the year. Since then fares have shot up again, and another Ferries' quarterly report has come out showing more losses and another massive drop in ridership.

When will the minister finally get on with it and act on the recommendations of the report?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I first want to say thank you to the close to 2,000 people that participated with Commissioner Macatee when he went out to engage British Columbians in this very worthwhile project.

We have been, on a daily basis, working on this report. I continue to do it. I expect to be able to debate the results of that very well done report in this House in the near future.

We have a great deal of work to do with B.C. Ferries, but one thing is very clear. Not only do we have a world-class ferry system, but we're going to ensure on this side of the House that that ferry system remains affordable and sustainable for the long term. That's exactly what we're going to present to you, Members, and to all British Columbians, and I think that it will be a huge success, Member.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present 14 reports from the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for British Columbia in respect of the lobbying activities of a Mr. Michael Bailey.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: This afternoon in this House we will continue the conclusion of second reading to Bill 30. We will then go to Bill 32, intituled Energy and Water Efficiency Act, followed by the committee stage of Bill 33, intituled Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, and then committee stage on Bill 34, intituled the Limitation Act.

[1435]

In

section A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development will continue. Should they conclude today, we will then move to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — ENERGY AND MINES STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

(continued)

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to close debate on second reading of Bill 30, the Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act. I'm going to try and address some of the issues that were brought up by the members during their debates in the last few hours with regards to this particular bill.

The first topic that I'd like to touch base with is on self-sufficiency itself. The work that went into a number of the decisions that were made back in 2007 and 2008 with regards to self-sufficiency and the Clean Energy Act started before that with about 180 presentations that were made to a special committee of cabinet that saw presentations from people like Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. Mark Jaccard and also folks who observed the powers in jurisdictions across North America, who were trying to understand what was going on with electricity in North America and how it would affect us in British Columbia.

We were at a time when the rates in California were off the charts. There were brownouts across states in the United States. It looked like there was going to be a significant power shortage in North America, and we thought we could try and build a plan that would support that and support our climate action plan at a time when jurisdictions were cooperating to try and figure out how to solve this problem.

We talked with California utilities about building new transmission lines at that particular time to facilitate a treaty on clean energy, under what conditions it made sense to have a more expansive definition of self-sufficiency. All of those things took place. Then conditions changed. Our belief that we have to be self-sufficient in power has not changed. We need to be.

We do believe, though, that the definition can change. The definition is being changed to average water versus critical water plus insurance. That's what this bill does. It is better to do that because even though…. When we looked at this and the energy prices and we were trying to drive a different agenda, and the market changed — we have to adapt. Failure to adapt would have made a bad decision on behalf of British Columbians. But it's in this environment that we decided to better base those decisions with regards to energy in British Columbia on average water.

Now, as we do this, there are a couple of misconceptions that members of the opposition have decided to put on the table. One is how much we're paying for IPP power, which at a blended average is substantially lower than what they'd like to quote in their debates.

[ Page 11063 ]

At the same time, I think that it's important for a couple things. First of all, I sat here and listened to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke as he decried IPPs in British Columbia — how they were wrong, how we're paying too much and how these things were going on.

I want to quote from a letter from that particular member. This letter is actually written to Remote Structures Inc. in Golden, B.C.

"I am pleased to add my support to the Remote Structures Inc. run-of-river hydro projects at David Thompson Falls and Cedar Creek.

[1440]

"Adding clean, green power will contribute to the growth of the local economy. It will also help B.C. Hydro achieve its goal of having the most economic and environmentally friendly resource acquisition program in North America in the next five years.

"My support for these projects has not diminished B.C. Hydro's responsibility to implement a reliable second transmission line into Golden."

So not only did the member want to support the IPPs, he wants to have the Crown corporation invest more money into Golden, and then he will criticize its deferral accounts and criticize its rate increases, because he thinks another line into Golden just falls off a tree.

At the same time we should also recognize the value of IPPs. The value of the independent power producers isn't about just the companies that are doing IPPs in B.C., but it's really about a significant relation on the land base that's very, very important to the people of British Columbia, particularly to the First Nations in B.C.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is a quote. "We believe strongly that the IPP sector is resulting in more jobs, steady revenue streams and capacity-building for our nations." That's Chief Ken Brown of the Klahoose First Nation, former chief Walter Paul of the Sliammon First Nation and former chief Darren Blaney of the Homalco First Nation, in a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Sun on July 16, 2008.

Now, it's important that we understand this. "The health and well-being of our lands," another First Nation says, "and wildlife are always a priority for the 'Namgis. I am proud and confident of the work we have done on this project. I believe that we have embarked on a strong economic opportunity for the north Island that will ultimately prove to enhance and protect all species of fish who call Kokish home." That is Bill Cranmer of the 'Namgis First Nation in the Vancouver Sun , 2012. That was in support of the Kokish run-of-the-river project on the north Island.

In addition to that, the MLA for Juan de Fuca in the Province in 2006 said this — and I want to emphasize the first part of this sentence twice, because I wouldn't want the member to miss this: "We should pay a premium for renewables so that we can rid ourselves of technologies like coal, and it's why I get excited about the prospect of large projects like, perhaps, Site C." We should pay a premium for renewables.

Yet the member, just a little while ago, got up and criticized B.C. Hydro, which was doing IPPs that benefit First Nations and communities across British Columbia. He says, "We should pay a premium," and then he says: "I think you're paying a premium." Well, hon. Member, you can't actually have it both ways.

B.C. Hydro actually purchases about 12,879 gigawatt hours of electricity under electricity purchase agreements. This accounts for only 16 percent of B.C. Hydro's total power, but it is enough electricity to power 1.177 million homes. Small, clean renewable IPPS, independent hydro, biogas and biomass account for 6,598 gigawatt hours of electricity power purchased by B.C. Hydro under electricity power agreements.

I bring that up because the member for Skeena got up here…. And I don't know where he was going, actually, at some points. I just finally wrote it down. I don't really want to comment on half of what he says, because I had never heard anybody get up and say: "I really don't think that a $3 billion smelter in my community, which is going to have a bigger output than the one we had before, invested in the province of British Columbia, is the right thing. I don't think that anybody should be able to sell power" — even though they built the dams, in the case of Rio Tinto Alcan — "and I think I'm not happy about this $3 billion investment."

He should take a drive along Highway 16, go out on the other side of Prince George and then down through the Robson Valley and ask the people of McBride or Valemount or that area of the province, whether they think $50 million in a power line would make a significant difference to their economic future. And go down and tell them how upset he is about a $3 billion investment in Kitimat. I don't understand the thinking there. It just doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

[1445]

That member, of all members in this House, should know this. He should know that in his area of the province there is First Nations group upon First Nations group trying to put together partnerships with independent power producers and companies and investors so that they can participate in the great opportunities that face northwestern British Columbia in the future.

The partnerships they're trying to put together are in energy, whether it be run-of-the-river, up Highway 37 with the Tahltan, with the First Nations over on Banks Island, with the First Nations over on Haida Gwaii. All of them have been in to say they want to participate and be part of the opportunity for the downstream benefits of this massive investment that's going to take place in Rio Tinto and in liquefied natural gas and the opportunities they face and the thousands of jobs that come at them.

Yet if you listen to the members opposite, the first thing they would say to you is: "Don't buy any of that independ-

[ Page 11064 ]

ent power. We don't want you buying it."

I do agree with the member for Juan de Fuca when he says we need to pay a premium for some types of power. I do, though, think it's pretty disingenuous for the member up there to say, "Don't do it," and then ignore the fact of how important it is for the First Nations in those areas of the province. It is very, very important.

As we get the power needs that we need for the northwest and the northeast parts of the province right, it's going to mean a lot more electricity, because liquefied natural gas takes a lot of electricity. As an example, just the proposed Shell LNG plant would take all of the power out of Site C. That's the amount of power that's needed to fuel this opportunity.

All of these companies have said one thing, consistently, to me. They would prefer to make their liquefied natural gas in British Columbia with clean energy, so they can sell the fact to the rest of the world that they made it with clean energy. That means that we have to seize this opportunity on behalf of British Columbians.

As I also sat and listened, I had to go back and do a little research after the members opposite decided that they didn't have any time to debate the Clean Energy Act in this Legislature. I want to clear up one little thing. They actually spoke on the act on six separate occasions for 16.5 hours for a total of 1,011 minutes. In all of that speaking — 1,011 minutes — not one of them for even 30 seconds mentioned smart meters.

As a matter of fact, it didn't even go unnoticed by the B.C. Utilities Commission, which actually stated: "In addition, no member of the opposition asked any questions or expressed any concern regarding the intended smart-metering system." This was on March 5, 2012, by the BCUC.

With 1,011 minutes at second reading, 16½ hours on the Clean Energy Act, they say they didn't get a chance to debate it. You know, in this House you can decide how you use your time and how you want to use it.

Now, I can go back, and I've got some very interesting stories about boyfriends and moving in with people and those sorts of things in that second reading debate, which I saw had nothing to do with energy or energy production, but quite frankly, it was there. And it's interesting that they then go off on a tangent.

Now, the critic….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we'll check that out for you if you want, hon. Member…

Now I want to move to another piece — right? This is the information that was supplied to me, and it was a quote from the B.C. Utilities Commission, hon. Member. I guess I'd have to ask them where they got their information. I thought they would look. Anyway the beauty of it is that….

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: I should answer that though. I once threw a no-hitter in Little League, and that's what you've done in this debate so far, hon. Member.

Interjection.

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, but you have no future as….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I was interested to hear the critic get up and espouse on the benefits of Burrard Thermal. Obviously, he's never driven out to the Fraser Valley and talked to people about the highest preponderance of asthma and nose and throat diseases by population out there.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, the interesting thing is that the member opposite hesitates to mention that they came out against SE2, which was a natural gas plant just south of the border, but all of a sudden has found religion with regards to Burrard Thermal.

The comments with regards to the members on wind energy I found rather interesting. What maybe they don't know…. I think it was the member for Skeena that brought this one up. Maybe he doesn't know about the fact that wind energy is so subsidized in the United States that they actually want to give it away.

If they don't give it out, if it doesn't move into the grid, they don't get their big subsidies from government. So we can actually buy power sometimes for less than zero because of the subsidies of government in the United States.

Now, does that mean that the member opposite wants us to subsidize power out of the Hecate Strait and Banks Island in the north in order to get it down to a place where it's affordable at a level that makes sense? Or do you want us to have an IPP program that makes sense economically and works with the customers that we have that are coming in for LNG?

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Now, I always know when I'm just getting a little under the skin of the critic opposite, when he wants to chirp. The more I say, the more he chirps, and the closer I'm getting to striking home.

J. Horgan: It's reality; I'm afflicted with it. I can't help it. Wherever I go, I want the truth.

[ Page 11065 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, that would be a first for you.

You know, the fact of the matter is that the changes we're making are because we still believe in self-sufficiency. We're changing the definition.

We know we'll need IPP power, so First Nations across B.C. should know that those opportunities will still exist for them. The power that's going to be required for British Columbia for the future, for liquefied natural gas, for all the power that we're going to need for industrial base, the mines that we have coming on stream — are all going to be important for the future of the people of British Columbia.

This change allows us to change in order to have the direction and the measurements we think are better for the future, because things have changed since the brownouts in California and the shortage of power in the United States. It's all due to natural gas and the quickness that the U.S. built natural gas powered plants and that they produce that power today that they weren't producing five or six years ago.

So having said all that, I would like to just move on to a couple of comments from the member from Quesnel — Cariboo North. The member got up and talked about oil and gas in the north. He talked about different issues with regards to it and the issues that we're doing with this particular act. And as usual, he usually goes to his Chicken Little approach, where the sky is falling.

Now, he actually spent nine hours — he did, and he said that earlier — with the Oil and Gas Commission. What he didn't say was that he immediately went out and dissed all those professional public servants that gave him nine hours of their time. He wasn't interested in listening. He wasn't interested in what they were providing. He just decided to go and then make up his own story as he came out of that.

Not so, frankly, for the member for Delta South, who actually did take a very responsible approach to all of this.

But in the oil and gas industry in the north I do believe that we're doing a better job than anywhere else in North America. I do know that we do follow-up on things. We were the first ones to put fracking fluids on line voluntarily by our industry. We're the folks that are doing the air quality and the water quality work up there and all the things that are important for the future of natural gas in B.C.

So in conclusion, I want to give two little pieces of history to remind people. One is that this government has always believed in this Crown corporation and believes that B.C. Hydro is a good company.

We believe that they're doing work that they should have been allowed to do 20 years ago, particularly during the 1990s, on building and improving their infrastructure. They should have been allowed to do the power lines. They should have been allowed to fix the John Hart dam, which we are going to do. They should have been allowed fix the Ruskin dam, which we're going to do. That in itself, those two projects, is $2 billion — important projects for both Vancouver Island and the Fraser Valley and seismically for safety in B.C., which should have been addressed a long time ago.

[1455]

In addition to that, when I say we've never been the ones that want to sell B.C. Hydro, the opposition wanted to. In June of 2008 the caucus strategy document was leaked around ideas and on new policy initiatives. In that document it clearly stated that it proposed to sell off some big-ticket, symbolic assets. According to the caucus document, it included B.C. Hydro, B.C. Lottery Corporation and the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

"The sale would be a significant one-time source of revenue and would involve an activity that the government would no longer be involved with," the document said.

Hon. K. Falcon: The NDP government?

Hon. R. Coleman: The NDP government wanted to sell B.C. Hydro. Well, I think they probably got a…. It's interesting. I think they may have stepped back and taken a second look and said: "Maybe we could go at it a different way." But when we do that and say we can still meet our self-sufficiency goals by changing a definition, they think the sky is falling. You know, they're actually surprised that somebody could do this because they wanted to sell the very company.

As I close, we should know this. It is our intention to continue to fight for the ratepayers of British Columbia and get rate increases of 3.9 percent and 3.9 percent over the next two years — not 7.0 percent. And 7.0 percent is what the B.C. Utilities Commission is assessed for. Because we know, even with earning 5 percent allowance for deferral accounts, what we've done with B.C. Hydro in the last year, we can meet those goals on those rates.

We will not, like the NDP wants to support its union members, ask and accept a 9.73 percent and a 9.73 percent increase over the next two years. We're going to protect the ratepayers of British Columbia, and we're not going to sell one of their Crown jewels.

In conclusion, we still believe in energy self-sufficiency. We're just changing the definition. And with that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be moved to the Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30, Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 11066 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: Today we are joined by, I believe, 33 grade 11 students from Southridge secondary school in Surrey. Welcome.

They unfortunately weren't able to get in early enough to see the fireworks at question period, which is always much more enjoyable than this kind of debate, I can assure them. Nevertheless, we would like to welcome the teacher, Dale Kurylyk, and the 33 students that have joined — and the parents that may be with them as well. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I call second reading of Bill 32, intituled the Energy and Water Efficiency Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 32 — ENERGY AND WATER

EFFICIENCY ACT

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to present Bill 32, the Energy and Water Efficiency Act, for second reading. This bill benefits consumers by lowering energy bills, addresses compliance problems and helps industry enhance energy performance standards to save money.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The act will do three things. First, it will introduce administrative penalties for non-compliance. Our goal is to educate rather than punish, but sometimes you do need penalties in order to focus people's minds. These penalties will protect consumers from unknowingly getting non-compliant products and will create an even playing field for industry and business.

Second, the bill will set requirements for a variety of consumer products used to conserve energy, such as establishing classes of construction products, including energy efficient ratings for windows and doors; adding water efficiency standards for items such as shower heads so they will better align with the B.C. building code and goals of the water plan; and setting standby consumption standards to ensure that electronic equipment such as PVRs and digital cable boxes use less power when they are turned on.

In addition, we will continue to work with the federal government on the National Building Code to make sure that our construction products match up to their bill so that we will not have confusion in manufacturing in industries across British Columbia.

Third, the bill enables the minister to enact regulations for technical standards which are frequently updated. It'll help to streamline the approval process. My ministry consulted broadly about these changes with regards to the technical standards. We have engaged with more than 40 organizations and 60 individuals representing industry, utilities, governments, public interest and academia.

[1500]

Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to rise. As tempting as it is to rebut some of the comments that the minister just made about Bill 30, I will confine my comments, in the interest of continuing a good relationship with the Chair, to the issues laid before us in Bill 32, the Energy and Water Efficiency Act.

I do want to correct one comment the minister just said in his opening remarks, however. He said that the bill will lower energy bills. Now, I was told that smart meters were going to lower energy bills. I think behaviour can lower energy bills. But this piece of paper, in and of itself, is not going to do that. Nor will some of the regulations that will follow through.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: He will accept that. Well, there you go. I'm winning already. If only I'd had some accountability during question period today, we'd all be a little bit further ahead.

I do want to speak in favour of this bill, and I also want to talk about a couple of the points that the minister just raised. I do believe that we do need to have a carrot and a stick when it comes to energy efficiency and energy conservation. I've been in that school of thought for some considerable period of time. I know there have been numerous Energy Ministers over my time as critic. I think there have been five during my time — a couple of repeat visitors as well. The member for Kootenay East came back for a command performance before he was shuffled back to the back benches.

Throughout that time I have tried to engage with ministers in a thoughtful way, and by and large, I think we've been successful to a greater extent than not. I'm hopeful that legislation like this will be a precursor of other opportunities for all sides of this House to agree on taking steps that will lead to genuinely reducing energy costs for citizens and affordability issues, as well as those conservation mechanisms.

I also want to touch on the building code. I want to pay tribute to a member on the government benches, and I don't do that very often. When the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale was appointed to cabinet as the minister responsible for building codes, there were a lot of the watchers upstairs with their insatiable appetite for something exciting — they pooh-poohed the idea of updating and modernizing our building code.

[ Page 11067 ]

I approached the minister, now Minister of Advanced Education, and urged her to come to see a home in my constituency, Eco-Sense, a house that was built by the hands and feet, because they stomped the straw cob themselves, of Ann and Gord Baird in Highlands, to create a genuinely energy-efficient home.

That was a trip that the minister made to my riding. We had a great day looking at the work that had been done. I know that had she continued on in that ministry or had the government dedicated resources at the ministerial level to improving the building code so that we could genuinely find energy efficiencies in new home construction…. Opportunities to put photovoltaic solar panels on all new construction, geothermal — a whole host of other ideas that members in this House on both sides speak about with their constituents all the time.

Had we had a dedicated effort to continue on in that, I think we would have seen some really positive results, and I commend the minister for her visit that day. It's fondly remembered by myself and my constituents.

The issue that's raised by the minister today about standardizing National Building Code standards through this bill and other regulations is an important step in the right direction. But I do caution the minister — and he will know this full well, as the housing critic — that we had some challenges about building codes and condominiums in British Columbia over the past couple of decades. We were putting in place at that time standards that were characterized as national but, in fact, did not meet the tests of the climate here in British Columbia.

I know the minister is well aware of that, and when we get into discussion at committee stage I'm looking forward to exploring that a little bit more deeply, as are some of my colleagues. I know that the Environment critic from Victoria–Swan Lake is very anxious to look at some of these issues.

I have looked at the bill, and our briefing note that I worked on with our researchers in the basement speaks favourably about the consultation process that the ministry went through to get to this stage. Whenever you are using a carrot and a stick, whenever the stick is dominant in that discussion, people tend to be a little bit reserved about their responses, but based on my phone-around to the various stakeholders that the ministry deals with regularly, there was a positive response to this as a first step and one of many as we go into the future of setting standards and protecting consumers.

This is, at its core, consumer protection. We want to make sure that those that profess to meet the targets that governments — federal, provincial, municipal — set are actually going to be able to achieve those.

[1505]

Reselling is an issue that's mentioned in the bill. I'm looking forward to the minister having his staff with him at committee stage so we can explore in some detail how we protect consumers from resellers of technologies that may or may not achieve the results that are projected in their promotional materials as well as on any labelling that's required as a result of this act.

So with those brief comments, on behalf of the official opposition, we believe that we'll be supporting, certainly, this bill at second reading. The principles are sound and valid, and we want to pursue that.

I'm looking forward to a detailed discussion at committee stage, where we can plumb down into the rationale for some of these moves, and if we can come to agreement, which I know is entirely possible based on the minister's new-found magnanimity, we'll be able to, perhaps, put in an amendment or two to improve this bill after we come out of committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not even going to try that word, because you've got me confused as to how it's pronounced now.

J. Horgan: I'm regretting having tried it myself.

Hon. R. Coleman: I do look forward to committee stage.

I should mention to the member opposite that the building code, the whole rewrite in the work to harmonize the building code in British Columbia, continues as a project to government. It does have dedicated resources to it. It falls within this ministry, and we're continuing to have that going on.

We've had two sessions with UBCM with regards to it — one where we had actually unanimous consent from the members that attended the seminar — from about 40-plus communities — that this should go on to get rid of some of the duplication, the areas where people add things to the building code and confuse people. It actually makes it difficult for people to build, both for affordability but also for the fact of actually trying to achieve the goals we're trying to achieve. That includes the greening of the building code.

I'm sure we'll discuss that in estimates, as well, but I'm happy to have those discussions during committee stage.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the bill to the Committee of the Whole House for committee stage...

Deputy Speaker: At the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman: …after today.

[ Page 11068 ]

Bill 32, Energy and Water Efficiency Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call committee stage of Bill 33, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act.

Can we have a five-minute recess to allow for….

Deputy Speaker: This House will stand recessed for five minutes.

The House recessed from 3:08 p.m. to 3:11 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 33 — JUSTICE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 33; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:11 p.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: I know everyone's anxious to get through this, but I am required, I think, to ask at least a couple of questions. If the Attorney General could at least explain the effect of this

section and why it was being brought into the House. What impact will it have, if any, on our trade agreements, and how does it relate to them?

Hon. S. Bond: This will allow for us to add additional agreements by regulation rather than by having to come in and adjust the legislation every time. It would also mean that existing dispute mechanisms would apply to any new agreements that are reached.

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, if B.C. enters into an agreement, we would agree to be bound by it — for example, in the case of TILMA or other partnerships where we make those agreements. But when Canada makes an agreement, British Columbia agrees to be bound by it. So in other words, we would make an agreement with Canada and, as they negotiate and agree to something, we would agree to be bound by that agreement.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Krog: If the Attorney General could just explain in a practical way and perhaps give an example of what the effect will be of

section 2 in terms of practice.

[1515]

Perhaps I'll wait, because I see we're going to change staff in each section.

Again to the Attorney General, I just would ask her to provide a basic example of what kind of order this new

section would apply to. What's really the purpose of the section, and will it in fact assist the court in perhaps speeding up justice?

Hon. S. Bond: The amendment has actually been requested by the Court of Appeal, and they have not given us a list. What it does, though, is give the court the flexibility to add to the list if it identifies other categories of application that it believes will consistently be denied leave to appeal. We obviously think this is a good idea. The Court of Appeal has advised us that it intends that the list will represent a codification of orders that have consistently been denied previously. So it's an attempt to speed up access to justice and probably cause less frustration for people who go all the way through that process only to be denied leave to appeal.

K. Corrigan: The previous

section that's been repealed and now substituted refers to interlocutory orders. Are interlocutory orders the same as limited appeal orders?

Hon. S. Bond: It's our understanding that, in fact, interlocutory orders could be included on the list that the Court of Appeal will actually codify.

K. Corrigan: Just for clarification, interlocutory orders are usually interim orders. Could the minister just explain what other types of orders would be considered to be limited appeal orders?

Hon. S. Bond: The Court of Appeal will actually make that determination, and we don't have the specific list that the court wishes to prescribe. But they will have the flexibility to prescribe the list. In fact, we have been advised by the court that it would be a codification of previous orders. I don't have the specific list of the Court of Appeals here, but this, as I said, is a request directly from the court to potentially speed up access to justice.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Elmore: I have a question on

section 3. With respect to the recommendation to remove the requirement of a door-to-door registration before the 2013 general election, I have concerns. Maybe the Minister of Justice can answer in terms of: what are the steps taken to en-

[ Page 11069 ]

sure that we have as high quality a voters list as possible, particularly with coverage to ensure that the highest percentage of eligible voters are on the voters list and certainly that it's current and up-to-date — that they're at their accurate addresses?

[1520]

My concern is addressing groups that are vulnerable citizens, particularly in residential care facilities, homeless folks, aboriginals and also immigrant communities, as well as high-rental areas. Often these are the areas that have the lowest coverage on the voters list.

Hon. S. Bond: I know that this is one of the sections that garnered the most passionate discussion during second reading. I think that it's very fitting that in the gallery today we have students that are here.

One of the challenges, I think, that both sides of the House would agree is a concern for us is that as we attempt to encourage people to take advantage of their democratic right to vote in our province and in our country, we certainly don't want to do anything that would discourage or disenfranchise. I think that there's a lot to be done in order to encourage people to want to cast their ballot. I think it has much more to do with being engaged and seeing their views translated into the actions of government.

But to the member's concerns, which are legitimate, all of us are concerned about making sure that particularly at-risk or vulnerable individuals still have the right to exercise their vote. Our decision to remove the requirement for a complete door-to-door enumeration is based on a recommendation by the Chief Electoral Officer. It absolutely does not preclude the kinds of concerned and focused enumeration that the member is speaking of.

For example, after the general or targeted enumeration is done, regional officers can make the decision to look at site-specific enumeration. So for example, they may go to a care home. They may go to a homeless shelter. There is a concerted effort that is undertaken to ensure that those who may not take advantage of their right to vote are sought out.

Certainly, this does not put that in jeopardy at all. In fact, the change allows the flexibility for the Chief Electoral Officer to consider specifically targeted enumerations, of which door-to-door would still be a possibility. But it would also allow for other methods to be used more broadly.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister for the response.

Certainly, in terms of addressing the issue of our declining voter turnout as a challenge, the first step often is — in terms of enfranchising the vote — for individuals to be on the voters list.

One of the challenges, in addition, is our youth. Often there's a gap in terms of when they turn 18. They don't necessarily go onto the voters list. I was wondering if there's a specific initiative around that.

Also, if the minister has…. I've had reports that voter turnout is lower amongst new immigrant communities and that there is the challenge of the second language and the ability of being able to ensure that that is overcome and addressed.

[1525]

When it comes to looking at how we encourage young people — and encourage not-so-young people — to exercise their vote, I think that it takes a collaborative effort. I think that some of the most effective programs are ones that are youth-led. I can think of Rock the Vote and a variety of other youth-led initiatives that encourage participation in the process.

I think that we need to continue. I think it is discouraging, when we look at what a privilege it is in our country to have the right to vote. I know that the member opposite will have been at citizenship ceremonies. I've been at many of them, and they're one of the most special things that we get to participate in as MLAs. I certainly recognize that people who become new Canadians are very excited about the opportunity they have to participate in the process.

There's obviously more work to be done, but I think what we're concentrating on here is responding to a request where the Chief Electoral Officer recognized that it isn't anticipated that this will cause a significant concern about the voters list.

In fact, one of the things that I learned in getting ready for the House is that British Columbia has one of the most accurate voters lists in the country. So while we may not feel that way…. If we're the best it is, there's obviously some work to be done. But we're responding to a request by the Chief Electoral Officer, and we think that this is an important recommendation from an independent officer, and we agreed to move forward.

M. Elmore: Thanks to the minister. The number is approximately 140,000 people — eligible voters who are excluded from the voters list for different reasons. That's the challenge in terms of trying to increase the quality of the voters list and to make sure that it's accurate.

Yeah, often there is a bit of a balance in terms of how you engage people to vote, to cast their vote. That's one matter. The process of having them on the voters list is often a first step in terms of being able to engage them.

I was wondering if the minister considered any specific

[ Page 11070 ]

ideas or other examples to be included in the legislation to address in a proactive way, for example, citizens who speak a second language, in terms of being able to engage them and have them registered.

[1530]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think there's been lots of discussion about how we improve the situation, but it isn't something that you would put in legislation. This is really about the practice of how we do this.

One of the things that emerged in the discussion — as I understand it, from the Chief Elector Officer — was the fact that this process is really not as effective as people think it is. That recommendation comes not from government. It comes from the Chief Electoral Officer, and he gave a number of reasons.

Specifically, to the member's question, there's lots of discussion and debate about how to improve the quality of the list, how to expand the participation rates of people. Obviously, both sides of the House care about having an appropriate and thorough check of the list, but from our perspective, we took the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer seriously and have agreed to move forward.

M. Elmore: In terms of the vein of trying to address not only the quality of the list but the aspect of having accurate addresses, that's also a low number. I think the average in B.C. is currently about 90 percent. So about 10 percent of people who are eligible to be on the voter's list are not. They're incorrect addresses.

Are there any specific initiatives or thought or discussion that you had around that, addressing that challenge — particularly that impacts the folks who live in high rental areas or who change and move around a lot?

Hon. S. Bond: When we look back over the last number of years, one of the things that Elections B.C. looks at statistically is the currency of the voters list. In fact, the number just prior to the 2009 election was at about 88 percent in terms of the currency of the list.

There is a concentrated effort before an election to make sure that the list is as current as possible. There is actually historic data that goes back, and actually, that was one of the best years — if not the best year — in terms of the currency of the list.

The very types of residences that the member opposite is referring to are some of the challenging ones. In the discussion at the Election Advisory Committee, where the discussion took place about door-to-door enumeration and the rationale was discussed…. Part of the challenge is that Elections B.C. is, first of all, challenged to ensure the safety of enumerators.

[1535]

Secondly, there is a worldwide trend that, in fact, people are no longer doing this. It's not just British Columbia. In fact, there are a number of other jurisdictions. The trend around the world is away from the model of door-to-door. Part of the challenge is that people do not like providing information on the doorstep. It's becoming a process that is…. You have to balance the utility and the effort and the cost to taxpayers against the potential outcomes.

In the view of the Chief Electoral Officer, it is time for us to make this change. There will be, obviously, a number of ways that the Chief Electoral Officer will be given the flexibility to target enumerations. Mail and door-to-door will play key roles. Door-to-door will not cease, but it gives the Chief Electoral Officer the decision and the flexibility to create the strategy to improve the quality of the list.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's answers. I trust she doesn't mind if I continue to call her the Attorney General, notwithstanding the government's decision to refer to her as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I just happen to think the second term carries a little more weight and gravitas in this place.

Having said that, the Attorney General did mention in her answer to the previous question that other jurisdictions are moving away from door-to-door enumeration. I'm just wondering. Perhaps she could advise the House. What's the status of door-to-door enumeration in the other provinces of Canada?

Hon. S. Bond: To the best information we have with us, and certainly…. I should have introduced Neil Reimer. Neil will check and confirm that for us. Currently the Yukon and Manitoba require and continue to do door-to-door enumerations. Alberta decided just previous to this election that they would actually do a door-to-door enumeration. But that's the list as we know it.

In fact, when you look at the coverage rates in 2011 in Manitoba and then also 2011 in Alberta, both of their coverage rates are lower than British Columbia's existing list. So in fact, even after they did the door-to-door enumeration, their list didn't have as much coverage as the province of British Columbia.

L. Krog: To the Attorney General, I wonder if she could explain to the House how the coverage is determined. I mean, is this a number that's reached as a guesstimate as a result of information from Stats Canada? Or how does one actually arrive at the concept that the coverage rate is 88 percent or 82 percent or whatever the case may be?

Hon. S. Bond: That coverage is determined by taking the eligible voter population and then balancing that against the total registered number of voters and what that percentage is. For example, in British Columbia on April 28, 2009, it would take the eligible voter population, which was over 3 million. The total registered vot-

[ Page 11071 ]

ers was 2.948 million, and so our coverage in terms of the list was 91 percent.

[1540]

When you look at Manitoba in 2011 and then Alberta, their numbers were only in the higher 80s. Manitoba was 87 and.... I think that says 84 percent. So their coverage rates are lower than ours, and that was done most recently.

L. Krog: The next question is obvious, I suspect. Where do we get the number of eligible voters from? Is that information received from Stats Canada? What's the source of that information? I'm asking a very basic, practical question here.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct. It's census data, and then it's updated with ongoing estimates of population growth.

L. Krog: I'm sorry. I had a little whisper in my ear. Just to confirm. Did the minister say that Stats Canada provides information? If so, are we satisfied, given the recent changes to the operation of Statistics Canada, that in fact that information is at a level of accuracy that it should be?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, it does come from Stats Canada. We believe that that will continue to be an effective way of gathering that information.

We also believe, though, that B.C. Stats actually looks at a population profile. So in essence, it's probably a dual look. But the specific numbers do come from Stats Canada, and then B.C. Stats takes a look at the population profile and has a look at both of those.

L. Krog: I won't spend too much more time on this section. I think the position of the opposition is fairly clear, and I think the minister has been quite forthright in her answers.

My concern is this — that there may have been another approach to deal with this. I know that cost has been raised as an issue, the safety of enumerators, things of that nature. But for instance, we know in Australia, in order to encourage you to vote, you can be fined if you don't vote without reasonable excuse.

I'm not necessarily suggesting we do that in British Columbia, but it seems to me that it could be made an offence to refuse to provide the appropriate information to someone authorized on behalf of government — or Elections B.C. in this case, to be fair — who has come to your doorstep and is asking relevant information that would determine whether or not you were in fact eligible to be on the voters list.

I'm just wondering if the Attorney General has considered that as a possibility as a way of protecting the people who do this kind of work, especially given that, notwithstanding the change to

section 42, an enumeration conducted by residence-to-residence visitation is still provided for in the act, although not mandatory.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sure the member knows that it's been a challenging 24 hours for me. I was relying on Neil, and both of us…. We're not sure of the clarity of your question. I'm sorry. If the member opposite could just clarify his question for us, we'd appreciate it.

L. Krog: Clarity is not my long suit, as the Attorney General may have noticed on the odd occasion.

My point is this. Even the new

section 42, as proposed, still allows for a "residence-to-residence visitation." So the issues of safety and protection and the privacy concerns the minister raised in her earlier remarks, about people not being willing to disclose information on the doorstep, are still all there.

I was wondering if consideration had been given to making it an offence to refuse to provide that information to an enumerator sent out by Elections B.C. In fact, does that — and I'm sorry; I haven't had a chance to check — legislation exist now? If it does, it seems to me it should be enforced, because surely asking someone to provide the basic information that enables them to vote for government I would not regard as a breach of their privacy or rights.

[1545]

Hon. S. Bond: We have not contemplated making it an offence. I think that part of the rationale behind flexibility is allowing the Chief Electoral Officer to more specifically target areas and the method of use in that particular area. So if there is an area where there is heightened concern about safety, then perhaps that would be done by a mail enumeration.

It really just reflects, I think, the concern of the Chief Electoral Officer. The member opposite may also want to…. I was reading through the Election Advisory Committee minutes, because before any major changes are suggested, there is a bipartisan…. Actually, it's more than that. It is a number of representatives from political parties who meet with the Chief Electoral Officer. In fact, the parties that were represented there, including the member opposite's and mine, agreed that as long as door-to-door enumeration remained a possibility, they were generally in agreement with this process. That included members of the NDP and, obviously, the B.C. Liberal Party.

That discussion and the commentary that I was reflecting are actually in the minutes of that meeting. As the discussion evolved, the issue was very much around a changing model and the trends around the world and looking at, for example…. I would quote this. "Elections B.C. is challenged to ensure the safety of enumerators and the voter information they carry, to gain access to secure buildings and strata communities." There are a number of complicating issues that are outlined in the minutes.

[ Page 11072 ]

I think there was a very thorough discussion which included members, as I said, of the B.C. Liberal Party, the B.C. NDP, also the Green Party and a number of others, including obviously Keith Archer, who is the Chief Electoral Officer and chair of this committee.

I think there's been a fairly significant discussion about the issue. All of us and, I'm sure, the committee agreed that we want as accurate a voters list as possible. We agreed to carry forward the recommendation and did not, at the same time, look at a potential offence.

L. Krog: I'm certainly conscious of the fact that my leader may be listening. To paraphrase Gilbert and Sullivan, one would hesitate not to always vote at their party's call. I appreciate the minister's remarks that a representative of the New Democratic Party was there. Nevertheless, having said that, it doesn't get past this as an issue for me personally.

My final question to the minister on this

section is quite simply this. Will the ministry continue to monitor or ask the Chief Electoral Officer to continue to monitor the results in those jurisdictions in Canada, in particular, that continue to use a door-to-door general enumeration to be satisfied that the accuracy is in fact the same? I understand that there may be some differences in terms of how the Yukon and Alberta and Manitoba arrive at what they think are the figures.

[1550]

I mean, you know, lies, damned lies and statistics, as Churchill said — the three great lies. So I'm a bit concerned about that, that in fact we do ensure this. I think it is important. I wouldn't be standing here today if I didn't think it was important.

I'm just curious to know if the minister is prepared to make that recommendation or at least ask the Chief Electoral Officer, who I'm sure may be reviewing Hansard himself, to consider that over the longer haul. I think this kind of evidence-based change for legislation is important, because this is about very basic public policy.

Hon. S. Bond: We do know that the staff at Elections B.C. and certainly the Chief Electoral Officer — this is a very high priority for them as well. I think the recommendations that came forward from the CEO certainly were not made lightly and not without an understanding that for all of us, it's in our best interest and also our desire to see the quality continue to improve.

Despite the fact that we have one of the highest currency rates in the province, in terms of historically, but also in the country, doesn't mean we should stop looking for ways to improve. There are quality surveys that are done, and it's a very in-depth survey that looks at the quality of the list and ensuring that we are continuing to make improvements.

As other jurisdictions publish that information, the statistical data that we have here will continue to be compiled. I think that, certainly, we'll be sharing. I know the Chief Electoral Officer will be very interested in the debate that took place in the House and will recognize the importance of demonstrating that a move away from door-to-door enumeration didn't bring a negative impact, which is certainly what the premise was when the suggestion and recommendation was made.

As the member opposite knows, I appreciate his views. I think the members opposite have raised very legitimate and thoughtful questions about something that's important to all of us. I can assure the critic opposite that we will work collaboratively and share the views that were shared here in the House with the Chief Electoral Officer.

We will work to continue to do two things. I think one is to make sure we have a high-quality voters list. But I think, to the previous member's concerns, that we figure out how we encourage engagement in the democratic process, how we look at civics and how we make sure that people in our province realize what an unbelievable privilege it is to live where we live. One of the privileges is to be able to vote and make your choices known.

I thank the member opposite for his questions and will continue to share those with the Chief Electoral Officer.

Section 3 approved on division.

The Chair: Surrey–White Rock seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: We are joined in this House by a group of grade 5 students from White Rock Christian Academy in Surrey, their teacher Lorraine Whitmarsh and a number of parents. The school is famous for athletic, cultural, academic and humanitarian services, not just in this province but around the world. I ask the House to please make them feel most welcome.

Debate Continued

The Chair: I thank the members for their indulgence.

section 4.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain what the changes are that are brought about by these sections, which amend the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act.

[1555]

Hon. S. Bond: We're very glad to have a class of grade 5s in the gallery today. It's unfortunate that they weren't here for the part about voting, instead of the part about

[ Page 11073 ]

the Arbitration Act and enforcement of Canadian judgments. You would have enjoyed the other part much more.

To the member opposite, this

section is a companion to

section 1, the Commercial Arbitration Act. Really, what it says in a nutshell is that when we make an agreement and there are things that need to be enforced in British Columbia, this makes sure that they're enforceable.

K. Corrigan: This

section deals largely with enforcement of awards under domestic trade agreements — in other words, trade agreements that are between provinces and within Canada. I'm wondering, more specifically, if the minister can explain what changes there are in terms of the ease of enforcing judgments under this act.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, what it does is it adds the phrase "prescribed trade agreement." Really, what it precludes us from having to do is to come back into the Legislature to add an agreement that we make. We don't want to have to do that all of the time. So it means that we can do that by including the phrase "prescribed trade agreement."

There are currently three other agreements that are recognized, but in the future if there's another agreement, we won't need to come back into the Legislature to add that.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify, then, that the process with regard to enforcement is no different. This does not provide new and wider powers of enforcement. It's simply determining that new agreements as they come on board can be added, but there's no change to the process.

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

L. Krog: To the Attorney General, if she could just explain why this

section was necessary, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. S. Bond: The existing provision refers to final judgment, which is relevant in a court judgment but not respecting an award under a domestic trade agreement. What this

section does is it clarifies that an award in favour of the government or against the government may be registered under the act for the purposes of enforcement.

L. Krog: Just to clarify, presumably what this does is it makes it easier for a foreign corporation to enforce any claim that is successful against the Canadian government.

Hon. S. Bond: In our view, it doesn't make it easier. Actually, it simply clarifies the fact that final judgment is relevant to a court judgment and not to a domestic trade agreement award.

[1600]

So in fact, we don't think it makes it easier. It just clarifies the item that we've referred to — the issue around final judgment being related to a court judgment.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, I see that the member from Kamloops wants to get through the afternoon here today.

With respect to

section 8, does this have any effect on the law, in the sense that right now a judgment is enforceable for ten years? I'm looking at the explanatory note in the bill itself. Is there now no limitation on how long a Canadian judgment can be enforced — as opposed to this section, which, according to the explanatory note, means that it's only good for ten years?

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. S. Bond: The existing

section includes domestic trade agreement awards in the registration time limit that applies to court judgments. That is ten years after a judgment became enforceable in the province or territory where it was made.

What the amendment does is that it provides for a registration time limit for domestic trade agreement awards that is based on the date when the award was made, which is more appropriate, as such awards are not made in any specific province or territory. So it was, in essence, to clarify and make it distinct from the connection to the court date.

Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

L. Krog: The bill note suggests that this simply "clarifies that recalculations of support orders by administrative bodies are included in the definition of 'support order.'"

[1605]

I take it that what this means is, essentially, that FMEP, if they recalculate or determine what in fact is the amount outstanding under an order, that would constitute a judgment for purposes of enforcement. Or is there something more to this than I'm suggesting?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to be joined by Chris Beresford, who has been very helpful in the ministry in helping me understand FMEP and look at how we can

[ Page 11074 ]

find improvements to the program — always very happy for his advice.

There are currently specific administrative recalculation programs in five provinces in the country, and that includes British Columbia. Annually, they review a payer's income. So they annually review the income and then look at what the payment needs to be. Those programs did not exist when this

section was created. What we're doing now is actually bringing the legislation in line with what current practice is.

L. Krog: Just so I can understand it in simple terms. I have a support order made against me in the province of Manitoba, and it requires me to pay $500 a month. Based on an income calculation, an administrative body has determined that in fact it should be $550. That calculation or determination made by the administrative body, as opposed to a court upon application, will in fact be enforceable as an order of the court if it's sent out here to British Columbia for enforcement?

Hon. S. Bond: That's exactly it.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

L. Krog: Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 all deal with, essentially, the difference between the terms "ordinarily resides" and "habitually resides."

I'm just wondering if the minister can clarify what we're talking about. Is there some definition — I'm sorry; I haven't had time to look — in the

Interpretation Act or the court decisions? In other words, what does this actually mean?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, the change is to make the terminology consistent with other jurisdictions across Canada and also internationally. It is a matter of consistency, and the terms mean the same thing.

L. Krog: I just want to confirm what the Attorney General said at the close of her remarks. As far as court decisions are concerned, ordinarily versus habitually have been determined to amount to the same thing. Or is there some qualitative or quantitative difference in the use of the language?

Hon. S. Bond: No, they are the same.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

section 19.

L. Krog: This reduces the amount of time from 18 to 12 months "within which a claimant must provide further information and documents requested before the court may dismiss a support application."

Is this consistent with other provinces? In fact, would we be better moving towards a system that provides for a more timely provision of information?

The reason I raise that is that it's often the case — as opposed to the incredible efficiency of FMEP in British Columbia, I'm sure…. I've had the odd constituent complain about the time it takes to enforce an order in another province.

[1610]

I'm just curious. Does this bring us into line with other provinces? Is this the standard across the country?

Hon. S. Bond: It does bring us in line, and in fact it was considered at the intrajurisdictional support subcommittee, so FPT actually looked at this matter. Just to be very clear and to provide clarity, this is about the establishment and variation of orders. It's not about enforcement. So we do have to consider the court times as well.

Yes, it brings us into line, and it is about establishment and variation.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, this

section really means that if an application is made to establish a support order, regardless of where the respondent to the application may reside…. Does this mean that you use the British Columbia law first, and if there is no entitlement to support then you would apply the law of the jurisdiction where the child habitually resides?

In other words, for a concrete example, the application is brought on in British Columbia, and the child is habitually resident in Manitoba. The way I understand this section, for my application — if I'm the plaintiff, applicant, whatever the case may be — the laws of B.C. will be applied firstly. If the laws of B.C. say that I'm out of time for whatever reason or if there is some jurisdictional issue, then you would apply the law of the province of Manitoba, where the child resides, if in fact that would ensure that a support order is made.

Hon. S. Bond: The member is exactly right.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

L. Krog: In

section 24 the bill notes suggest it "provides that on an application to vary a support order, the court must first apply the law of British Columbia and then, if under that law there is no entitlement to support for a child, apply the law of the jurisdiction."

[ Page 11075 ]

Again, this is just the following section, if you will. As opposed to initial application, we're now talking about a variance, and the same law applies. In other words, the courts will be required, essentially, to try and extend the benefit of the doubt to ensure that in fact a support order is made in favour of a child.

Hon. S. Bond: That's correct.

Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

The Chair: Minister, do you want a minute? Yes.

Could we take a minute, please, Member?

L. Krog: Yes.

[1615]

I appreciate the further attendance of ministerial staff. It's a bit like the Punch and Judy show here today. They're in and out, and they're in and out constantly. I do appreciate them attending.

Having said that, if the minister could simply explain why we need

section 29, and in fact, what is a repairer's licence with respect to

section 6?

Hon. S. Bond: I always like to recognize the staff that are here. So Tyann Blewett is here. Rob Termuende and Jason Luche from ICBC are joining us today.

To the member opposite, the details around

section 29….

Section 29 is actually consequential to

section 32. We'll get there, specifically, when we get to

section 32. But I can certainly describe the repairer's licence for the member opposite. For example, it's when you have a mechanic, and they need to test-drive the vehicle, they would have a plate that would allow them to actually drive the vehicle. Or if they do any other incidental services, they would be required to have a plate to allow them to do that.

One of the challenges and one of the reasons that this is necessary…. It's particularly restrictive in rural and northern smaller communities. For example, if you sell gas, currently you cannot have a repairer's licence. Even if you're a mechanic on the side, if you sell gas currently you can't use the repairer's plate. We're trying to fix some of those things and make it easier for people in smaller communities to actually have the small businesses that we know are often doing multiple things to survive.

Then we'll move on to

section 32 to deal with the issues that were also asked.

L. Krog: Forgive me for maybe being seen to be wasting the Legislature's time, but I'm just curious to know: how long has that silly regulation been in place?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't know the exact original date, but we can tell you that since the beginning of the plate it's not been possible. So in our estimation, it's probably decades.

L. Krog: If this wasn't corrected in the '90s, I just want to apologize on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

[1620]

I'm just shocked that the Minister of Finance, who was so proud of deregulating things, wouldn't have nailed one which seemed to me to be clearly ridiculous — having been raised in a small community myself, where the person who owned the local garage did everything. So I just want to pay my compliments to the minister and thank her.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

section 31.

K. Corrigan: I just wanted to clarify.

Section 31 amends

section 32 of the Motor Vehicle Act "by striking out 'verified by affidavit'." I'm just wondering if the minister could clarify. This removes the requirement, it says, for a parent or guardian to provide an affidavit when applying for a driver's licence on behalf of a minor. Under what circumstances would a parent or guardian apply for a driver's licence on behalf of a minor as opposed to them applying on their own behalf?

Hon. S. Bond: If a young adult child applies for a driver's licence, the parent currently either has to appear with their child and sign the document, or the only other option is that they have to do that by affidavit. As you can imagine, if it's hard for a parent to go to a driving centre to be there in person, it's probably equally as difficult to get an affidavit. It's also potentially expensive for them. So what we're removing here is not the requirement for parental consent.

In fact, ICBC will be building a parallel process, which will be rigorous. It will be similar, we believe, to what it requires to have a passport. A signature is required. But we do want to streamline the application process for parents. All this does is change the requirement to have an affidavit, but another process will be put in place — just one that is more efficient and, hopefully, less costly for parents.

Section 31 approved.

section 32.

L. Krog: If the Attorney General could just confirm, this replaces the existing section, consolidates all of these licences into one

section and, I assume, provides for greater ease for these to be issued. But I'm also wondering: what will be the anticipated cost or increase that

[ Page 11076 ]

may be required with respect to these licences?

Hon. S. Bond: This will carry no cost implications. What it does is it removes or revises outdated

definitions. What we've attempted to do in the legislation is keep the key conditions and restrictions that apply to all of the licences. In fact, the current legislation is outdated. We needed to look at today's industry business practices, and this provides more modernized, relevant language. Most importantly, it repeals out-of-date

definitions. There are some that come from the Motor Carrier Act and previous fairly antiquated acts.

[1625]

L. Krog: Just so I can clarify, in light of the minister's comments earlier when we were discussing

section 29, the heroic small-town mechanic in some obscure community — and I'll use the example of Coombs because we don't even have a gas station anymore — who was perhaps doing some manufacturing work on their premises, building trailers, who has the gas station and who is the local mechanic, would now be in a position to apply for and to hold all of these various licences, as long as they met qualifications. There would be no prohibition against them holding that licence. So the jack of all trades could, in fact, truly be a legal jack of all trades?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member would know, there are still distinct licence categories. Yes, if you manufacture, you'd need the manufacturer's licence. If you're a repairer, you'd need that as well. But yes, it does allow, in essence, to quote the member opposite, the jack of all trades…. There will be categories of licences that would be appropriate, and they will be able to use all of those. This clearly defines the conditions that are required and the restrictions of use. It's just an attempt to clarify that and meet modern-day practice.

Sections 32 and 33 approved.

section 34.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, with respect to

section 34, the bill note suggests that it removes the right to a show-cause hearing wh