2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Gur Singh

Hon. T. Lake

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Societies Act

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 26 — Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 25 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. S. Thomson

Bill 21 — Fish and Seafood Act

Hon. N. Letnick

Bill M211 — Electronic Petitions Act, 2015

J. Shin

Bill M212 — Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2015

M. Farnworth

Bill M213 — Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2015

G. Holman

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Sea to Sky Trail

J. Sturdy

Wounded Warriors and post-traumatic stress disorder

L. Popham

Dietitians

J. Thornthwaite

Health and welfare of children and youth

C. Trevena

Colorectal cancer

Moira Stilwell

Business activities in Maple Ridge

M. Dalton

Oral Questions

Appointment of B.C. Treaty Commission chief commissioner and status of treaty process

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

S. Fraser

C. James

Coroner’s inquest into Lakeland Mills explosion and call for public inquiry

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Bond

H. Bains

Call for public inquiry into mill explosions

A. Dix

Hon. S. Bond

Petitions

K. Corrigan

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong

C. James

D. Routley

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. S. Anton

C. Trevena

Hon. T. Stone

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 (continued)

Hon. M. de Jong

C. James

M. Elmore

K. Corrigan

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2015

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

D. Eby

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2015

Royal Assent to Bills

Bill 3 — Building Act

Bill 4 — Chartered Professional Accountants Act

Bill 6 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Bill 7 — Private Training Act

Bill 8 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2015

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2015

Bill 12 — Federal Port Development Act

Bill 13 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015

Bill 16 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2015

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued)

M. Mungall

Hon. A. Wilkinson

B. Ralston

K. Corrigan

D. Eby

J. Shin

D. Donaldson

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture

Hon. N. Letnick

L. Popham

Page 6939

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: It is my great honour today to welcome the Wounded Warriors to the Legislature. Wounded Warriors Canada has a strong mandate to raise awareness about the staggering impacts of post-traumatic stress disorder. The Wounded Warriors, B.C., who are joining us today, have just completed a 600-kilometre run down Vancouver Island with the same mandate. It is my great pleasure to welcome them.

Hon. A. Virk: If I may join the member for Saanich South in also warmly welcoming the Wounded Warriors — the brave men and women who serve in the various uniforms of Canada and the sacrifices they and their loved ones make in their service to country. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

M. Karagianis: I’d like to add to the introductions of the Wounded Warriors group. We have in the precinct today, and I think in the House, a number of veterans and representatives from the Legion, including a very good friend of mine, Jim MacMillan-Murphy.

Also in the precinct today we have had two really terrific sponsors of the Wounded Warrior program, Bob Saunders and his son Dave Saunders.

[1335]

I just want to say that Bob has, of course, run Saunders Subaru for many years in Colwood. He is a tremendous corporate citizen. He and his son Dave pay it forward all the time and support the community in just so many ways. They stepped up immediately and became sponsors for this. Dave was the previous mayor of Colwood.

They are just a terrific family and give to the community all the time. I know that their support for the Wounded Warriors program has been greatly appreciated, so I’d like to thank them publicly for that.

Hon. M. de Jong: We’re joined today by the executive team from the Real Estate Council of British Columbia — their chair Susan McGougan, vice-chair Marylou Leslie, executive officer Robert Fawcett and deputy executive officer Larry Buttress. I urge all members of the assembly to beware. The market is hot. They come armed with listing agreements and an offer you can’t refuse. I hope all members will make them welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: I’d like to also add my voice in welcoming the Wounded Warriors group here, representing an incredible group of people and doing great work.

I’d also like to offer the congratulations of this House to…. He has already been recognized as Canada’s best Finance Minister, and all British Columbians are very proud of that distinction. He is now being invested into the Confrérie de l’Asperge Limbourgondië by the consul general of the Netherlands. Only one person per country per year is invested in this fraternity, and the Minister of Finance this year is the Canadian who is being inducted. We are very proud of him and of the relationship that he has established between Canada and the great country of the Netherlands.

I hope that the House will join me in congratulating our Minister of Finance.

K. Conroy: Our families have to give up a lot and support us a lot for us to be here. So I want to wish my husband a happy anniversary and tell him we’ll celebrate this weekend.

J. Thornthwaite: The Dietitians of Canada has brought a group of current and future dietitians here today to meet with all Members of the Legislative Assembly to learn more about their work that ensures access to credible nutritional information.

Many of you in the House today have already gone to visit them in the Rattenbury Room today. They are here till four. In the gallery up above are Sonya Kupka, regional executive director of the Dietitians of Canada, and Nicole Spencer, a member of the board of directors.

The College of Dietitians of B.C. is being represented today by their deputy registrar, Chi Cejalvo. Also attending are 16 registered dietitians in private practice and four current applicants and interns from the dietetics program in the faculty of land and food systems at UBC.

I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

D. Eby: It’s always an honour to represent Vancouver–Point Grey, but especially today. We had a bus of 50 people leave Vancouver–Point Grey at 5:30 this morning. The University Neighbourhoods Association civic engagement committee booked a bus, everybody loaded on, and they came over. For many people coming today, this is their first exposure to the British parliamentary system and to politics in Canada. So it’s a very exciting day for them.

I’d like to welcome them. There are too many names to list, but welcome to our House. I hope that everyone joins me in saying this. I hope you enjoy your first exposure to how politics works here in Canada.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m very pleased to introduce two very valuable members of the Parksville-Qualicum

Page 6940

community. Craig and Lynn Dutton are current owners of the Pheasant Glen golf course in Qualicum Beach. But this is just the latest in a long list of accomplishments.

A one-time principal secretary for Saskatchewan Premier Grant Devine, Craig is also a lawyer and a successful entrepreneur. He and Lynn have made significant contributions to our community and also raised one of Canada’s Olympic athletes, their son Will, who was a speed skater in Sochi.

I’m grateful to share my community and our friendship with them both. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House today some very dear friends of mine from Kamloops–South Thompson.

[1340]

With us today are Corey and Deborah Bacon and their two lovely children, Sophie and Jack. Their children are roughly the same age as ours. We go to the same church together — very, very close. They really are a wonderful family. This is their first visit to the chamber, so I’d ask that everyone please make them welcome.

Tributes

GUR SINGH

Hon. T. Lake: I would like to, also on behalf of the Minister of Transportation, inform the House of the passing of a great British Columbian yesterday. Dr. Gur Singh passed away at the age of 78.

Dr. Singh came to Canada from India in 1961 and found himself in Kamloops six years later, when he joined the Royal Inland Hospital medical staff. He was the first neurosurgeon to work in the interior of British Columbia. He’s also served as president of the B.C. Medical Association and was chief of staff at Royal Inland Hospital for many years.

Gur is perhaps best known for lending his name and his passion for those affected by brain injury in the form of the annual Gur Singh Invitational Golf Tournament and the annual Survival Dinner that he and his wife, Manju, put together. Founded in 2004, the proceeds of the tournament go towards supporting the Kamloops Brain Injury Association, and so far they’ve raised over $1 million for the KBIA to help brain-injured survivors live to their full potential.

Dr. Singh’s great achievements were honoured in 2010 as the recipient of a Diamond Jubilee Medal and last fall when the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce awarded him with their president’s award.

Gur Singh was a mentor, a leader, an activist, a scientist and, above all, a good friend. I know you will pass on the House’s condolences to his wonderful wife, Manju; his son, Arjun; and his daughter, Sabina.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — SOCIETIES ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Societies Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am pleased to introduce the Societies Act, which will govern how societies are created, organized and run in British Columbia.

The document that’s been tabled today is a product of much consultation with the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians that are involved with over 27,000 societies. The bill incorporates many of the ideas and responses to the white paper that was released last year.

The new act reflects the broad spectrum and diverse nature of B.C.’s societies and will provide societies with a modern corporate framework and give them greater flexibility in their internal governance. At the same time, some fundamental accountability provisions will be expanded for those societies that rely on public financial support.

The new Societies Act is intended to be a self-governing statute. The new act will provide members of a society and persons who participate in running the society with the remedies they require to support accountability and member democracy as well as organizational needs.

Finally, the new act will embrace modern communication technologies to enhance efficiencies in operating a society. Specifically, it will enable electronic incorporation filing and searches and remove unnecessary steps in the filing process.

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

Bill 24, Societies 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.

BILL 26 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Page 6941

[1345]

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 26, which I’m pleased to introduce, follows in the footsteps of a previous bill in November 2014, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act, that received royal assent. That act, as members know, set out the key components of the liquefied natural gas income tax.

This act provides the administrative and enforcement provisions for the tax, completes the technical aspects of the tax and clarifies some minor issues identified following the introduction of the LNG Income Tax Act.

The bill sets out the following administrative provisions for the LNG Income Tax Act: the requirements for persons and partnerships engaged in liquefaction activities to register and post a bond; the filing of returns; payment of tax and installments; assessments and determinations; penalties, interests and refunds; audits; inspections; objections and appeals; books and records; general issues, including the designation of a commissioner and the giving of notice; recovery of amounts owing, including the use of bonds; offences; and anti-avoidance rules.

The bill also introduces amendments that complete technical aspects of the act. Finally, these amendments to the LNG Income Tax Act contained in the bill clarify a number of issues, including several key

definitions and the application of transfer pricing rules.

The bill also amends the Income Tax Act to ensure that the amount of the natural gas tax credit is equal to 0.5 percent of the cost of the natural gas at the inlet to the LNG facility, as determined under the LNG Income Tax Act, plus a prescribed percentage. It also amends the administrative provisions of the Income Tax Act to recognize the natural gas tax credit — lots of technical provisions. Again, to my friend the critic, I certainly want to assure that we’ll make time available for a briefing.

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

Bill 26, Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 25 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Thomson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Thomson: I am pleased to introduce legislation that will address a number of important legislative issues. Specifically, the act will address legislative gaps in the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, the Land Act, the Land Surveyors Act and the Land Title Act.

Changes to the Forest Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act will enhance the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales operations and act upon the recommendations from the B.C. Timber Sales effectiveness review. The changes will encourage more accurate timber pricing, help B.C. Timber Sales generate more revenue and improve overall business practices.

Specifically, the changes will increase the competitiveness in the industry and support the accurate pricing of Crown timber by allowing non-B.C. Timber Sales licensees to provide timbers to B.C. Timber Sales for auction, improve the marketability of lower quality beetle-killed timber by equalizing the financial risk associated with cruise-based and scale-based timber sale licences, generate revenue by allowing B.C. Timber Sales to recover unamortized value Crown assets, provide forest management services to licensees and government organizations, and support sustainable forest management and market access by empowering B.C. Timber Sales to enforce its environmental management system.

In June 2013 the Premier directed my ministry to review the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales, and this was carried out in two phases. Phase 1 set a clear goal for B.C. Timber Sales to provide price and cost data for the market pricing system based on auctions of timber harvested from timber land. Phase 2 included recommendations designed to improve the effectiveness of B.C. Timber Sales and ensure that it is well positioned to deliver on its role. The legislative amendments address many of these recommendations.

Another proposed change to the Forest Act will once again allow for the transfer of pulpwood agreements. These are non-replaceable volume-based tenures that provide a secure fibre supply to large-scale pulp mills.

The province is also proposing changes to the Land Act to make it easier to regulate and manage low-impact community, recreational, industrial and commercial activity on Crown land.

[1350]

The proposed changes will streamline the application process and give government the authority to identify area-specific, low-impact activities, like camping and organized events, that are exempt from the application process. As well, government will be able to close areas as required and create special application requirements for sensitive or high-use areas.

Government has not substantially reviewed the Land Act in 40 years. The Land Surveyors Act change will help the province…

Page 6942

Madame Speaker: Minister, it’s time to move the motion.

Hon. S. Thomson: …move this association into consistency with other professional associations in the province.

Madame Speaker: Minister, it’s time to move the motion.

Hon. S. Thomson: At the same time, the province is proposing amendments to the Land Act to streamline provincial service fees by reducing the number of categories in

schedule 2 of the act.

Madame Speaker: Move the motion.

Hon. S. Thomson: I move that the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the Legislature after today.

Bill 25, Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 21 — FISH AND SEAFOOD ACT

Hon. N. Letnick presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Fish and Seafood Act.

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the Fish and Seafood Act be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Letnick: I am happy to cede some of my time to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Today I’m pleased to introduce the Fish and Seafood Act. The act will replace the Fisheries Act and the Fish Inspection Act, both of which are very old acts, and much of their content dates back to the ’50s and ’60s. Updating and consolidating these two statutes continues the ministry’s progress on modernizing legislation, much of which is very old.

The new Fish and Seafood Act applies to fish and aquatic plants that are produced and processed for consumption in B.C. Federal regulations govern those facilities producing seafood products for the export markets.

The new Fish and Seafood Act sets out higher levels of accountability for those people engaged in food production of fish and aquatic plants and higher penalties for those persons that contravene the act. The new act regulates a range of activities, from growing and harvesting of aquatic plants to receiving, selling, storing, transporting and processing of aquatic plants and fish. The act does not regulate the aquaculture of marine finfish, because that is now a federal responsibility.

The Fish and Seafood Act is another important step for the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure the production of safe food and supports the ministry’s goal of prioritizing seafood as an important agricultural product. I, of course, offer the two critics and independents a technical briefing if they would like one.

I move that the Fish and Seafood Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 21, Fish and Seafood 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.

BILL M211 — ELECTRONIC

PETITIONS ACT, 2015

J. Shin presented a bill intituled Electronic Petitions Act, 2015.

J. Shin: I move the introduction of the Electronic Petitions Act for its first reading.

Motion approved.

J. Shin: It is with much optimism that I reintroduce to the House for the third time this bill to offer British Columbians cost-effective and accessible means to promote public awareness on legislative issues and participate in parliamentary processes by having this assembly recognize and accept electronically submitted petitions.

Signatories will provide their name, phone number, mailing and e-mail addresses to validate their identities on line, thus making the electronic submissions of petitions a low-barrier complement to the existing practice of paper petitions in this House.

The Internet has been an increasingly large part of our lives for more than three decades. As legislators, we must acknowledge the permanent changes in how we communicate now with today’s technology, and we cannot continue to fall behind in the necessary modernization of our democratic traditions.

Many jurisdictions have already successfully instituted e-petition reforms to their governments. In the United States, the United Kingdom and here in Canada, in Quebec and, most notably, the House of Commons earlier this month, where NDP MP Kennedy Stewart’s proposal on e-petitions was passed unanimously.

This is a bill that presents to us not just a low-cost opportunity to complement the existing e-democracy measures in place to improve civic engagement at a time of growing voter apathy, but this is also a low-stakes platform for the members of the Legislative Assembly to have far-reaching implications in demonstrating to the public

Page 6943

that partisan differences can be set aside to support a truly modernizing act.

[1355]

I earnestly look forward, with keen interest, to the government in the coming months for deliberation and support on this bill as we continue to explore economic ways to evolve our parliamentary institution with the digital era for today’s voters.

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

Bill M211, Electronic Petitions Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M212 — FAIRNESS IN

FINANCING LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ELECTIONS ACT, 2015

M. Farnworth presented a bill intituled Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2015.

M. Farnworth: I move introduction of the Fairness in Financing Local Government Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

M. Farnworth: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the second time the Fairness in Financing Local Government Act. This act will amend the local government financing act to restrict campaign donations in local government elections solely to individuals, effectively banning political donations by organizations. This bill would eliminate some of the challenges we have witnessed in local elections throughout British Columbia.

New Democrats recognize running in local elections has become quite costly in many communities. However, we believe that removing the perceived conflicts that come with large donations from unions and corporations would do much to enhance the fairness of elections.

The principles of fairness and access to the democratic process require that there is a level playing field for all who choose to put their name forward to run for office. Eliminating corporate and union donations from the process and only permitting individual donations is one way to ensure fairness.

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

Bill M212, Fairness in Financing Local Government Elections Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M213 — CAMPAIGN FINANCE

REFORM ACT, 2015

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2015.

G. Holman: I move introduction of the Campaign Finance Reform Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce the Campaign Finance Reform Act as one of the last in a series of private members’ bills to make elections fairer and government more accountable in British Columbia. The Campaign Finance Reform Act is a bill designed to improve transparency in election financing and increase election fairness by banning corporate and union donations to political campaigns.

Everyone knows that it costs money to run a campaign. However, while other provinces and the federal government have passed strict guidelines regarding the role of big money in politics, B.C. lags behind in making such reforms. Many British Columbians are concerned that political donations by large organizations can result in undue political influence. It’s one reason why many are losing faith in our democratic process, as evidenced by declining voter participation rates.

This bill, which empowers individual voters, would help reverse this trend and strengthen our democracy by creating a more level playing field for candidates and political parties. It will also provide greater transparency by attaching donations to individuals. This bill also provides for review of B.C. campaign financing by the Chief Electoral Officer, which could result in recommendations for further reforms.

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

Bill M213, Campaign Finance Reform Act, 2015, 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)

SEA TO SKY TRAIL

J. Sturdy: Trails build community, and in the case of the Sea to Sky, the community has been hard at work.

Today I’d like to share a story about a community initiative called the Sea to Sky Trail. The Sea to Sky Trail connects Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton and beyond to the Birkenhead, Anderson Lake and the St’át’imc territory.

The heritage of this route can be traced back to origins of the trade route between the Coast Salish and the Interior

Page 6944

Salish people, but a formal trail was actually first constructed by a fledgling province of British Columbia as a cattle route through to the interior. It proved somewhat too vigorous and was eventually abandoned. As a trail, it was reinvented in the 1990s but really took hold and reflected that grand national vision of the Trans Canada Trail in the 2000s.

Today over 100 kilometres of a 180-kilometre Sea to Sky Trail route is complete. Much of this multi-use, type 2 trail is accessible and takes you from the harbour of Squamish through the Cheakamus Canyon to Brandywine, Cal-Cheak, Whistler and north of Parkhurst and WedgeWoods.

[1400]

Since 2005 the trail has been operated by the Squamish-Lillooet regional district in partnership with the three municipalities and the Squamish and Lil’wat First Nations. The trail is an amazing addition to the region and has gained a world-class reputation as a destination suitable for day hikes, multiday excursions and, of course, the ubiquitous mountain bike.

The latest addition to the system, scheduled to be completed later on this year, is the friendship trail. This

section of the Sea to Sky Trail bridges the Lillooet River and connects the communities of Mount Currie and Pemberton. The Sea to Sky Trail system hopes to eventually provide non-motorized access all the way to Lillooet in the north and a water route south from Squamish to Horseshoe Bay.

Madame Speaker, there are many access points along the trail, so whether you have a couple of days or a couple of hours, I’m sure you know that time on the trail is never wasted.

WOUNDED WARRIORS AND

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

L. Popham: I rise today to congratulate Wounded Warriors Canada and all of the participants in the 2015 Wounded Warrior Run B.C. The warriors have just completed a 600-kilometre run down the length of Vancouver Island. A central goal of the Wounded Warriors is to raise awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder.

PTSD is a medically well-established neurological condition. Like many other serious injuries, PTSD requires preventative action, scientific research and effective treatment. PTSD, however, is different from most other injuries in one way: its very existence has been discounted, dismissed or even denied. The effect of this has terribly worsened the impact of PTSD on those who suffer from it.

It is important to note that those suffering from PTSD are often, like the veterans joining us here today, the very people we ask to protect us from harm, to fight for us around the world, to put their own safety at risk. The very nature of what they do makes them vulnerable to severe trauma and therefore to developing PTSD.

The people of B.C. and, in fact, all of Canada owe a debt of gratitude to the Wounded Warriors. Their work is advancing a progressive shift in consciousness. When the soldiers among us can show their weakness and their vulnerabilities, then we see what courage truly is. In removing the stigma of PTSD, they’re helping not only veterans but first responders, those on the front lines — anyone who has been emotionally devastated by traumatic incidents.

Today our entire Legislative Assembly honours the Wounded Warriors and thanks them for transforming their pain and injuries into a societal change that will benefit others for generations.

DIETITIANS

J. Thornthwaite: Today is Dietitians Day in the Legislature. As a former dietitian, it gives me great pleasure to recognize B.C.’s registered dietitians and the critical role they play in improving health outcomes and quality of life for British Columbians.

Registered dietitians are nutrition specialists, holding bachelor’s degrees and educated in science, human development and the health of populations. They’re the only regulated nutrition professionals in Canada. They use their knowledge to improve the health of their patients by translating nutrition information into practical advice and helping clients to take control of their health, make healthy food choices and prevent chronic illness. They work in a variety of settings, from hospitals to community health centres to home care, and help government by providing policy direction for nutrition programs provincewide.

To support their efforts to improve awareness of healthy eating and preventative care, our government started healthy families B.C., a public health program that focuses on building and supporting healthy behaviours through tools like the Informed Dining program, Sugary Drink Sense and Shopping Sense.

The services at HealthLink also provide the public with easy access to registered dietitians simply by calling 811 or e-mailing healthlinkbc.ca. These services are offered in more than 130 languages and provide help for people looking to manage chronic conditions or answer questions on topics such as meal planning, allergies and infant nutrition.

Registered dietitians are at the forefront of nutrition education. Through their efforts, we are designing health plans that are tailored to individuals’ needs and are also providing British Columbians with the necessary information to fight chronic illness and malnutrition.

I ask the House to join me in thanking them for helping our province make healthier decisions in the supermarket and at the table.

[1405]

Page 6945

HEALTH AND WELFARE

OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH

C. Trevena: Kids are our future. We all say that, and I hope that we all believe it, but if that is the case, we have to take the state of our young people seriously.

Campbell River is doing just that. Success By 6 and the Campbell River Area Family Network have issued a report on the state of the child to bring greater awareness of the early years and to spur people into action.

The findings are stark: 22.8 percent of children younger than six live in poverty in the community. In one month alone, the Campbell River Food Bank fed more than 481 children — that means families whose income is too low to pay their hydro, pay their rent, pay their MSP and get food on the table. To put that into further perspective, Island Health costs a nutritional food basket at $948 a month.

The report also looks at health and wellness of our youth. Troublingly, early intervention programs have long wait-lists. For speech and language services, 76 kids are being seen, but the wait-list is 53. There are no occupational therapists, so 67 families are waiting for help, and two staff deal with 97 youngsters in infant development.

There are wait-lists for child care. When parents get it, there’s a hefty fee. A family with two children younger than five can be paying up to $1,750 a month.

The statistics may be depressing, but they are a call to action. In Campbell River now there’s a lobby for a living wage in the community and a demand for affordable housing. People are working on food security, so kids don’t have to depend on food banks and school meal programs.

There’s a call for better funding for early intervention and a strong voice for $10-a-day child care. The early-years community is also working on a children’s charter. Campbell River has a seniors charter and a youth charter. Now it wants to join other communities with a children’s charter, based on the UN rights of the child, developed with the children of Campbell River for those who are our most valuable resource: our kids, our future.

COLORECTAL CANCER

Moira Stilwell: Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in the nation but interestingly is one of a few cancers that can be impacted by medical screening.

The risk of developing colorectal cancer increases with age, with more than 90 percent of cases occurring in Canadians aged 50 or older. Building prevention and early detection awareness is key to reducing mortality rates, but many find talking about this disease too uncomfortable.

There’s still a stigma and much embarrassment surrounding bathroom diseases such as colorectal cancer, but now is a great time to change that. March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, a chance for patients, caregivers and survivors to tell their stories, offer hope to others, spread the word on available treatments and create a dialogue about a disease that’s preventable, treatable and beatable.

Our province is a leader in cancer prevention and detection, and in 2013 we rolled out the colon screening program, a tool to fight cancer to save lives by focusing on primary care.

The screening program helps general practitioners refer patients between the ages of 50 and 74 for a screening test and also connects patients who have been referred for a colonoscopy with the health authority coordinator, who will provide information, support and encouragement.

There are often no symptoms in this early stage of colorectal cancer, and that’s why initiatives like the colon screening program are so important. With early detection and treatment, the survival rate is nearly 90 percent.

This month I encourage British Columbians aged 50 and up to talk to their doctor about cancer prevention and colon screening options and to help spread the word, because conversations can save lives.

BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Dalton: They are handmade. They are gluten-free. They contain no artificial anything, and best of all, they taste so good and come in nine mouth-watering flavours.

I’m talking about Hardbite’s kettle-style, handcrafted potato chips. They’re made right in Maple Ridge. Last year the company, Naturally Home Grown Foods Ltd., was selected as one of the top ten innovators in the country by the food processing industry’s magazine Food in Canada — just one example of the many innovators doing business where I live.

Maple Ridge is ranked No. 2 for the third year in a row as one of the province’s top investment towns. It also placed No. 5 in all of Canada for the same reason. Maple Ridge knows how to get it done.

We’ve got a company in Maple Ridge that is the world’s leading manufacturer of uniquely-shaped, high-quality ceramic tap handles. The handiwork of Chrislan Ceramics is at work every day in pubs and restaurants around the globe, wherever a bartender grabs a tap handle on the keg to draw a glass of beer.

[1410]

Maple Ridge is also a filmmaker’s dream. With one-stop service for film industry and some of the most beautiful scenery and settings, the area has been used as a backdrop for many productions. Coming soon, a new studio is being opened in downtown Maple Ridge.

The east end is home to AdvanTec and Advanced Flow Systems. The company manufactures massive and

Page 6946

complex products, including piping, pressure vessels, tanks and modules used in most of B.C.’s major industries. Business is booming, and they plan to double their workforce.

Over half of Metro Vancouver’s available space for industrial growth is found in Maple Ridge, and this city is open for business.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF B.C. TREATY

COMMISSION CHIEF COMMISSIONER

AND STATUS OF TREATY PROCESS

J. Horgan: Partnerships require trust. Treaty-making absolutely requires trust. When you have three parties involved in making decisions that affect the people of British Columbia, that affect First Nations, that affect working people and that affect investment, you need to have some confidence that everybody at the table is playing with the same deck of cards.

For the past number of months — in fact, for the past six months — the federal government, the First Nations, the Treaty Commission itself and, we thought, the province of British Columbia were all on the same page with respect to who would be the next chief commissioner for the treaty process in British Columbia.

So 25 years of commitment by successive governments, federal and provincial, by successive leaders within the First Nations community in British Columbia all came apart with one moment of pettiness by the government of British Columbia.

My question to the Premier is: why in the world, after the behaviour of the provincial government with respect to treaty-making in British Columbia, with respect to certainty on the land base so we can grow our economy, so we can see social justice after generations of neglect…? Why in the world would you torpedo it now?

Hon. C. Clark: First, let me congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for once talking about wanting to grow the economy. That’s a big step. We all appreciate that on this side of the House.

Second, let me say that in the last four years we have concluded something like 250 agreements with First Nations, working to make sure that we are finding our way to certainty on the land base. It’s an absolute priority for us. We met with First Nations leaders in September last year, in the fall of last year — a historic meeting. All First Nations chiefs across the province attended, as did all the cabinet and all deputy ministers.

One of the things that became very clear in our discussions, and has become very clear in our discussions with First Nations, is that with only about 50 of about 200 First Nations in the process and treaty-making moving extremely slowly — much too slowly — most First Nations, many First Nations don’t believe the process is working.

We need to find a way to remake the treaty process and make it one that is going to move quickly, one that is going to move efficiently and one that is going to instil the confidence of First Nations and all Canadians so that we can get to conclusion.

The opposition are among those who’ve recognized that the treaty-making process as it currently stands is not meeting the needs of First Nations either. We need to work together with First Nations in redefining what that new future will look like, understanding how we will remake the treaty process.

We’ve decided to do that. We’re going to move forward and make sure that treaty-making is something that can come to conclusion, and good conclusion, for First Nations in British Columbia.

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

J. Horgan: I don’t know why anyone in British Columbia would believe a word that comes out of the mouth of the Premier when it comes to making good on commitments that previous governments have made.

She says there was a meeting in September. In October, on the 17th of October, the First Nations Summit ratified George Abbott to be the chief commissioner. I don’t know who she’s been talking to, but it certainly has not been the Treaty Commission. It has not been the First Nations Summit.

We all agree that we can accelerate the process in the interests of the economy, in the interests of social justice, but how, in this new direction that the Premier talks about, is it going forward when you waste six months? You waste goodwill and you break trust going backwards. That’s not a project that I want to be part of. That’s not a project that First Nations will agree to.

[1415]

Respectfully, to the Premier: what in the world were you thinking? Why are you so petty that you push George Abbott under a bus rather than saying to George: “We need to go in another direction. Let’s work together to get to where we all want to be”? That’s leadership. What you did was petty.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

Hon. C. Clark: Again, I am sure that Mr. Abbott would also be delighted to hear the Leader of the Opposition standing up and speaking to his competence and his confidence. For once in this House we see some recognition on the part of the opposition of a member who served with distinction in previous cabinets as well as in my cabinet.

George Abbott concluded a deal with the B.C. Teachers Federation for two years, on the eve of an election, that

Page 6947

was affordable for taxpayers. George Abbott introduced the learning improvement fund, which has gone a long way to improving conditions for kids in schools. He established terrific relationships with school trustees across the province, and he’s served our province with tremendous distinction.

The question that government had before it was: do we invest in the status quo, a status quo that has yielded very small results for a very large expense, a status quo that if we carry on the way that we have been, will mean that we end up with the province and First Nations covered by treaties in about a century from now? That is too slow.

What government decided is that we needed to move away from investing in the status quo and find a new path, which is what we promised we would do with First Nations — to work together and to define that future jointly — so that we can ensure the treaty process and other processes that support economic development through agreement-making work for First Nations in a timely way.

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

J. Horgan: I have a supplemental, hon. Speaker. When George Abbott phoned me after he had been approved by the summit, after he’d been given the thumbs-up from the federal government, after he was recruited by your Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, I gave him my unqualified support because he is qualified for the job. And I have to say that were I to get a call from anyone else asking about the credibility and the competence of the Premier, I would not give the same answer.

It’s not just George Abbott. It’s not just the Treaty Commission. There are First Nations across this province that have invested time, energy and resources and hope in a tripartite process that was established 25 years ago by people who had vision, vision for a British Columbia that included all British Columbians — not a petty British Columbia that tried to fix political scores at the expense of investment, at expense of social justice.

This is not a laughing matter. The Premier thinks it’s another night at Yuk Yuk’s. She thinks this is Comedy Central. These are people’s lives. It’s the livelihoods of people working in resource communities, and you’re going to blow it up, because you’re petty.

My question to the Premier is: will you do the right thing? Show some leadership and appoint George Abbott to lead the Treaty Commission. Do it today.

Madame Speaker: I would caution all members that remarks are through the Chair.

[1420]

Hon. C. Clark: I’m going to quote this member’s predecessor as leader, who said: “I think the treaty process is too slow, and I would like to see it improved. I will give a lot of energy to that personally, should I be elected Premier.”

Now, George Abbott was a big part of making sure that that leader and other potential leaders across the way never were elected Premier. We all owe a great debt of thanks to George Abbott for helping make sure that that was the case.

The process that the member is speaking so passionately to defend is one that has produced four modern treaties after 22 years at a cost of over $600 million.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. C. Clark: It’s produced four modern treaties over the course of 22 years at the cost of $600 million. This is the process that the member gets up and so passionately defends.

Yes, it was a process that was founded under an NDP government. It was a process that many people have worked diligently and with great heart to make work. The status quo has not produced the results that we all hoped that it would, and as I said, if it carries on the way that it has, in a century we will have concluded treaties with all First Nations in the province.

First Nations have waited long enough. It is time for us to find certainty in British Columbia. It’s time for us to chart a new course for treaty-making across the province so that we can get there faster, we can get there more fairly, and we can get there and assure certainty and economic sustainability, not just for First Nations but for people all across the province.

S. Fraser: It’s become clear over the last week that even the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation was surprised by the Premier’s sudden, unprecedented decision to pull Mr. Abbott’s appointment at the last minute.

Another of the Premier’s ministers, senior cabinet ministers, the Minister of Health, said he too was taken by surprise. When asked, he could only say: “I haven’t been an intimate part of those discussions. That surprised me.”

If she didn’t consult with the minister responsible or with at least one of her most senior ministers or with the treaty partners or with the current chief commissioner, Sophie Pierre, who did she consult with before making this damning decision?

Hon. C. Clark: The cabinet committee on First Nations has been working since the summer of last year diligently. It’s a committee that I personally chair of cabinet to make sure that we are working to close the gap with First Nations.

Page 6948

As many people have observed, including the Leader of the Opposition, the Tsilhqot’in, in 25 or 30 years in court, achieved a decision on title that could have come from the treaty process but didn’t, because the treaty process is not working as everyone hoped it would. Four modern treaties over 22 years at the cost of $600 million, and the opposition is saying they would like the government and the citizens of British Columbia to continue to invest in the status quo. Our answer is no.

We need to make sure that we find a new path to treaty-making. We have heard that from First Nations leaders across the province. When we met with them last year in the historic All Chiefs meeting, we certainly heard that loud and clear. Only 50 First Nations out of the more than 200 in the province are currently even at any stage in the process. It needs to be fixed. We need to redefine what treaty-making is, and we need to redefine the path to get there. We will do it together with First Nations.

Madame Speaker: The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The Premier is obviously….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the answer and the question.

[1425]

S. Fraser: The Premier is obviously unaware that the minister has worn out that message box. It’s irrelevant and stale.

This inexplicable decision came out of thin air. To be clear, Mr. Abbott’s appointment was pulled at the very last minute — after the province recruited Mr. Abbott last September, proposing him as the candidate to the partners in the treaty process and agreeing with the partners that he was the best person for the job; after the First Nations Summit met and passed a resolution supporting the appointment and sent that approval to the province last October; and after five more months went by with absolutely no indication from government that there were any concerns with this appointment.

She didn’t talk to the minister responsible. She didn’t talk to her treaty partners. She didn’t talk to Mr. Abbott certainly. To the Premier, who did she talk to before making this devastating decision?

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Abbott is an eminently qualified individual who has served this government and this province with distinction…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …for over 20 years. But government decided that in light of what we’d heard from First Nations and what we saw was happening in the treaty process — frankly, what was not happening in the treaty process — it was time to take a different direction and, as we promised First Nations we would, work together to define a new way of making treaties, to find a way to come down a different path, one that will yield us more than something like four treaties in 22 years at the cost of $600 million.

We need to find a better way, because waiting a century — which is what that member would propose, if we stick with the status quo, and what the Leader of the Opposition would propose — is not good enough. We need to do better. We need to find a different process. We’re going to continue to do that. We’re going to work hand in hand with First Nations, and we will travel down that path together.

C. James: We’ve spent this week in the House listening to various government members try to explain the inexplicable. Now it’s pretty clear that the Premier has joined that parade. She’s thrown the treaty process into turmoil and damaged the trust between treaty partners, which has a direct impact on the economy in British Columbia.

Thousands of businesses operating in this province, treaty First Nations and the public expect their Premier to show leadership on one of the most critical issues facing British Columbia. Instead, the Premier chose to dump Mr. Abbott and won’t come clean on the reason.

So a very straightforward question to the Premier. Will the Premier tell us why she rejected Mr. Abbott?

Hon. C. Clark: What government did is decide that we needed to find a new path to treaty-making. And rather than investing in the status quo, which has yielded so little for the people of the province…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. C. Clark: …and which has yielded not enough for First Nations, we recognized that we needed to find a different way to go about making treaties, to redefine what treaties are and to find a way to make sure that more First Nations are involved in the process.

Having 50 out of over 200 First Nations engaged in the process at some stage, many of them at the very earliest stage, is not enough. It is not going to get us to certainty. So while the members were very happy to last week criticize the treaty process — say it’s not working, say that they would change it, say that they don’t like the status quo — today they will stand up and defend it.

We need to be brave in going into the future and finding a new path with First Nations that will garner certainty

Page 6949

for them, economic sustainability and fairness in British Columbia. That is what we intend to do, and we intend to do it hand in hand with First Nations.

CORONER’S INQUEST INTO

LAKELAND MILLS EXPLOSION

AND CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

S. Simpson: Today in Prince George the chief coroner adjourned indefinitely the inquest into the deaths of Glen Roche and Alan Little, who died in the Lakeland explosion. We know that this happened as of last week, when it became apparent through testimony that there was a major private investigation done for the company of the explosion and that that was not disclosed to the inquest.

[1430]

It only became apparent through testimony last week, very late in the inquest process. A number of lawyers have been very clear in their concern and frustration about that, indicating that had they had that information, it may well have changed the nature of the inquest up to that point — to the point where the Steelworkers have withdrawn now from the inquest, saying that they’ve lost confidence in its ability to answer questions.

Today we also learned that the coroner’s counsel has said that he’s become aware that WorkSafe knew about this private investigation for two years. The question here is…. This becomes a major breach of trust that WorkSafe would be aware of critical information and chose not ensure it was disclosed at the start of the inquest.

My question is to the Premier or to the minister — to whomever. You’ve done significant investigation — Mr. Macatee. The Premier’s right hand, Mr. Dyble, investigated WorkSafe on these matters. Was the government aware of this private investigation? Were they aware that WorkSafe had this information?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite would know well that this matter has been very difficult for families. I know he has spent time in Prince George with those families, as have I. This is a very difficult period of time for them. We’ve said from the very beginning that we want this inquest to get to the bottom of what happened here, to find the facts. We are very, very sorry for what families have had to experience.

I can tell the member opposite that we have said from the beginning that the coroner has broad-ranging powers, and you can see from what happened today, that that is exactly what she is exercising. She is going to work through this process. We are certainly not going to intervene or interject ourselves into this discussion.

There is a process underway. The coroner has her work to complete, and we’re not going to speculate on the outcomes. We will wait for the recommendations and at that point take actions on those recommendations.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Hastings on a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The notion of this inquest as the vehicle to get to answers has been called into question by the families, by the workers, by the opposition. We have called for an independent inquiry because we believe that was the only way to get there. What we’re learning now just reinforces that call. The question here….

The inquest is supposed to get answers. We now know the company has its own interests, and they have protected those at the inquest. It’s now becoming painfully clear that WorkSafe has its own interests, and they appear to be protecting those at the inquest, maybe at the expense of the coroner being able to get those answers, and that’s wrong.

In October the widows of the four men who died at Babine and Lakeland wrote to the Premier. They asked the Premier for an independent inquiry. The Premier responded and said that that wasn’t going to happen and said that this inquest would get there. We now know the inquest is in serious trouble. We know that the parties are not looking to find solutions here.

The question is to the Premier. Will she reconsider her decision, and approach an independent inquiry now into both the explosions so the families can have some closure on this issue once and for all?

Hon. S. Bond: The coroner is doing exactly what one would expect her to do in the inquest. The issues are complex. They are very difficult for family members to sit through, and we certainly recognize that. But for the member opposite to stand up and suggest that the inquest is in trouble….

The coroner has made it clear she is going to work her way through the process. She’s also made it clear that she expects the information to be shared, and that is going to occur. That’s exactly what is taking place.

[1435]

To the member opposite’s questions, the coroner is using the powers that she has to ensure that all of the information has been made public.

I can make it very clear to the member opposite that my expectations of WorkSafe have been made extremely clear. We have worked through the process in terms of improving workplace safety in this province through the Macatee report, and we have made it very clear to WorkSafe that they are expected to cooperate, be collaborative and participate in this process fully.

H. Bains: Babine mill families have been in Prince George to offer support to the Lakeland workers. They have witnessed firsthand how the process is failing them. Maureen Luggi, who lost her husband in the Burns Lake explosion, says this: “The families were assured by the chief coroner, Lisa Lapointe, that the coroner’s inquest is

Page 6950

the proper venue for us to get answers. As I attended the inquest in support of my friend Rhonda Roche, I have noted that the families are not receiving the answers they need. In fact, there are more questions than answers.”

To the Premier, doesn’t Rhonda Roche deserve to know the truth about the events that led to her husband’s death?

Hon. S. Bond: There is not a single member of this Legislature that doesn’t care about what happened to those families — not a single one.

We have said clearly that the inquest needs to take place and that the coroner has broad-reaching powers. What you saw today was an example of the coroner determined to use those powers to ensure the information that is required to provide recommendations about ensuring worker safety in this province — that those recommendations are brought forward and that they will be acted upon.

We need to let this process continue. We recognize how difficult it must be. None of us can put ourselves in those families’ shoes. We can only begin to imagine how difficult this is. The coroner is conducting the inquest. She is working to ensure that all of the information that is relevant is brought forward. We are not going to speculate on the outcomes or the recommendations. We will await the end of this process.

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY

INTO MILL EXPLOSIONS

A. Dix: What we’re talking about today, to quote the coroner’s press release, is that WorkSafe B.C. has been aware for at least two years of the existence of a separate investigation that has been commissioned by the lawyers for the mill. They failed to disclose it. They report through the minister to this House. The minister is responsible for that. It has turned the inquest into a bit of a fiasco today — the lack of cooperation, not by anybody else but by the government through WorkSafe B.C.

In the days following the Lakeland explosion, the Premier personally went up and spoke to injured workers. She personally went up and talked to families. She promised accountability, and she promised justice. And what have we got? Botched investigations, unreleased reports, failure to pursue laws passed by parliament, finger-pointing between agencies, workers forced to extraordinary lengths to get the benefits that they deserve, a rejection of the family’s request for a public inquiry, a rejection of the family’s request for legal assistance. A total lack of accountability and justice for the families.

In her November 19 letter to Rhonda Roche the Premier said this: “You deserve answers. Your entire community deserves answers.” She added: “My thoughts and prayers are with you.” Well, pious words without action are not pious. Sympathetic words without action are not sympathetic. Glen Roche warned Lakeland about safety concerns before the explosion. Those words were not heeded, and Glen Roche and Al Little died.

[1440]

Will the Premier listen to the families today and call a full public inquiry into the Lakeland and Babine explosions?

Hon. S. Bond: As we have said continuously, we want to ensure that all of the information that helps prevent these kinds of tragedies from ever happening again…. The inquest that is currently underway…. The coroner is conducting the inquest using all of the broad powers that she has. She is going to continue to probe and to delve and to find the answers that are required.

While the member opposite might want to simply stand up and throw out the work that’s been done at the inquest, we are not prepared to intervene in an independent process which will result in recommendations to ensure that worker safety is improved in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. S. Bond: We’re going to let the coroner do her work. We are going to continue to make sure that as the recommendations come forward, additional action will be taken.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

K. Corrigan: I rise to present a petition from the Alliance of B.C. Students, a petition signed by 3,000 University of Victoria students who say they are signing this petition asking the B.C. government to join the rest of Canada and re-establish a provincial needs-based grants program.

B.C., they say, needs to realign its investment priorities and make post-secondary education accessible to all British Columbians, regardless of socioeconomic status. They also say that B.C. is the only province in Canada without a needs-based grants program and charges the highest interest rate on student loans in the country.

M. Elmore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’d like to welcome two grade 11 school classes from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School. They’re

Page 6951

accompanied by their social studies teachers Bonnie Burnell and Auton Lum; Cecil Baird, the librarian; Maria Macdonald; and also the counsellor, Wendy Higenbottam; and parents Susie Martins, Ms. Lee Trong, Mai Lee and Kelly Read — who also happens to be my amazing constituency assistant.

There are two dynamic classes from grade 11; the Tupper Tigers; and also members from the senior rugby team, the successful senior boys who placed second in the province. Also, to let everybody know, Tupper has the best dancers in the province. Please make them welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. In this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 13.

[1445]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:46 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe just to get things going, I can introduce the very able people that are here to assist us as we go through a fairly technical piece of legislation. Jordan Goss, Sean O’Melinn, David Sherwood, Devon Windsor and Jeffrey Krasnick are all here to assist us. I’ll await my friends’ questions.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

C. James: Thanks to the minister, and thanks to the staff who are here. I think, as we’ve chatted with the minister, the main questions will come on one particular

section of the bill — when we get to

section 23, around ICBC, etc.

Just a couple of straightforward questions. On

section 2 it talks about the carbon tax providing, if one or more persons are subject to the same tax…. I wonder if the minister could tell me what occurs now. What changes does this amendment bring in, compared to the situation currently?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the significant change here is that the principle of joint and several liability does not exist today. This

section imports that, from a collections point of view.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

C. James: A similar kind of question. These next sections — 4, 5, 6 and 7 — all speak to a bond. They all speak to providing a bond. Again, my question would be: is that a change? What happens currently, and why is the change coming in now?

Hon. M. de Jong: In this case, it’s not a change to this extent. It’s part of the application process now. This creates an explicit authority for it — so from a practical point of view, not a change, but a specific legal authority incorporated into the act to support the practice that is already in place.

C. James: Could the minister tell me what authority exists now?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are general provisions that contemplate the requirement of bonds. The other aspect of this that is important to note is explicitly to allow for the making of the appointment subject to other conditions or limitations. The creation of that additional power around the creation of conditions is new to the section.

C. James: Just so I’m clear, then, the authority existed, but specific conditions have been added, through this authority, that have made the changes in this bill?

[1450]

Hon. M. de Jong: I did not explain that well to the committee or the member.

What was relied upon previously under subsection 16(1)(

b) was the general power around the imposition of conditions. That existed. It was not very explicit. What is being added is the very specific authority such that it will no longer be necessary to rely on the somewhat more cryptic provision contained in sub (b).

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

C. James: A similar kind of question on

section 8. I think it just helps for the public, as well, to understand why the changes are being brought forward.

I wonder if the minister could just talk about what provisions are currently in place and how this changes the provisions around collecting the tax. So what changes, from previously, with this amendment?

Page 6952

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll perhaps do this in pieces, so I don’t muck it up.

The provision for the writing off of bad debts exists. It exists presently. The most significant addition relates to the four-year period for the writing off of a debt, which then triggers some other things. That four-year period actually represents something of a defined benefit for agencies that find themselves in that position. It is the addition of the four-year period that is probably most significant in terms of the sections that already exist.

C. James: Is there no term currently, at all? You mentioned the four years. Is there a current term? Or is the four years new, in putting a specific term in?

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. In fact, in the existing provision, there was no defined period, which did leave it unclear. We’ll come to some provisions later that relate to the refund mechanism, but for the write-off period, there is in the existing act no specific period enumerated.

C. James: Could the minister tell me why a four-year period was chosen? If there wasn’t a determined time in there previously, why was four years chosen?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised that that is consistent with provisions under the provincial sales tax.

[1455]

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

C. James: Again, a question on the changes. As the minister mentioned, some of these make some significant changes; some of them are simply housekeeping or catching up with other acts. Similarly on

section 12, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the current process is around someone in bankruptcy and how this changes that in this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: Perhaps the most significant dimension to what is before the House with respect to

section 12 is found in subsection 51(1.2), which is the amendment that authorizes the director to “issue a notice of assessment to the custodian or trustee in bankruptcy of a person in relation to whom the director has made an estimate or assessment.” That specific authority, again, does not presently exist in the act, and the act is deficient in respect of ensuring that that specific authority exists.

C. James: This authority directly relates to bankruptcy. Are there other pieces — and perhaps we’ll come to them as we go through committee stage — of authority that were left out of the act that are included in this piece around the carbon tax and that are coming forward?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not certain that I understood the question. If the hon. member is referring to these provisions or in general terms, I’ll let her clarify.

C. James: I’m speaking specifically to the Carbon Tax Act and authority in the Carbon Tax Act. The minister mentioned that this section, 12, comes forward because the authority wasn’t there and the act was found to be deficient, so this is being corrected.

Are there other pieces within the Carbon Tax Act where authority is an issue? Perhaps the minister will want to wait as we get through the committee stage, but are there specifics that the minister would like to mention that were also found deficient that are being corrected?

Hon. M. de Jong: A general answer. One of the themes that emerges throughout many of the pages and provisions with respect to the taxation statutes that we’re dealing with was the desire to clarify and specifically and explicitly enumerate authorities that may have existed in one but not others, and bring some parallel language. That’s a theme that exists throughout.

In the case of the carbon tax, the two examples that I’m advised of where we will see evidence of what we’re discussing today are with respect to lien provisions and with respect to something the member has already touched on — that is, the bonding provisions. So there are two general areas where the desire to bring consistency of language and explicit legislative authority will reveal themselves with respect to the Carbon Tax Act.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

[1500]

C. James: A similar kind of question on

section 15, which again talks about an amount owing if an assessment is increased on appeal as it goes forward with the carbon tax. Again, my question would be: what’s the current process, and how does this change for people who have had an appeal and have had the amount increased?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I get this wrong, I will be the first to try to correct myself, based on the ample expertise here. A circumstance in which there has been an appeal by a taxpayer who, presumably, is appealing to have an amount owing reduced…. Instead, on appeal to the minister or minister’s designate, there is a determination that the amount owing is actually increased.

I am advised that under the existing provisions — and here’s a distinction that we come across occasionally in statutory instruments that I always find curious, but nonetheless, here it is — the authority exists to impose the requirement, impose the additional amount. There is, apparently, at present no parallel authority or requirement

Page 6953

for the taxpayer to pay the additional amount, which is an interesting gap. Nonetheless, this is intended to address….

I am also advised that after conducting a search thus far in the life of the taxation regime that we are dealing with here, this has occurred once.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. Would this, then, prevent the government from having to go to court to then apply to be able to receive the amount or to mandate the taxpayer to pay the increased amount? Does this then give the authority to the government to say it’s a requirement?

Hon. M. de Jong: It has been confirmed for me that it would make enforcement difficult.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

C. James: This really is the

section where we have the largest number of questions, as we chatted with the minister about. This is the section, for the public who are watching, which deals with debt, debtor information and the collection of debtor information by government. I think we’ll have a number of questions on this particular section.

Just to start off with subsection 23(16.1)(1), which talks about some

definitions. It begins with the definition of a “collection officer.” It says: “request an appropriate officer or employee of a ministry to disclose debtor information….” It specifically talks about debtor information in the custody and control of the Ministry of Finance. It also refers, again within the

definitions, to a person within the Ministry of Finance “responsible for performing duties in relation to the collection of debts….”

We’ll get into talking a little bit more about the collection of debt and a contractor doing that, but this speaks specifically to the ministry. I wonder if the minister could tell us: are there staff currently responsible for collecting debt in the Ministry of Finance, and if there are, how many?

[1505]

Hon. M. de Jong: I have a good portion of the information. I will have to get a number, though, for the member in due course.

Within revenue division, the receivables management office is a

section dedicated to collections. What I will have to do for the member is secure an FTE count from the receivables management office as to the number of persons.

In addition to that, I am reminded that within the revenue solutions branch, there is a group of seven individuals who are also engaged directly in collections activities.

C. James: I wonder if the minister could tell us which office is responsible for the HP contract, where most of the debt collection — and we’ll talk a little more about the specifics on that — occurs.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m advised that is the revenue solutions branch that I just referred to.

C. James: Just so I’m clear, then, there are seven individuals in the ministry, in that branch, who also manage the HP contract that then collects debt in the community.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member is looking for specific answers, so I’ll try to be as specific as possible.

The branch is larger than the seven individuals I referred to. There are many other people engaged with HP Solutions, with respect to that contracted service. The seven individuals that I referred to are engaged in direct collections activity. So that’s the distinction that I’m trying to make.

C. James: Could the minister tell me what debts are currently collected, then, by the seven individuals within that branch? What areas of debt?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the significant feature that the member may be interested to learn, relative to the revenue solutions branch and the small subset of people that I’m referring to, is their duties are focused specifically on files that have evolved to a court collections process. I’m advised they run the gamut from court fines to defaulted student debt to MSP — the broad range of debt involving government. That small group would be focused on files that have evolved to involvement by the courts.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I know we’re jumping around a little bit. I know

section 24 speaks more to the kind of debt, and I’ll get to that.

Section 23 focuses more on the sharing of information and the expansion of the sharing of information.

[1510]

Just to set the context, I wonder if the minister could tell us what the ability of government to collect information and to share information — the ability of the Finance Ministry to do that — currently is, before we look at the changes.

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s an appropriate general question, so my answer will be somewhat general. Generally speaking, across a broad range of programming areas, the statutes that give rise to those programs or those agencies determine the types of information that are available to those agencies and, therefore, available for collections purposes.

In some cases the defining documents or defining statutes provide express guidance as to what the information

Page 6954

can be used for or express restrictions on what the information can be used for. In other circumstances they do not. So it’s a bit of a mixed bag right now.

Of course, there is also overriding legislation that governs the sharing of information. From a collections and debt collections point of view, perhaps the appropriate general comment at this stage is that it’s a bit of a mixed bag.

C. James: I’m guessing there’s an authority already to be able to share information collected. As the minister has pointed out, there are individuals within the ministry. There’s debt collected currently. That goes on. I’m guessing there’s already authority to share that information with private providers through the definition of who can share that information.

I am just clarifying that — that there is an ability within this legislation, and within the authority, to be able to share that information with HP collection. What if there was a new contractor? Is that authority basically there within the legislation that speaks to the definition of who can share the information?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, an important and appropriate general question.

[1515]

The challenge we’re trying to overcome, or the problem, if you will…. I suppose, to be fair, the problem, from the perspective of the state, does not present itself — maybe I’ll do this in reverse — in circumstances where an individual has been engaged in a particular program area, has applied for something or received something, provided information in exchange — name, address, location information. In those circumstances, in the event where a collection activity is required, there is generally not an issue making use of that information.

The general step that is being contemplated and attempted to be facilitated through these legislative provisions is a circumstance where a debt arises in a different program area where the more recent information about the debtor exists in a separate program area. There are today not just limitations on the use of the more recent relevant information but probably, in many cases, restrictions on the ability to even seek that information. I guess, at the end of the day, it can amount to the same thing.

It’s that impediment to taking advantage of the most recent and up-to-date information that, generally, the provisions are attempting to address.

C. James: It’s interesting, and I think the minister pointed out in an earlier question that it all depends on your perspective. Some people may see it as a challenge and a problem. Some people will see it as protection, protection of privacy, and that in fact those provisions are positive provisions to prevent government from sharing information that is inappropriate to be shared or shouldn’t be shared across ministries. I think that’s really the concern and really the worry in this section.

I just want to ask a few more questions, and then I’ll turn it over to my colleague to talk about some of the worries about freedom of information specifically.

Subsection 16.1(4). This really is, from my perspective, one of the most challenging pieces of this legislation, where it says: (

a) despite any provision of a non-tax enactment that requires a person to keep information…confidential, (

b) despite any agreement or representation made with respect to a program of the government that a person will keep information collected in relation to the program confidential.” This basically is a wide-ranging

section that allows the government to use any information, regardless of whether there was something signed that said that this information was only collected for the purpose of this program.

I wonder if the minister could talk about what kind of legal advice has been given. Not poking unnecessarily, but the government has had a number of cases come forward where breaking an agreement or breaking contracts has been a problem, and they faced legal action based on that. I wonder if the minister could talk about what kind of legal work was done to basically say that despite somebody signing a document that says at the bottom of the document, “I only give this information for this purpose,” this act and this

section will now override that. What impact will that have legally?

[1520]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, a couple of things that are relevant to her relevant question. First of all, in general terms, I would say to the member and the committee that by virtue of having presented the legislation and commended it to the committee and ultimately the House, I do so on the basis that I am satisfied, on the strength of the information and the rigid process that is undertaken as part of the drafting exercise, that the legislation is constitutional and will withstand legal scrutiny.

Beyond that, I can tell the member that work was undertaken with solicitors for FOIPPA, and that takes into account the fact that that legal regime contemplates and, I think, expressly allows for the sharing of information for specific debt collection processes.

I think, in terms of the provisions we’re dealing with, therein lies the very important distinction. Maybe this will help by providing a specific example. There are statutes on the books, for example, such as the Medicare Protection Act, which contain very necessary and very strong confidentiality provisions that prevent the sharing of information.

I would suggest that the purpose of those confidentiality provisions is specific to providing the highest possible levels of protection for sensitive information, personal health information. I would suggest to the member, having regard for other legislative provisions, that the sharing of information like a name and address falls into a

Page 6955

different category.

I think the member has fairly highlighted a difference of opinion or attitude that may exist, and that some in society may have, that any information received by the state for a particular purpose, for a particular program, should remain sacrosanct and not available for sharing for any other purpose, including a debt collection exercise.

Clearly, I and the government do not share that absolute view. But I would go further and say that, on the strength of the work that has been undertaken with solicitors for FOIPPA and provisions within that legislative regime itself, I can say with some confidence that it is contemplated and has been contemplated that information could and, indeed, should be shared when it is being utilized solely for the purpose of a debt collection exercise.

C. James: I appreciate the minister’s response, and I appreciate the limitations around that information. As the minister points out, it’s related to specifics around address, phone number, social insurance number. But if you look at 16.1(3)(j), it talks about “information given by a debtor to the government for the purpose of receiving income or premium assistance, support services, a loan, a credit or a benefit.”

From my perspective, that’s much wider than simply an address and a phone number. A fair bit of information is given when you apply for premium assistance or if you’re receiving support services, for example. There doesn’t appear to be a limitation around support services, for example. What kind of support services? You may be giving a great deal of personal information there.

I just wondered how that particular area fits with the minister saying there are limitations.

[1525]

Hon. M. de Jong: The hon. member has made reference to a specific subsection: sub (3)(j).

I would preface my remarks by emphasizing that even before contemplating the specific provisions, it is important…. The prerequisite to being able to rely upon those provisions is the purpose for which the information is being sought, and that must be a debt collection exercise. This is not a licence. It is not intended, nor do I believe it creates, a licence for elements of the state to move through files and data banks to create profiles on people for the sake of creating profiles on people.

The purpose must be related to the collection of a specific debt that is owed to the Crown or an agency of the Crown. Having said that, I will acknowledge that the tool we are seeking to have created here would allow, in pursuit of collecting that debt, the most recent and accurate information about a person.

So someone made an application for receiving income or premium assistance. There is, of course, nothing whatsoever wrong with that. If that is a more recent application than perhaps the information another program area now engaged in the collection activity has, then that information would be relevant from the point of view of pursuing a collection activity.

C. James: I appreciate that from the Minister of Finance. I certainly don’t expect that this is being written so the government could provide the opportunity to create files on people or go through files on people. I appreciate that. I appreciate that comment. It’s certainly not the intent of asking the question.

I think what we have seen sometimes in government programs…. It often happens through technology and new technology programs being implemented, where access to information that wasn’t required and wasn’t supposed to come up in fact did. We have specific examples of that, particularly in the area of income assistance and child welfare, where information that was not needed to be seen for one particular worker’s job happened to be seen.

I guess I just put a caution out or a question to the Minister of Finance. What kinds of protections are going to be put in place around employees? If this information is contracted out, for example, to another company, what kinds of protections are going to be in place around someone who is accessing information, perhaps not intentionally but unintentionally, as they gather the other information needed for debt? What kinds of protections are going to be there around keeping that information confidential and not disclosing information that wasn’t needed anywhere else?

[1530]

Hon. M. de Jong: Two themes to my response to, again, the member’s appropriate question. One as it relates to confidentiality and the overarching importance of that, generally, in areas where people have access to sensitive personal information via state agencies. I think the member’s specific question related to the access that a third-party contracting agent would have.

Of course, where there is that step removed from the public service, the oaths of confidentiality and the service agreement provisions become that much more important, because people do view an external third-party agency slightly differently. We try to remove the practical differences through these instruments, but people still do that. Ensuring that those mechanisms are in place, properly enforced, properly audited, I think is important.

Then the second thing that I would say and I would relate to the member. We begin, internally, talking about this and the creation of the tool and the work that gets done to create the framework for drafting legislation. I must confess I anticipated….

Well, the first thing I said was: “The only chance we have, in my view, of creating something that is workable, credible and that will withstand the kind of scrutiny that

Page 6956

the member is bringing today is if we have engaged from the outset with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.” I will say that I wondered what the initial response would be, because historically and appropriately, privacy commissioners exist to watch very closely how the state manages information about citizens and the uses that it makes of that information.

I was gratified to learn early in the process that in this case the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, having received an assurance that the specified and defined purposes related to debt collection, indicated a strong willingness and desire to work closely through the creation of the statutory instrument but more than that, I think, will need to be involved on an ongoing basis to ensure that the state and the government remain true to the provisions that exist and utilize the tool in a way that is consistent with what we have undertaken its purpose is for.

[1535]

The legislation comes before the House and the committee. I am heartened and take some measure of comfort knowing that the agency we have created in this chamber to guard, on behalf of citizens, around this issue has been involved from the outset and — as the member has pointed out — in documentation to her and I, has made it clear that the office intends to continue watching and applying that set of principles, and has provided some very meaningful input into what we have before us.

Now, is that a guarantee that these weighty sections are perfect? I’ve learned never to say that, but I am comfortable that, used responsibly, the legislative framework is an appropriate one and a reasonable one.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister for the answers that he’s provided to this point. I’d like a little bit more information on

section 16.1(2) that we’ve been discussing here. The minister has offered reassurances that the intent of government is solely to use information to collect debt — very specific and limited to that function. But we’ve seen many cases where the sharing of information between ministries has been less controlled and less reliable than the assurances that the minister has provided.

I wonder. He’s indicated that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contemplates this form of information-sharing. What specific

section of that act is he referring to?

Hon. M. de Jong: These are all lengthy sections, but I can refer the member to

section 33.1(1)(

i) of that act.

D. Routley: If the minister feels assured that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contemplates this form of information-sharing, then why is it necessary to bring this act into effect if the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act already provides that freedom?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the answer, in part, relates to the myriad of cross-references and how these protections have evolved over time — how, on the one hand, the privacy protections have evolved over time and how more recently and, I suppose, now very recently the government’s desire to create different collection tools has evolved over time. To give an example, there are, to my knowledge, today no impediments for the Ministry of Health to share information with the Finance Ministry for the purpose of effecting collection on an MSP debt.

[1540]

Where there are impediments and where there needs to be more specific statutory authority, if the House is desirous of creating this authority, is a circumstance where — having received that information from the Ministry of Health, that specific information to collect the debt arising out of the Ministry of Health operations — if the Finance Ministry collections division then becomes aware that there is another debt owing from that individual, there are restrictions today or limitations on the use that could be made of that same information for that purpose.

The authorities are unclear and varied. The

section I referred the member to…. I hope I didn’t overstate it or misstate it. What I meant to convey to the member in response to his first question was that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act contemplates the sharing of information for the purpose of collecting a debt. But the authorities that exist in various departmental levels, and some of the limitations that have been created, do not contemplate the sharing of some of that information for the purpose of collecting non-program-related debt from a particular area.

As I said in our earlier conversation, it’s a bit of a grab-bag at the moment that we’re trying to bring some consistency to.

D. Routley: I think I understand the intention of what the minister is trying to communicate, but I do still have concerns about the potential undermining of specific privacy protection components of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. Whether it’s viewed from a perspective of general principle or specific statute, it seems that expediency may trump the specific nature of regulation.

We’ve heard from various ministries a desire to have a freer hand in sharing information in order to be more expedient to their purposes, but that is, I think, a dangerous road to travel down in terms of how it will specifically affect the real protections that people can depend upon. I think that becomes more apparent as we go through this act.

I would like the minister to explain more clearly what he means by the notion of information being shared for the specific purpose of debt collection being contemplated by FOIPPA and what he specifically means when he

Page 6957

uses the word “contemplated.” Does he contend that it’s specifically referenced? Or does he extrapolate?

Hon. M. de Jong: I may have left the member — and I didn’t do this purposely — at a disadvantage. Let me read the section. I won’t profess to have committed the entire act to memory, so I hope the member won’t accuse me in a moment of taking something out of context. I will read what I think is the relevant provision from the act.

The title of the

section is “Disclosure inside or outside Canada” — sub 33.1(1), “A public body may disclose personal information referred to in

section 33 inside or outside Canada as follows,” and then it lists a whole series. The one that I referred to, after the “as follows,” sub (i), if “(

i) the disclosure is for the purposes of collecting amounts owing to the government of British Columbia or a public body,” and then it lists all the people that might be covered by that.

If I used the word “contemplate,” I was simply trying to summarize what I take that on the surface to mean — that the act, subject to likely a whole bunch of limitations and requirements, in general terms contemplates the sharing of information or the access by the state to information or the disclosure of personal information for purposes of collecting amounts owing to the government. That general principle exists today within FOIPPA.

[1545]

D. Routley: I understand the minister’s reference and appreciate that. It still leaves the question as to why it’s necessary to take this step. It would appear that the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act already provides the necessary tools, but the minister is bringing forward Bill 13 that seems to go further. I wonder if he could explain to me why he feels it’s necessary that the House support that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I will provide a general answer, and we can drill down into more detail. Notwithstanding the general provision I referred to in FOIPPA, I am reminded and can advise the member and the committee that there are other enactments in other statutes that are very restrictive, that place significant restrictions on the ability to access information for any purpose, including debt collection–related purposes.

I don’t want to be coy about what we are endeavouring to do, what the government is endeavouring to do here. It is through these provisions to address those restrictions and say — again, in general terms — that for the purpose of collecting debts, those provisions are now secondary to the authority that will be created here.

I think the member’s question is, having just read out the general provision in FOIPPA: “Why is any of this necessary?” It is because in other statutory provisions, restrictions exist that preclude the kind of activity that we are seeking to authorize here.

D. Routley: Does the minister, then, contemplate the amendment of other legislation in order to reflect this, specifically FOIPPA?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the way this is drafted and presented is designed to accomplish that or preclude the need for that to happen in individual cases.

D. Routley: In the case of 16.1(3)(b)(ii) — it mentions “home and employment or business contact information” — what limitations will be provided in order to protect third parties when this information is collected?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understand the member’s question correctly with respect to the subsection (3)(b)(ii), I think the question is the rationale for seeking authorization for access to this information. It relates to some of the collection tools that would be available or would be sought to be applied, whether it’s liens or garnishee provisions.

[1550]

This is all kind of distasteful stuff — right? — when we’re talking about people owing money and collections activities. But these are the instruments that exist in our society when it has been found that someone owes a debt — the imposition of a lien or a garnishee. This is the kind of information that would be relevant to exercising those creditors’ rights, if you will.

D. Routley: Yes, it is a difficult subject but also very important, not only to the debtor but also potentially to third parties, as is envisioned in

section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Specific regulations therein go a long distance to protect the third-party interests that might be impacted.

When a collection officer of the ministry or a contractor acting on the part of government seeks information from a public body, will the information from tax returns be subject to this act?

Hon. M. de Jong: A good and important question that I wanted to verify as pointedly as I could. The longstanding custom, convention, tradition, legal precedent around not utilizing information contained in taxation documentation is preserved. These provisions do not apply. They specifically exclude taxation-related information and documents. That is one area where the information-sharing abilities, even for the purpose of debt collection activities, would not exist.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister. Then 16.1(4) is very concerning. In (

a) it prescribes: “despite any provision of a non-tax enactment that requires a person to keep information collected under that enactment confidential.” Bill 13, through the various subsections — (4)(a), (4)(b), (4)(

c) and (4)(d)…. All refer to the overriding of confidentiality agreements.

Page 6958

The principle of consent is a pretty essential one whenever the subject of privacy protection is entertained and discussed. I wonder if the minister can explain what limitations there will be and how he thinks it’s legitimate that a person’s agreement with government, undertaken solemnly — that the confidentiality of their information will be protected, that it not be shared — can then be overridden, both currently and retroactively, under this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, an important and relevant question.

Maybe I’ll deal with it in reverse. I would say clearly the rationale I bring to the committee for commending these sections is that we are creating an exception in circumstances where an individual owes a debt to the Crown, to the state. We talked about this a little bit earlier, both with the member and the member’s colleague.

[1555]

Those other statutes that I referred to a few moments ago have very broad provisions. I’m not critical of that. I think that was the appropriate thing to do. Whether, at the time they were created, people specifically turned their mind to the question of circumstances in which a person owed a debt to the Crown or not, I don’t know. I can’t say that for certain.

What I can say is that in a circumstance where an individual demonstrably owes a debt to the Crown, to the state, and the state is in possession of basic information that would assist in the collection of that debt, we would like to create the legal authorization and authority to make use of that information. Because of how other statutes have been created or other agreements between the departments of government, agencies and individuals have evolved, in order to accomplish that objective it is necessary to create — I think the member might have used this term — a sort of override.

I don’t think that’s the term that he used, but it was something like that. To be fair and to be clear, that is what this does.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister for the forthrightness of that answer. Indeed, that is what it does. Now the question would be: do we agree or disagree with the principle of creating an override to that act?

My understanding of both FOIPPA and PIPA is that they were specific enactments to defend generalized principles. The general principle of privacy protection would allow government to collect information and use information while still protecting the control over that information and allowing a citizen to maintain that control, as much as possible, while still providing the service that they’ve agreed to. FOIPPA and PIPA, both in the public and private sectors, specifically create regulations as to how that control will be maintained on the part of a citizen.

It seems to me that although the goal of government is clearly laid out by the minister, it’s clearly an attempt to make more expedient the collection of debts owed to government. The minister has been assuring the House that these would be debts that are seriously in arrears or that court orders have been granted in relation to, but still this act is a very….

This

section and the subsections are a very serious step. The basic principle of privacy protection and the basic principle of allowing citizens to control their own information, even while receiving government services, seems to me to be seriously undermined by this act and this section. It would require, I think, the minister to be very reassuring around his description of how this act will be limited and how the regulations that support this act will inform these sections.

Can the minister offer, perhaps, a more detailed description as to how the basic principles of privacy protection and consent on the part of citizens will be protected while this

section and the subsections appear to essentially completely override that notion and undermine it?

[1600]

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it’s always appropriate to seek an articulation of where the protections will lie. As I, I think, fairly candidly acknowledged earlier in the discussion, there will be some people — I don’t know, in fairness, if the member himself falls into this category — who take the view that facilitating the transfer of any information, even a name and address between departments or programs of government for the purpose of collecting a debt, is inappropriate.

For people who believe that — and I’m not critical of them, but if they believe that — this

section will be offensive, because it clearly contemplates that. I would say this though. I am clearly not one of those people and believe that there are circumstances where an individual — we’ve talked about individuals — or a corporate entity owe moneys to the Crown and it is appropriate to have access to the most recent basic information about that individual or agency.

How do we ensure that the tool is used properly — for those people who acknowledge a legitimacy in the tool? One is to touch back to the basic principles that are contained in statutes like the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. But as we have already canvassed and discussed in this debate, that foundational legislation does contemplate the disclosure of information for the purpose of collecting debts owing to the province of British Columbia.

The ongoing work of the Privacy Commissioner and that office and the watchdog role that they play and the interest that that office has always expressed in tracking information-sharing between departments of government is, I think, an important aspect and something I hope the member will take into account as he considers these provisions.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Page 6959

Thirdly, the protocols that are entered into between agencies within government or departments of government for information-sharing, those agreements will continue, and they will enumerate the specific purposes for which information is exchanged and the uses to which they can made.

Look, when it comes to the vast body of data and information that governments now possess about people, one of the reasons we have privacy commissioners, offices of privacy commissioners, is people are entitled to maintain a healthy dose of suspicion and skepticism and want to know that their information is being properly dealt with.

Again, however, I would say that it is not unreasonable, in circumstances where a company or an individual owes the province moneys, to have access to basic information and not be constrained from accessing that information in the way that we presently are. But I am not disputing what I think is the member’s admonishment to ensure that safeguards remain in place to ensure that the tool that is being created here is not abused.

[1605]

D. Routley: Yes, and I appreciate that answer from the minister. I, too, am not one of those people who would say that any information-sharing in government is inappropriate — just the potential sharing of information in a manner that compromises the integrity of a person’s security, personally or financially or in any other way. That’s the essential problem that we have.

The former acting Information and Privacy Commissioner, Paul Fraser, told the review of FOIPPA committee a few years ago a story about moose hunters who were out hunting a moose. They shot a moose, and they were trying to drag it back to their truck, were stumbling, tripping and scraping themselves up. The game warden came along, checked their licences to make sure they were legitimate. Once doing that, he said to them: “You’d make far better progress if you didn’t drag it backwards with the behind legs. If you got on either side of the antlers and pulled it forward, you’d make better progress.” So they did.

They tried it, and it worked really well. Then one hunter said to the other: “You know, he was right. This is working really well.” The second hunter said: “Yes, but we’re getting further and further away from the truck.” It was an example of how sacrificing principle for expediency can lead us astray from our basic intent to get the moose to the truck.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah, okay. Then there was the one about the guide-outfitter….

The Chair: We seem to be getting off topic. I’ll let the….

D. Routley: I think we’re zeroing in on the topic actually.

The Chair: Good, good.

D. Routley: The notion that government requires an expediency in dealing with information in order to provide services to citizens effectively is accepted. The problem is that we don’t want to sacrifice the true intent and principle of privacy protection in getting there.

The minister has said that it would be reasonable to share the most basic information about people in order to collect government debt, and I would agree with the minister. The most basic information would be detailed, as it seems to be here in there, as a person’s address and basic personal information — identification, identifiers.

Then the minister referred to the legitimacy of the tool. I think that the legitimacy of the tool that he’s trying to create for government will be judged by how it impacts that basic premise of dragging the moose in the right direction — in other words, protecting privacy while still offering enough latitude for government to deliver services effectively.

Can we see in this act an overswinging or an overstepping in that in several sections, including this one, it refers to any information in any ministry and the right of a collection officer of government or an agent of government to direct public servants, a head of a public body, to surrender information without limitation, at least the way that the act reads? It’s in the specific limitation of this power.

The Privacy Commissioner refers to this in her letter of March 2, 2015, where she says that while FIPPA, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act — FIPPA or FOIPPA — “provides authority for public bodies to collect and disclose personal information relating to government’s ability to collect a debt from an individual, the linking of personal information between government agencies and ministries raises privacy concerns. This is because it often involves disclosing personal information which was collected for one purpose and using that information for a different purpose.”

She goes on to say that the authority of government to compel the collection of personal information is accompanied by an “obligation to limit the subsequent use and disclosure to those purposes that are truly necessary.”

[1610]

These are important considerations that I think we need to have greater clarification and assurance than is offered here. In fact, the way the act is written, despite the general assurances of the minister, swings the door wide open to any information held by any ministry or any public body being accessed by any agent of government collecting any debt described by cabinet at a future date.

The most important aspect of this, as noted by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, is that public bodies must be subject to transparent and adequate oversight. How does the minister foresee that adequate transparency and oversight being provided and the gate being kept in a secure way?

Page 6960

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair, and to the member. I’m gratified and obliged to him for, again, referring to the letter from the Privacy Commissioner. He and his colleagues and others in the House have been here long enough to know that the Privacy Commissioner and the present Privacy Commissioner, following in the tradition of other commissioners, have not been shy to articulate views about legislation that impacts upon privacy rights. This clearly is legislation that falls into that category.

I would say this. When we received the letter, I was gratified to get it. The message…. I would never seek to put words into the mouth of an independent officer of the Legislature. But I took, in general terms, the letter to be an indication (1) that the Privacy Commissioner and her office and her staff had been involved in the work that had taken us to that point and (2) that the Privacy Commissioner is watching very carefully and, as always, is interested in circumstances where the government is purporting to utilize and share data and information about citizens and companies cross-departmentally.

I will also say this, pointedly. The Privacy Commissioner did not in this instance, as she and her predecessors have done in the past, say in explicit terms: “I am opposed to” or “I am recommending against provisions of what is being proposed here.” The language was very different than that.

Again, I would not presume to speak for the Privacy Commissioner, but the warning included within this letter relates, I think…. It’s, first of all, very important and very valid that the member has read out portions of that warning. It is: if you are creating this authority for a specific purpose — in this case, the collection of debt — it must only be utilized for that purpose. My office will be watching to ensure that the tool that is created is not misused or abused.

[1615]

I suppose it’s possible to take the letter — not that I am suggesting the member has done this — and wave it about and say: “Ah, the Privacy Commissioner says no.” I don’t think she says that. I think she says: “This is new. This is a further step in the direction of information-sharing within government. You must be careful. You must proceed carefully, and I and my office will be watching very carefully to ensure that you do.” I think all of that is appropriate advice from the Privacy Commissioner.

D. Routley: Yes, I agree with the minister that the Privacy Commissioner is not expressing an objection to the act being passed, but is reserving a consideration and a potential discomfort with some of the unintended consequences that could come about as a result of this act being passed if proper consideration isn’t given. I agree that the Privacy Commissioner has expressed a concern, rather than an objection.

The Privacy Commissioner has also expressed other concerns that I think are generally related to this subject. One of them is that she and previous commissioners have expressed concerns about carve-outs, particularly where it related to health data–sharing, that there are carve-outs from provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In other words: “Well, we need an exemption from the act because of this specific purpose.” Those carve-outs stack up and begin to have a cumulative effect of undermining the basic principle of the act.

I think, just by way of expressing a concern, that this might represent another of those specific exemptions that, in aggregate, have a very negative effect on privacy protection. We’ve seen that the devil is in the detail in terms of what information will be available, what powers there will be to collect it and what freedom there will be to share it. The real problems are created in the actual mechanisms, in the actual process of achieving those things.

One of the big concerns around privacy protection and legislation is the lack of understanding in the public service of what the obligations are and what the provisions specifically are. This has been expressed by numerous commissioners as well — that there’s an education gap in the public service about how their business is affected by privacy legislation.

When this

section appears to override the obligations of the head of a public body and employees of a public body to protect information, what steps will be taken by the minister or the government to ensure that there’s adequate understanding of what this means, so that information isn’t inappropriately shared once these provisions are triggered?

[1620]

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, over time a number of mechanisms have evolved to try and ensure that the state, the government, fulfils its obligations with respect to privacy and protecting the information that is collected on behalf of citizens — the office of the chief information officer internal to government being an example of that.

I’m advised that there are two documentary instruments that the member will want to look for, in the days and weeks ahead, as playing a role in fulfilling the obligation and the objective that he has ably articulated here. One is a document I’ve already referred to, which is an information-sharing agreement that will be — I shouldn’t say “be”; there will be more than one, I expect — between the Finance Ministry and other departments of government.

There is one of the instruments that is intended to provide the framework around which that function and that objective can be achieved. Then the second is an instrument that we have not talked about thus far in this discussion: a privacy impact assessment, which the Finance Ministry will undertake and undertakes in advance of the movement of data for these purposes.

Page 6961

If I were going to highlight two documentary instruments that the member might at some future date want to refer back to, those would be the two.

D. Routley: Has there been an information-sharing agreement established at this point or with any public body?

Interjection.

D. Routley: An information-sharing agreement — is there one in existence yet?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are information-sharing agreements in place now. I’m reminded that the Justice Ministry has one with the Finance Ministry as it relates to court fines. These agreements are not new, and in many cases existing agreements will be adjusted or amended to take into account should the House choose to pass this legislation.

That instrument, the information-sharing agreement, is one well known both to government and actually well known to the Privacy Commissioner and one that she watches and that her predecessors have tracked and watched very carefully.

D. Routley: Mr. Chair, and I apologize for my distraction, my inattentiveness to the answer, but I think I understood it.

Who will undertake the privacy impact assessments? Will they be done for each information-sharing agreement with each ministry? How will that process be undertaken?

[1625]

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily, I can be very particular about this. I’m advised that there will likely — in the event that the committee and the House pass this legislation — for the purpose of this debt collection initiative, be one privacy impact assessment, one full-scale one. We’re joined by the individual who will lead that initiative in the early days.

D. Routley: I believe the minister had planned for a break at about this time, and if….

Interjection.

D. Routley: Okay. I’m fine if you’d like to move on.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I would move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit later today.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading on Bill 15, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015. I wonder if the House might recess for two moments.

Madame Speaker: The House will be recessed for five minutes, please.

The House recessed from 4:28 p.m. to 4:29 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 15 now be read a second time.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

[1630]

Hon. S. Anton: The main focus of this bill is to enhance and safeguard the life-saving benefits of several road safety programs, including the immediate roadside prohibition program, the vehicle impoundment program and remedial programs.

Further amendments clarify the use of the left lane on multi-lane highways, provide authority to prescribe winter tire and traction device specifications, and allow municipalities to regulate motorcycle parking near traffic control signs and signals. Minor amendments in the bill repeal the AirCare program, which was suspended on December 31, 2014.

The elements in this bill relating to road safety programs aim to improve the operational efficiency of the existing administrative review processes and allow for timelier resolution of reviews by the following.

Requiring the superintendent to revoke prohibitions on review if certain police documents are missing. This provision will help decrease delays during the review process.

Secondly, clarifying the general legal principle that in administrative matters, whoever asserts a proposition bears the burden of proving it. What this means for an IRP is that if an officer