2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 13

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. S. Bond

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Invasive plant control

B. Bennett

Mental illness awareness

D. Black

Community of Spuraway

R. Sultan

Protection of water resources

M. Mungall

Albert Baldeo

N. Letnick

Farm for a Year project in Maple Ridge

M. Sather

Oral Questions

Services for developmentally disabled persons

S. Simpson

Hon. H. Bloy

N. Simons

M. Karagianis

Panel report on impact of harmonized sales tax

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

D. Donaldson

Cabinet committee on open government

D. Routley

Hon. S. Cadieux

Enbridge oil pipeline proposal

M. Sather

Hon. R. Coleman

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 4 — Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act

B. Ralston

Hon. B. Penner

B. Simpson

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation

Hon. P. Bell

J. Kwan

G. Gentner

V. Huntington

S. Chandra Herbert

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government

Hon. S. Cadieux

D. Routley

[ Page 6595 ]

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2011

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I'm pleased to be able to introduce two constituents of mine today, Mr. Cliff Matsen and Mr. Peter Veness. These gentlemen are self-described political junkies and hope that question period is its normal raucous self. May the House make them welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today we have Gayle Martin, who is the chair of the Metro Vancouver park board and a councillor in Langley. We also have Wendy Dadalt, who is on staff with Metro Vancouver, and David Urban, who is on staff with Fraser Valley regional district.

They're here today to meet with members of the government caucus regarding the Experience the Fraser project, which is a project that is joint between the two regional districts and the government to build a trail along both sides of the Fraser River. Could the House please give them a great welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to introduce Alexandra Capistrano, who's joining us here today. She's completing her master's in immigration and settlement studies at Ryerson, and I'm very pleased that she's joining me working in my office this summer. I ask that everybody please give her a warm welcome.

M. Dalton: In the House today, visiting us from Maple Ridge, are students from Thomas Haney secondary school. They're accompanied by their teachers Steve Hussey, Jan Godfrey, Mark Biggar, Chris Connelly and Scott McCafferty. This is their sixth trip to Victoria. Every year they find this to be a real hit. My oldest son graduated from this school. It's an excellent school. It's based on self-paced learning. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

B. Bennett: I'd love to introduce my wife, Beth, but I can't because she's not here. But what I wanted to say is that today is our 37th wedding anniversary. I met my wife 43 years ago on a blind date, and all of our friends say she must have been blind. She's going to be reviewing this later, so I send her all my love.

[1340]

Hon. M. de Jong: Pam Gardner is here from Burnaby. She is an orthotist and operates Burnaby Orthopaedic Source Inc., a Rotarian and someone who has contributed mightily to community service in her community. I hope all members will make her welcome.

S. Fraser: I don't know who they are, but whenever we have this many young people in the audience, I want to acknowledge them.

Thanks for coming today, whoever you are, and welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Civil forfeiture amendment

act, 2011

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased to introduce the Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act. The proposed amendments create a new administrative forfeiture process. With these changes, British Columbia will be the first province with civil and administrative forfeiture processes, giving us the broadest range of tools for combatting unlawful activities in our province.

Since 2006 the existing civil forfeiture process has proved to be an overwhelming success, resulting in the forfeiture of nearly $17 million in illicit property and cash. During this time it has become apparent that in nearly one-third of the cases individuals do not contest or even respond to the notice of forfeiture.

This new process will allow forfeiture of personal property and cash valued at $75,000 or less and will apply only in those cases where no one responds to the notice of forfeiture. It does not apply to real estate.

This process will enhance the capability of the civil forfeiture office to remove the economic incentives stemming from unlawful activities more efficiently and to specifically deal with the low-value property commonly seized from drug dealers, gang members and other organized-crime groups. It will also result in reduced legal and administrative costs, which will result in additional moneys being available to fund crime prevention and remediation efforts and ensure safer communities for families in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, 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.

[ Page 6596 ]

Bill 6, Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2011, 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)

INVASIVE PLANT CONTROL

B. Bennett: I'm speaking today about one of my favourite topics: weeds. I need to make clear that I'm not talking about the Kootenays' famous — or infamous, depending on your point of view — consumer product but about that nasty leafy pestilence whose implacable tentacles reach right into the very heart of B.C.'s wilderness.

Wherever a horse defecates, an ATV rides, a logging truck drives or soil is disturbed, this green scourge can be inadvertently advanced hither and thither, leaving in its wake a colourful but toxic pasture that chokes out our natural plants and reduces our once diverse natural grasslands to feckless, fruitless, futile fields filled with foreign freaks.

The public needs to understand that this is a serious environmental problem. Last week government made a very positive announcement about the creation of a $3 million Take Action program focused on prevention. While I applaud that decision, I urge those ministers with responsibility to continue funding the annual invasive control done by the various regional invasive plant councils around the province. This government set up the invasive plant councils across the province in acknowledgment that the spread of these vile plants is a profound environmental problem.

Some of these weed species cannot be eradicated. They just can't be. They can only be controlled by annual treatments, and their propagation rates rival Charlie Sheen. Some seeds can germinate after 60 years of dormancy. Missing a year of treatment or even treating too late in the summer is fatal to our long-term attempt to control the massive, diverse infestation underway today.

Let's not allow the insidious, relentless march of invasive plant species across our beautiful landscape to take the "natural" out of "Super, natural B.C."

[1345]

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS

D. Black: This week is the 60th anniversary of Mental Health Week in Canada. The next time you're in a lineup or at the supermarket or a bus stop, look around and consider these facts. Two of every ten people in our country have or will have a mental illness. Mental illness can affect anyone at any time. It is the leading cause of hospital stays. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for B.C. youth aged 12 to 18. Depression is ranked as the leading cause of disability worldwide.

The Canadian Mental Health Association, founded in 1918, is one of the oldest voluntary organizations in Canada. The CMHA advocates for those with mental illness to reduce the stigma and to encourage equality of opportunity and inclusion. My community of New Westminster has been well served by the CMHA's Simon Fraser branch.

To mark Mental Health Week, they're holding a Miles for Mental Health Run on Saturday, May 7, in Queen's Park. I'll be joining participants to walk in support of those facing mental health challenges. I'm also collecting donations through the event's website at mentalhealthrun.ca. I want to thank my colleagues who've already supported me in this. The proceeds from the walk will help fund housing, employment training and community outreach programs.

I encourage the members of this House and all British Columbians to use Mental Health Week as a reminder to each of us to reach out to those who are living with mental illness. They, like everyone else, have the potential to participate in the workforce, depending on their own abilities, experience and motivation. It's up to all of us to help ensure their full potential is realized in our society.

COMMUNITY OF SPURAWAY

R. Sultan: Last month I helped constituents celebrate the 100th anniversary of Spuraway, a large home on the banks of the Capilano River and a hub for a complex of 176 strata homes. This quiet corner of my community is close to trails, parks and shopping.

Spuraway is multicultural — British lumber money, Asian roofline, B.C. log house walls, Japanese carpentry and an aboriginal fireplace. It's one of the oldest buildings in West Vancouver, having served as a farmhouse; an equestrian centre; and a family home to the Mahons, the McDermotts and the Gibsons.

The centenary committee compiled Spuraway's rich history. The birthday party featured top hats; the Peirsons' 100-year-old Rolls-Royce; and stories from Val McDermott, Gordon Gibson and others who grew up there.

There's a connection to this Legislature. Gordon Gibson Sr., one of the owners, was a hard-drinking logger elected B.C. Liberal MLA in 1953. He's famous for his speech in these chambers declaring that money talked in the granting of forestry tenure. For that, the Lands and Forests Minister spent 28 months in what we used to call the crowbar hotel.

He was also famous for losing both his logboom and his float home, with his wife still in it, heading off to Japan in a violent storm. He had to make a choice. He chose the logboom.

Gordon Jr., his son, a scholar and author and also a B.C. Liberal MLA and leader of our party, lived in

[ Page 6597 ]

Spuraway. Gordon Campbell asked Gordon Jr. to recommend a new voting system, and he did, authoring our epic citizen's assembly.

So Spuraway and its residents have many tales to tell. I ask you to salute its next 100 years.

PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES

M. Mungall: "We are more influential than we think." These are the words of CBC Radio 3 host Lana Gay at my Women and Water talk show on March 22, World Water Day.

[1350]

Over the course of an hour my guests — Gwen Barlee, Azita Ardakani, Karen Sander and Lana Gay — talked about the importance of water in our everyday lives. There was certainly a lot to talk about, including the importance of drinking water.

From May 1 to 7 it is Drinking Water Week here in B.C. Several municipalities have also made special proclamations for this week, including the town of Creston. During this week organizations like the B.C. Water and Waste Association invite British Columbians to get to know your H 2 O.

For example, Gwen Barlee at Women and Water noted that most Canadians think they use 60 litres of water each day. The truth, however, is much larger. The average Canadian uses 329 litres of water every day; the average British Columbian — now brace yourself — 490 litres of water every day. In the Kootenays we use even more. So we do have a lot to learn about when it comes to our H 2 O.

More often than not, we take it for granted, but it is not an infinite resource, nor is its travels to our taps and away from our drains a matter of simple engineering. To help people get to know their water issues, my staff and I have put together a top ten list of things you can do to protect water. That list is available on my website and on womenandwaterforum.ca.

On the list you will find drinking tap water over bottled water and sweeping your driveway instead of watering it. I should also warn members of the House that the number one item on this list of top ten is to write your elected representative. So during this first week of May have a glass of cool, refreshing water and think about where it comes from. Enjoy.

ALBERT BALDEO

N. Letnick: Mr. Speaker, in every community across this great province there are men and women whose love for service above self leads the casual observer to find remarkable their dedication for their fellow man. Rev. Albert Baldeo of Kelowna was such a man. Originally from Trinidad, Albert could brighten up a room with his enthusiastic yet mischievous smile.

Not one of the thousand-plus friends who gathered to celebrate Albert's life on Sunday would have been surprised if he popped out of the casket and said: "Just kidding." As my friend Bill Redmond put it, Albert was a leader of leaders who taught our community how to live and how to die. His faith in Christ was equal to a child's faith in their mother — limitless and without reservation.

After the firestorm hit Kelowna, he took broken pieces of pottery around town and gave them to people, saying we would be whole again. His goal was always to leave people laughing, and he used the simple power of gifts to express friendship and love.

One of Albert's many funny stories included the time he met a blind beggar with an outstretched arm, asking for change. Albert gave him that change and came back a week later to find the beggar with two outstretched arms. When he asked why he had two outstretched arms, the beggar said that business was going so well, he thought he would open up a new branch.

Reverend Baldeo was an example for all British Columbians, a man who lived a life of thanksgiving. On Easter Monday he smiled to his wife Beryl, said thank you and passed away.

The people of British Columbia owe the people of Trinidad a debt of gratitude for lending Albert to us for so many years. In his final newspaper column he wrote: "Death is not an end. It's just a bend in the road of life." Today the people of Kelowna join his family to celebrate that life and his passing through the bend safely.

FARM FOR A YEAR PROJECT

IN MAPLE RIDGE

M. Sather: The farming industry is comprised of an aging population these days, with the average age of a farmer in Canada being 60. There is a crucial need for young people to enter the field as more farmers are set to retire, and the opportunities to learn from a seasoned grower are diminishing. In an era of climate change, peak oil and rising prices it is necessary to localize food production, and young farmers will play a key role in this transition. That is why it is a breath of fresh air to know there are young people who have taken a risk and begun to farm.

A group of five people, average age 30, have started a project called Farm for a Year. Chris and Julie Moerman, Matt and Chantalle Moerman, and Chantalle's sister Jocelyn Durston are working hard to convert 2½ acres in Maple Ridge to the status of an active farm. These young people join many other landowners in Maple Ridge who are converting their acreages into productive farms.

[1355]

This picturesque property is being operated on the principles of permaculture for healthy, pesticide-free produce. On their farm you will find a chicken tractor,

[ Page 6598 ]

a mobile chicken pen that allows the chickens to fertilize different beds. The farmers have a special interest in heritage and endangered chickens, such as the Russian Orloff and Chinese Silkie.

Because of its name, Farm for a Year may sound like a fleeting attempt at a hobby farm, but Chris assured me their family is invested in the property for years to come. Judging by their long-term projects — including planting fruit trees, evacuating a pond for fish and focusing on specialty crops such as garlic and mushrooms — they will be getting their hands dirty for a while.

One can only imagine the active rural childhoods that baby cousins Kai and Canaan will be fortunate enough to have. Don't hesitate to check out their colourful website at www.farmforayear.com.

Oral Questions

SERVICES FOR

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

S. Simpson: Yesterday in question period the Minister of Social Development tried to tell this House that the community sector was supportive of the B.C. Liberals' direction with Community Living B.C.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The B.C. Association for Community Living issued an immediate alert, repudiating the minister's comments, and their executive director, Faith Bodnar, sent him a scathing letter.

Ms. Bodnar's words in her letter sum up better than anything else the situation that the developmentally disabled are facing in this province under the B.C. Liberals. "We must ask ourselves if we are prepared to risk all we have accomplished in the last 55 years because our government lacks the vision to invest responsibly in the supports and services they need and deserve."

My question to the minister: when will he stop ignoring this crisis with Community Living B.C., with our developmentally disabled and take some action to provide those families and people some hope?

Hon. H. Bloy: I appreciate the British Columbia Association for Community Living's ongoing support for Community Living B.C. — to its staff and its advocacy on behalf of individuals with developmental disabilities. In my meeting with BCACL they did recognize how innovative Community Living B.C. has been over the years.

They also expressed to me concerns about service levels, and I can tell you that I take those concerns very seriously. But also, that's why our government has strongly supported Community Living B.C. with regular funding increases, since its creation in 2005, year after year after year.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What did the B.C. Association for Community Living and Ms. Bodnar say about the work that this government has done? This is what they said: "The reality that this legacy is in serious jeopardy should be of grave concern for us all. Insufficient funding to Community Living B.C. has meant reacting to crisis only and the real danger of relegating people to lives of isolation and subsistence as their supports and services are cut."

That's the B.C. Liberal reality with Community Living B.C. There have not been funding increases and general lifts. This minister tries to tell us that, but he could read this letter as well.

Again, what did Ms. Bodnar say when it came to the $13 million that he'll stand up and tell us about in a minute? They said: "It's targeted at a pilot project that will have no impact on wait-lists. This is why so many new families are coming to us in desperation, having been told that there are absolutely no supports available to them, with no light at the end of the tunnel."

That's the reality. Will the minister take some action, close the binder and do something for people who need your help?

[1400]

Hon. H. Bloy: Community Living B.C. is building on decades of progress and hard work with families and advocates towards full inclusion of people with developmental disabilities, and I can tell you, hon. Speaker, it's working.

Each year Community Living British Columbia has succeeded in providing more services to increasing numbers of families, with Community Living staff and over 3,200 service providers providing services to more than 13,000 families in this province. In fact, we had 766 new families coming into the system that all received service. On top of that, we had over 1,000 families that received new services that were already in the system last year.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

S. Simpson: It's those 3,200 service providers who are represented by the B.C. Association for Community Living who are telling this minister that he is failing in his job. That's the reality.

This minister's credibility is failing fast. His statements in this House have been repudiated by the people on the ground in the community, by the service providers, by the families, by the people themselves, and he has not offered one single word. This minister has not offered one single word of concern or hope for these people who are desperate.

What are they saying? He talks about the funding that just keeps getting shaved away and shaved away. So what does the B.C. Association for Community Living tell us about that? This is what they say about those families: "Families who have supports and services are being pitted against those who have none and express real fears

[ Page 6599 ]

of retribution if they voice their concerns. Surely this is not what we want for people with developmental disabilities and their families in British Columbia."

Well, that's not what we want on this side. Will the minister tell us: what does he want, and what's he going to do to deliver it?

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to reiterate. You know, last year we serviced 766 new families with services. Last year we were able to serve an additional 1,000 individuals within the system with new services.

We are changing the way we are providing services to allow for the greatest community inclusion and independence for people with developmental disabilities. These changes continue toward the goal of greater inclusion and independence for people with developmental disabilities.

N. Simons: This is just another example of the government saying one thing and doing something else entirely — all words and no action.

In 2004 community living was first introduced. The minister responsible said the following: people with disabilities would "be able to look forward to a safer, healthier and better quality of life." The minister is the current Premier.

Things have not gotten better. They've gotten significantly worse. The B.C. Association for Community Living has said the following: "Families are coming in to us in desperation, being told that there are absolutely no supports available to them."

Will the minister recognize that there is a crisis, and will he tell this House what he's planning to do about it?

Hon. H. Bloy: To the members across the way and to all British Columbians, we have increased our budget year after year after year. We have over $700 million, and I want to reassure all British Columbians that our first concern is for the health and safety of individuals. Again, I'll reiterate about bringing 766 new individuals into the client base, and they're all receiving services.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: The budget is actually $681 million, and frozen for the next four years. So I'd like to know…. The slogans of "Family first" certainly don't apply to families with members who have a developmental disability in this province.

[1405]

The executive director for the association says: "Providing a good life in the community for people with developmental disabilities and their families is being challenged in fundamental ways on all fronts." This flies in the face of this rhetorical flourish, as the minister gives us, and I think the minister needs to take a good look and speak to the people involved and the people who actually are impacted by these service cuts.

Will the minister promise to speak to those involved and take what action is necessary to ensure that people with developmental disabilities in this province get the services that they need?

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to assure all British Columbians that we're going to work with everybody within Community Living British Columbia. Our first goal is to provide health and safety concerns for individuals with developmental disabilities. I can tell you that my personal goal and our government's goal is to assist these people to the best of our ability that we can.

B.C. Association for Community Living, when I spoke to them, expressed some concerns, and I'm looking forward to meeting with them further.

M. Karagianis: The minister says that the community living association has expressed some concerns. Well, let me say that maybe the minister would take this more seriously if he spent one day as a caregiver, and then he could see exactly what kind of impact these B.C. Liberal callous cuts to community living — the kinds of effects — are having on individuals.

Faith Bodnar writes: "So many new families are coming to us in desperation, having been told there are absolutely no services for them, no light at the end of the tunnel" — no services for these individuals. So I say to the minister, perhaps the minister should step out of the message box over there…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: …and step into the shoes of families experiencing these cuts. What is the minister going to do to undo these reckless cuts and restore dignity and security for these families?

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to reassure the members on the opposite side and all British Columbians that we have made no cuts to this ministry, to this community. I find it hard that providing services to over 13,000 people with a budget of over $700 million…. We're looking after these individuals to the best of our ability, servicing those first on health and safety concerns.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, the minister has got his facts wrong once again. Some $22 million in cuts, huge wait-lists for vulnerable individuals in this province — is this how this government is putting families first in British Columbia?

[ Page 6600 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: Is this how the B.C. Liberal government is putting families first in this province? Is that the result of this?

So I would ask again for the minister to do the right thing: to step out of the message box, do the right thing, restore services to these families, restore security for these individuals and do that now — make the statement today that he is going to undo the cuts and he is going to restore resources to these families on wait-lists so that individuals all over British Columbia who live with developmental disabilities have a future ahead of them. I want the minister to say that now.

Hon. H. Bloy: I want to respond to the member across the way and to all British Columbians that we are increasing services. We provided services to 766 individuals and their families last year, new people in the system. We provided services to over 1,000 individuals already in the system last year. We expect to provide services to those….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

[1410]

Hon. H. Bloy: We're going to continue to serve as many individuals with developmental disabilities in this province. We're now servicing over 13,000 individuals every year. This is clearly active — that we are growing and our budget has never been cut. Our budget has been increased every year, year over year over year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

PANEL REPORT ON

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

B. Ralston: One of the ways B.C. Liberals have unsuccessfully tried to sell the HST since July 2009 is by talking very loosely about the jobs it might create. The last Minister of Finance hired Jack Mintz, who dubiously claimed it would create 113,000 jobs over the next ten years. We heard that refrain from every Liberal MLA in speeches here in the Legislature and out in the public.

The panel report released today estimates it will create just 24,400 better-paying jobs over the next ten years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: Of course, the report doesn't mention the number of lower-paying jobs that the HST will destroy as opposed to the better-paying jobs, as the restaurant and tourism industry has pointed out most notably.

Will the minister agree that he and every B.C. Liberal MLA misled the public about the job creation effects of the HST?

Hon. K. Falcon: What the Minister of Finance will say is that whether it's 24,000 jobs or whether it's 113,000 jobs, any new job is good for families in British Columbia.

I can tell you that the business community certainly speaks with one voice when they think about what will destroy jobs in this province, and that is the new Leader of the Opposition and his tax trifecta, which will be not only returning to a corporate capital tax but raising small business taxes by 80 percent, by raising general corporate taxes by 20 percent and by going back to the very, very inefficient PST plus GST system.

That's what they want to do. We want to grow the economy on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

The Member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The authors of the report admit it's very difficult to make economic predictions, particularly over the period of ten years. Given that difficulty, will the minister admit that the one clear effect of the HST will be to make life easier for big business and harder for families and small business?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have been as clear as I could possibly be on the fact that HST…. For 80 percent of consumer purchases, there's absolutely no change. The 7 percent PST they were paying before plus the 5 percent GST is 12 percent. There's no change. But I have acknowledged that on 20 percent of consumer spending, you do pay the additional 7 percent. I acknowledge that, and it does generate significant additional revenues for government, particularly in the out-years.

[1415]

But every day in this House we listen to the members opposite — we just heard it in the previous questions — talk about how they need more money for virtually every single part of government, and then they want to oppose

[ Page 6601 ]

a tax that generates additional revenues that support health services, social services and education.

D. Donaldson: Well, even their own handpicked panel can't back up this government's grossly inflated claim about the benefits of the HST. Their claims are so over the top, it reminds me of an old west movie with the snake oil salesman saying: "Get the HST. It's good for you."

This serious drop in job creation prospects with the HST as categorized in today's report doesn't even include the lower-paying jobs, as in the restaurant and food industry. Just today the Restaurant and Foodservices Association says there's been a 15 percent drop in sales in the last year due to this government's policies, including the HST.

To the Finance Minister: will he admit this government is continuing to mislead the public on how the HST is affecting jobs in B.C.?

Hon. K. Falcon: I acknowledge that there is an impact on the restaurant sector. We always have. There's nobody that's not saying that there is not some impact on the restaurant sector, but I think that it might be interesting for the member if the member looks at Stats Canada numbers that were just released. If the member looks at Stats Canada numbers that were just released today, there are 8,600 more jobs in the food and accommodation sector than there were back in July of 2010.

I think it's also very interesting to note that the Conference Board of Canada just last week came out with a report that showed that the highest levels of consumer confidence in the country are right here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: First of all, they weren't going to bring in the HST. Then, a few weeks later, they said it was going to save the economy. Next, it was more than 100,000 jobs created. Now it's less than a quarter of that. They just can't be trusted on the HST, on what they're saying about it.

The fact is that the burden of the HST is on the backs of B.C. families. The report today says that the average family will pay more than $350 per year, and that doesn't even include big-ticket items such as repairing a leaky roof.

The public deserves to know the truth about the HST. Again to the Finance Minister: will he admit they deceived the public about the HST in the first place, and will he admit the job creation prospects previously touted by this government are completely false?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad the member is quoting from the independent panel, the same independent panel that just mere weeks ago they were saying was a complete waste of time. Now they've at least come around to acknowledging that it's produced some very good information.

You know, one of the reasons why we're now engaged in a process of listening to British Columbians on how we might improve the HST and look at how we might ameliorate some of the impacts of the HST — which, the member correctly points out…. The report points out that on average, the typical family will be spending an additional $350.

Part of why we're listening to British Columbians now through telephone town halls, through our on-line surveys, is how we might improve the HST and ameliorate some of that impact. But I am always fascinated by an opposition that can stand up and criticize a tax change that moves from a GST and a PST, from two duplicative systems that impose burdensome paper requirements on small business, and moves to a system that generates anywhere from 24,000 to 113,000 more jobs and be opposed to it.

[1420]

Only the NDP would be opposed to 24,000 to 113,000 more jobs for the economy of British Columbia.

CABINET COMMITTEE

ON OPEN GOVERNMENT

D. Routley: I think it's important for British Columbians to get an early measure of progress for this new Premier on her commitments, given the Liberal record on keeping commitments.

My question is for the Minister of Citizens' Services. This new Premier campaigned on a promise of opening government up. Given the B.C. Liberal record, it's important for us to examine that. First she created a cabinet committee on open government. Good job. Next, she made that cabinet committee on open government exempt from freedom of information.

Now, forgive me and forgive British Columbians for judging the Premier's progress a little short. Does the Minister of Citizens' Services responsible for freedom of information support the decision of the Premier to close down the cabinet committee examining public scrutiny from public scrutiny?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I am proud of our government's commitment to opening up government, and I'm very pleased that one of the first actions was to create a cabinet committee on open government.

As the member would well know, all cabinet committees are subject to the freedom of information laws like every other committee of government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 6602 ]

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but forgive me. The Premier making the cabinet committee on open government exempt from freedom of information seems like a backwards step to me. I would expect that any British Columbian expects the Premier to live up to her commitments. One of the commitments the Premier made during her campaign for leadership was: "Make sure that open government is something that's a reality, not something we just talk about."

Well, it seems like Liberal doubletalk to me that now the minister flip-flops. I'd like this minister responsible for freedom of information to commit to the people of B.C. to open up the cabinet committee on open governance to open scrutiny.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, I'm surprised the member isn't aware that all cabinet committees are treated the same way. They're all treated as cabinet committees, and the information discussed is confidential.

The true test of our commitment to open government is how we're going to engage with British Columbians, and that work has already begun with open town halls across the province, with tele–town halls on the HST, where 30,000 people participated in Surrey alone.

We're opening up government. I'm proud of our commitments, and I hope that the members opposite will be as excited about the things that are upcoming as I am.

ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

M. Sather: Last Friday the Rainbow pipeline in Alberta burst its seams and spilled 4½ million litres of crude oil into the environment and also harming local communities there. The spill was discovered on Tuesday. That's four days after it actually happened.

Now, the minister will know that Enbridge is proposing a pipeline all across central British Columbia, a tar sands pipeline that will cross many streams and rivers, including the Upper Fraser River.

I'd like to ask the minister: how long would it take British Columbia to respond to a spill in the headwaters of the Fraser River?

[1425]

Hon. R. Coleman: The member opposite may or may not be aware that it's a 50-year-old pipeline that's existed in northern Alberta for an extended period of time. It is an older pipeline that is a lot different than the technology that would be used on any new pipeline that would be brought into British Columbia.

We are actually in contact with Alberta to learn from any lessons they may learn from this particular incident.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Well, the minister might want to talk a little bit more to Enbridge. He may recall that they had a big spill of their own just last year in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. This pipeline will carry twice as much oil as the one in Alberta and over a lot more difficult terrain than we have there.

I'd like to ask the minister, then: how much is it going to cost? How much would it cost to have a quick response to an oil spill — which will happen, I'm afraid to say, but it will happen. Can the minister tell us how long it would take and how much it would cost?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member might not be aware that the significant investment that would be made in liquefied natural gas in British Columbia would establish a market for thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment in British Columbia.

I know that the member opposite isn't interested in any of the environmental assessment work that's done, any of the engineering work that's done, any of the technology that might exist. All he's afraid of is being a naysayer about anything that would be good for the future of the economy of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Introductions by Members

P. Pimm: I'd like to take this opportunity, and it seems quite fitting. We had a presentation today from Spectra Energy, and I have some of their folks here today. President Doug Bloom; vice-president Gary Weilinger; John Turner, one of my constituents from Fort St. John; Sarah McCullough; and Jay Hill are all here. I'd like the House to make them welcome, please.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House we will be debating, in committee stage, Bill 4, intituled the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act, followed by — if we get done on the committee stage — the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

In Committee A we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

[1430-1435]

[ Page 6603 ]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 4 — Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)

Initiative Vote and Referendum Act

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 4; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

section 1.

B. Ralston: This is a very brief bill, given that there are only two sections, but I do have a few questions of the minister. In

section 1(1) it refers to

section 13 of the Recall and Initiative Act, and that would be the

section that would mandate an initiative vote, as it's called, in September. This bill will cancel that scheduled initiative vote in September.

My question is to the minister.

Section 13 of the Recall and Initiative Act and the accompanying sections in that division of the Recall and Initiative Act that's referred to here in

section 1 have certain rules about the conduct of third-party advertisers. Can he confirm that third-party advertisers under

section 13 of the Recall and Initiative Act must be registered, must disclose advertising expenses, must comply with the $5,000 limit and must identify the sponsor in the advertisement itself?

Hon. B. Penner: I've just had a chance to peruse

section 13 of the Recall and Initiative Act, and I don't see any mention in that

section regarding third-party advertising.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate that, and I have the

section in front of me, but I'm referring to the division. The

section does refer to regulations. The regulations may "specify what provisions of the Election Act apply" and "adapt any of the provisions of the Election Act with changes that the regulations may provide." It also gives, in

section 13(2), the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that's the cabinet — power to make regulations concerning and respecting an initiative vote.

[1440]

Is the minister saying that under the Recall and Initiative Act there is no restriction on third-party advertising at all?

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised that it's our view that the regulation-making authority under

section 13 does not give the government authority to set spending limits for the conduct of initiative votes.

B. Ralston: Will the minister then confirm that under the Recall and Initiative Act there was no proposed limitation? Had this initiative vote proceeded, assuming that this piece of legislation passes, there would be no restrictions on third-party advertising whatsoever — no registration, no disclosure of advertising expenses, no $5,000 limit at all?

Hon. B. Penner: If the member had continued reading a little further in the Recall and Initiative Act, he would have eventually got to

section 74(1), which does set out expense limits for both proponents and opponents of a certified initiative vote. Continuing to read further in the act, he would have eventually got to

section 93, which does authorize limits for advertising for anyone who is not a proponent or opponent.

B. Ralston: Well, I accept the minister's answer, of course. Those were the sections that I was referring to. I'm not sure that the form in which the question was answered is particularly helpful.

[1445]

This is an important point, though, because the Recall and Initiative Act, particularly the referendum that's going to commence as a mail ballot in June, was the result of an initiative by citizens across the province in the hundreds of thousands who signed petitions, to bring the petition to that stage, to the Legislature, to the legislative committee, and then was referred to the Chief Electoral Officer to set a vote. This is a departure from the public procedure that was envisaged at that time.

Part of what is envisaged by the act is some control on spending under

section 13 and the other sections that have been referred to. Is it the intention of this particular piece of legislation to make sure that there are no spending limits on third parties?

Hon. B. Penner: The legislative effect of

section 1, should it pass, is that the referendum related to the future of the HST will be conducted under the authority of the Referendum Act as opposed to the Recall and Initiative Act.

I should state for further clarity that it's the combination of this provision, should it pass, and the order-in-council that cabinet has already passed under the Referendum Act triggering a vote which we've now stipulated will be a mail-in ballot…. Those two things together mean that the mail-in ballot will be conducted under the legal authority of the Referendum Act as opposed to the Recall and Initiative Act.

B. Ralston: But will the minister agree that the legal effect of cancelling the initiative vote under the Recall and Initiative Act — unless the cabinet were to decide to pass separate regulations, which so far they've chosen not to — would be to sweep aside the legislative provisions controlling and limiting third-party spending, requiring registration and the other provisions of the act in the sections that the minister referred to? In other words, by passing this legislation, that limitation, if I can

[ Page 6604 ]

put it that way, that control on the spending of third parties is cancelled.

Hon. B. Penner: Just to add to my previous answer, the legal effect, should the Legislature give passage to

section 1 of this bill and should the rest of the bill pass and come into force, is that none of the provisions of the Recall and Initiative Act will apply to the mail-in referendum that is going to be conducted this summer.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for agreeing with my position that none of the legislation applies, but particularly the sections that I'm concerned with are the regulation and limitation of third-party spending. All of that is swept aside, should this

section pass.

[1450]

Can the minister explain why that is a good public policy decision?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated during my second reading remarks and also during my first reading remarks, in order to move to a different date, the government did see fit to trigger a referendum to be conducted under the auspices of the Referendum Act. And we made a further decision that instead of holding a traditional "walk up to the ballot box" kind of vote or an in-person vote, we would conduct it by way of a mail-in ballot.

That decision saves taxpayers at least $18 million while also accomplishing the goal, which I thought the opposition supported, of moving the date up so that the vote would be concluded sooner.

In fact, as we discussed at second reading and during first reading in my remarks, people can expect to start seeing their ballots arriving in the mail during the week of June 13, and Elections B.C. tells me they expect the vast majority of British Columbians will receive their ballots prior to June 24. They can then mark that ballot and return it to Elections B.C. at that time or wait a number of weeks.

I just caution people not to wait too long. I just was asked by an esteemed member of our legislative press gallery a few moments ago, before commencing committee stage debate, who continued to express some curiosity about whether or not the ballots had to be received back by Elections B.C. at 4:30 p.m. on July 22 or just postmarked on July 22. The answer is that they must be received either by a Service B.C. centre by July 22 at 4:30 or by Elections B.C. Simply postmarking it on July 22 will not be adequate in order to have your vote count.

So again, I'm repeating a message that was in the information bulletin, her news release as well as my first reading remarks, my second reading remarks and now during committee stage: do not wait until July 22 to put your ballot into the mail, because then your vote will not count.

B. Ralston: I am mindful that debate at this stage is relatively narrow. But in the spirit of the response that the minister just gave, would the minister agree that under the Referendum Act there is authority in

section 6 regulations whereby the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, the cabinet — could make regulations to limit third-party advertising, to require registration following, in this case, the Election Act that's specifically referred to?

Would he agree that if this

section should pass and this act should pass, taking away the control on third-party advertising, it is possible under the Referendum Act — under which the mail-in ballot is being conducted — for the cabinet to make regulations pursuant to

section 6 that would have the same effect as those in the Recall and Initiative Act?

Hon. B. Penner: The legal advice that the ministry has provided to government is that

section 6 would not give the cabinet that authority.

[1455]

That is the

interpretation by the lawyers in the ministry — that, in fact, that would not give cabinet the authority to set those kinds of spending limits.

B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate that the minister may regard that report as a cabinet confidence, but can he broadly explain the gist of that legal advice? I appreciate there was a court decision by Mr. Justice Cole on provisions in the Election Act where there was an effort to limit third-party spending outside the writ time, that is, outside the 28 days in a provincial election, and that was struck down and not appealed by the Attorney General.

So can he explain, perhaps in a

summary form, the gist of that legal advice?

Hon. B. Penner: All I can do at this point is reiterate the conclusion of the legal advice, which was that

section 6 does not give us that authority. Further, I can correct the member and the record for other members who are interested. I'm advised that the case that the member just referred to is, in fact, under appeal by the provincial government.

B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister making that correction. I think it was that the leave provision was denied and, therefore, it became academic in the 2009 election. I think that was the effect of that, but I do appreciate that correction. I apologize to the House if I misled anyone on the current status of that particular case.

Just for greater clarity then, the minister has referred to

section 6, and I haven't referred to the other sections of the Referendum Act.

Is the minister saying that no

section of the Referendum Act gives cabinet the authority to make any regulations that would control third-party spending in a referendum, however it's conducted?

[ Page 6605 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I can confirm for the member that

section 6 is the only

section in the rather short Referendum Act that establishes any regulation-making power under that legislation, and it is our legal advice that it does not give government the legal authority to impose spending limits.

B. Ralston: Madam Chair, I don't want to stray too far from

section 1, but I do regard it, with respect, as related to the issues that have arisen here in debate. I'll accept your guidance, of course, but I just wanted to explain as a preface before I asked a question that might be perceived as straying somewhat a little bit afield.

Under

section 13 and the other sections of the Recall and Initiative Act that are referred to in

section 1 here of the bill, if this

section passes, there would be no restriction on third-party spending of any kind. Does the minister have a concern about that, given that one of his predecessors in title — the hon. Wally Oppal, obviously, a former judge here at the Court of Appeal in British Columbia and the Attorney General — did, in debate here on May 5, 2008, quote Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache of the Supreme Court of Canada, speaking about third-party spending, saying: "Without the limits, a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues"?

[1500]

He went on to say — that is, the Attorney General, Mr. Oppal: "We agree with that, and that is why we are setting reasonable limits on what third parties can spend."

Is the minister not concerned that by the combined effect of Bill 4 here before us and the provisions of the Referendum Act that the government has chosen to rely on, that indeed there are no reasonable limits on what third parties can spend, as Mr. Justice Oppal…. It appears to be a flat contradiction of what he said not too long ago.

Hon. B. Penner: If I cast my mind back to the late 1980s, when I first had the opportunity to haunt these hallways, which was just a couple of years after our learned Clerk, Mr. MacMinn, joined us here — maybe more than a couple more….

It was around that time that I believe the Legislature gave passage to the Referendum Act that you have before you, or that you're referring to now. The Legislature at that time did not see fit to add those provisions that the member is mentioning, and since then referendums have been conducted under this legislation three times, at least that I'm aware of, in British Columbia.

The first, in 2002, at least in my memory, related to treaty principles for the conclusion of agreements with First Nations in British Columbia. The second time was in 2005 following up on the citizens panel on electoral reform. Members of the public had a chance to express their views, if they agreed that we should move to a single transferable vote or ballot system. Then again in 2009 there was a follow-up vote along the same lines.

All three of those votes were conducted under the auspices of the Referendum Act, which meant that there were no limitations on third-party advertising. I can also further confirm that of those three, two were conducted in the traditional fashion, which is when people were marching up in person to the ballot box, and the first, in 2002, was conducted by way of a mail-in ballot.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm going back to

section 1 of this bill. It is clear that what we're dealing with here is an issue of taxation, very unlike the previous referenda that the minister referred to. So does the minister agree with the Supreme Court of Canada: "Without the limits, a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues"?

Hon. B. Penner: No doubt taxation is important, but I would submit that what's even more fundamental to democracy is how we vote and how we elect members to represent us in this place.

[1505]

On two occasions in the last six years British Columbians have voted about what kind of electoral system they would like to have in British Columbia, upon which our democracy is based, and they did so under the auspices of the Referendum Act without limitations on third-party advertising.

B. Ralston: Well, I want to give the Attorney General another chance to answer my question. The principle that's set out by the Supreme Court of Canada by Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache upholding third-party campaign spending limits, when he said, "Without the limits, a few wealthy groups could drown out others in debates on important political issues" — does he accept that principle or not?

The Chair: If I could draw the member back to consideration of

section 1.

Hon. B. Penner: I can only add that we have, as I've said already, conducted three referendums under this kind of provision. I haven't heard any complaints about how third parties got involved in those campaigns. I note that in 2008 the member himself voted against spending limits that we put in place under the Election Act for the conduct of general elections in British Columbia, so obviously he wasn't that persuaded by the opinions of the justice that he's quoting because he voted against spending limits when he had the opportunity.

B. Ralston: Well, I wouldn't want to get into cross-debate on irrelevant issues, but I think it is appropriate that I correct the record. As the minister will remember from

[ Page 6606 ]

that debate, the bill that was being debated was seeking to impose spending limits for 120 days before the election to comment on the Speech from the Throne, the budget and the run-up to the election.

That's why Mr. Justice Cole struck those provisions down. They were amended to 60 days prior to the writ time. That's what I spoke against in this House, and that's why my vote was recorded in the way that the member has referred to.

I do want now to turn to subsection (2) of

section 1. Can the minister explain the purpose of subsection (2)?

Hon. B. Penner: I note that we are probably straying somewhat from

section 1. However, if people are interested in this debate, they may be interested to know that the case that the hon. member is referring to and quoting with some favour is actually entitled Harper versus the Attorney General of Canada. If you're wondering, that is in fact a reference to the now Prime Minister Harper, who at the time was challenging the federal government's spending limits for general elections.

When the Supreme Court of Canada and the justices made their comments that the member is referring to, they did so in the context of electing members to parliament, and you can, by extrapolation, suggest that that applies, also, to electing members to provincial legislatures. But it was not specifically about people participating in referendum.

B. Ralston: I did ask the minister: what was the legislative intent of

section 1(2)?

Hon. B. Penner:

Section 1(2) can probably best be described in the way that my first-year legislative drafting professor at the University of Victoria would have described it, which is a belt-and-suspenders provision. It's, just in case and for greater clarity, making sure that if called upon, a court will know what the Legislature's intent was. So strictly speaking, it might not be necessary, but for greater certainty, it's there.

B. Simpson: I want to be clear in my opening comments just on my question that I am supportive of getting on with the referendum. What I have to say has to do with clarity. This two-clause

section of the act does two things. The minister's already talked about the second part. I like the phrase "belt-and-suspender clause" to make sure it's understood. But what it's really doing is cancelling the initiative vote that was a result of over half a million signatures by British Columbians.

[1510]

It cancels it outright — takes the date of September 24 off of the calendar — and replaces it with a referendum under the Referendum Act in which the government has some leeway, although the regulation states that they want to hold this around June 24.

I have an amendment standing in my name on the order paper which, depending on the questions I have for the minister and his answers, I may bring forward. That amendment has to do with the fact that there may be an interruption in the mail-in ballot. So my question to the minister is: has he discussed the possibility of a postal strike interfering with the mail-in ballots that the government currently has scheduled starting June 13?

Hon. B. Penner: I thank the member for his question, which is a good one. We have had a number of discussions between the Ministry of Attorney General and the office of Elections B.C. regarding various scenarios, including what could happen if there was a disruption in postal service. I'm aware that contract talks are ongoing between the union and the employer, with Canada Post.

Section 280 of the Election Act gives the chief electoral officer a number of powers, including — and I'll quote here — to do those things that are "…necessary because of an emergency, a mistake or extraordinary circumstances in relation to proceedings…" in relation to the referendum.

And reading further: "…the chief electoral officer may make orders extending a time period or establishing a new date in place of one set under this Act" — or the Referendum Act — "and giving any other direction the chief electoral officer considers appropriate in relation to this."

[1515]

B. Simpson: I'm conscious of that, and I, too, have had some dialogue with Elections B.C. The difficulty here, because of the structure of this act, is that the guillotine, if you will, of a date — September 24 — is actually being removed. That's when the initiative act was supposed to be held.

In conversations that I've had with folks about this, we may actually proceed with mail packages going out, which commences around June 13 or so. If we don't have any surety — and I don't think that surety will be given by Canada Post or by the union — that British Columbia will not be in either a lockout or a strike position any time for any period between June 13 and July 22, then that's the issue — whether or not that then interferes with the referendum process.

So I appreciate the minister indicating the clauses in 280(1), (2) and (3) in the Election Act about the referendum. But is it the minister's understanding that there is a possibility of a strike or a lockout occurring sometime during…? Let me rephrase it — that a possibility exists that a strike or a lockout could occur anytime during this window that's scheduled for the mail-in ballot?

Hon. B. Penner: Obviously, that's a hypothetical question. I did do a little bit of digging and found that

[ Page 6607 ]

the frequency of labour disruptions at Canada Post has decreased significantly in the last decade or so, maybe a decade and a half. There's been a lot more stability there. Thankfully, labour disputes are not as common as they were in the 1970s and early 1980s.

I think a lot of us remember that those disputes often seem to really come to the forefront around Christmas time, just before people were attempting to send packages to their loved ones. It seemed to be about the time that we couldn't count on the postal service due to a labour dispute. But happily, the record has apparently improved significantly in the last ten to 15 years.

B. Simpson: Maybe the minister needs to take a look at what's happening in Wisconsin, because in many respects what's happening between Canada Post and the Canada Post union is an attempt by Canada Post to pull back across-the-board benefits, pensions, wages, terms of work, etc. It may be the first instance in Canada where there is an attempt to go after a public sector union, which may be what we'll see here, which is exactly what is happening in the United States.

The minister indicates that I asked a hypothetical. Yes, I did, but one of the aspects of good government is to be prepared for what-if scenarios. In this case there is a potential what-if scenario because CUPW has a 97 percent strike mandate.

Now, they are continuing negotiations. I would hope, as most Canadians would, they're able to successfully deal with their issues at the negotiating table. But the possibility sometime between June 13 and July 22 of a strike or a lockout, whether rotating or otherwise, does seem to me to exist. That possibility exists.

As such, does it not make sense that we have contingency plans in place? So my question to the minister is: is he comfortable in his dialogue with Elections B.C. that Elections B.C. would be able to offset any interruption and make sure that this referendum by mail-in ballot is aboveboard, incontestable — unable for anybody to take a run at the outcome of this referendum if at some point during the referendum window there's a three-day lockout or a two-week lockout or a strike of some kind?

[1520]

Is the minister convinced that Elections B.C. has a contingency plan in place to make sure that the outcome of this referendum will not be contested in the event of a postal strike of some kind?

Hon. B. Penner: In answer to the member's question, yes, I am confident that Elections B.C. is working hard to keep the lines of communication open with Canada Post so that they're apprised of any developments as soon as they become available, if something were to happen that was not positive.

Further, I can just advise the member that in the order-in-council that cabinet passed a number of weeks ago,

section 4(2) of the HST Referendum Regulation specifies that the close of voting in the referendum is 4:30 p.m. local time on July 22, 2011.

But if you refer to

schedule 2 of that same regulation, it incorporates

section 280 of the Election Act, where it says: "The chief electoral officer may, by specific or general order, make exceptions…." And in sub (2): "…the chief electoral officer may make orders extending a time period or establishing a new date in place of one set under this Act…" or the Referendum Act.

So it's our view that that gives the Chief Electoral Officer flexibility, if need be, to extend the voting period so that people would have an equal amount of time to vote. Even if mail service were disrupted, for argument's sake, for five days, this would give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to extend the close of voting time by an equal number of days.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's forbearance on a hypothetical, but as I said, it is a very hotly contested issue, as the minister knows. The report that came out today I think captured it well when it said that there was no public consultation. The result was confusion, anger, political discontent and a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of people. I'd hate to see that anger and confusion and discontent continue.

My question to the minister is…. I understand that the Chief Electoral Officer can move the end date from July 22. As the minister has indicated, if it's a five-day strike or lockout, then move it five days, or whatever the case may be.

I'm not a lawyer. I have been apprised by some folks, though, that if there is an adjustment of that nature done by the Chief Electoral Officer where there is an interruption in the flow of mail — where people don't have certainty that their mail isn't backlogged somewhere or held somewhere, that they don't get it in on time because of a backlog in the mail…. So it's not just the five days that the strike occurred; it's whatever the backlog is that's required.

[1525]

But given that the Chief Electoral Officer may take that into consideration, does the minister have an opinion about whether or not this opens us up to litigation regardless of the outcome? So the fact that it was interrupted, the fact that the elections officer had to extend the dates and somebody doesn't like the outcome and decides to contest that change, does the minister have an opinion on whether or not that will simply continue to confound this issue into the future?

Hon. B. Penner: It's worth noting, perhaps, at this juncture in debate that the Chief Electoral Officer is an independent officer of the Legislature. I would not attempt to direct him or the staff in his office about how they should conduct themselves. However, I do have

[ Page 6608 ]

confidence that he and his staff will apply the appropriate judgment and utilize whatever legal mechanisms are in place in an appropriate fashion to deal with whatever circumstances may arise.

On the face of it, it does appear to me that

section 280(1) and, in particular,

section 280(2) do give the Chief Electoral Officer the authority to do exactly the thing that we've been talking about, which is extending the time period in a manner that the Chief Electoral Officer considers appropriate.

Again, to further indulge in a hypothetical, if the Chief Electoral Officer were to be advised by Canada Post that it might take a number of extra days to clear up a backlog, I have confidence that the Chief Electoral Officer would take that kind of advice into account before extending and setting a new time limit for close of voting.

B. Simpson: Part of the difficulty with this — again, in conversation with people — of course is that this is now occurring into the summer as well, and there are questions around whether the summer is the best time to be involved in a mail-in ballot and all of the questions that opposition members asked during second reading about the mail-in process and whether or not it's disenfranchising some people.

A final question to the minister. The minister has indicated that he believes that

section 280 does give the Chief Electoral Officer the right to act. I take the minister's point. I'm not asking the minister if he would interfere with an independent officer of the Legislature. What I'm asking for, because there are some legal minds over there, is: are there any incidences where these kinds of things have happened and, as a result, the outcome of the vote or the referendum then becomes legally contestable because of the change from the regulations and because of the discretion used by the Chief Electoral Officer?

[1530-1535]

Hon. B. Penner: I apologize for the delay. I was just obtaining some materials to help me expound upon my forthcoming answer.

In British Columbia, as in most provinces, it's possible for people to attempt to bring a civil case, and in most cases a court registry will accept pleadings, except in a few limited circumstances. The test used to be…. It may have been changed now with the new civil court rules, but unless something was clearly frivolous and vexatious, the court registry would allow someone to at least initiate a proceeding. But that doesn't mean and didn't mean that you would necessarily be successful ultimately.

Can I guarantee that someone will not attempt to file a pleading and attempt to challenge the outcome if some hypothetical situation unfolds? No, I can't give that assurance. But in reviewing the provision, as I did a few minutes ago in my last answer,

section 280 of the Election Act does appear to give the Chief Electoral Officer fairly broad power. It appears to be fairly clear, on its face, that he has the discretion to extend the time limit that's set out in the regulation that we promulgated a number of weeks ago.

Further, and this was of interest to me in looking into this bill, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that

section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply in the same way to votes that take place involving referenda. Just for the record, I'll read

section 3 of the Charter. It says: "Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein."

It's actually fairly clear that what was contemplated in the Charter is a protection for taking

part in votes for people to legislatures and parliament.

My understanding is that following the 1995 referendum in Quebec, an individual who had recently moved to Quebec was not permitted to participate in the referendum that took place about whether or not Quebec should seek some different arrangement with a country called Canada. That individual was displeased that he was not allowed to participate in that referendum and sought to challenge the provincial government's decision not to allow him to vote on the basis of his

section 3 right to vote rights laid out in the Charter.

That challenge ultimately turned out to be unsuccessful on the basis that that's not what that

section is about. That also relates back to the answer and the debate I had a bit earlier on with the Finance critic for the opposition.

B. Simpson: I guess I'm having a reaction to the minister's comments about the fact that the vote for a member of a legislative assembly is protected and a vote in a referendum isn't. Therefore, if some people don't get a chance to vote in the referendum, then that's okay, is what it felt like. I'm sure the minister is not indicating that. But I get the point. It's not protected.

I guess my line of questioning, to go back to the minister's own comments about

part 2 of this section, is: where's the belts-and-suspenders part that guarantees that the people who signed an initiative in this province actually get their say before September 24? The very portion of the act that the minister is pointing to gives the elections officer the ability to actually say: "Look, it doesn't look like we can hold this in the spring. Summer is not a great time to hold it. Maybe we'll wait and make sure that the window is clear, and we'll hold it later in the fall."

It does give the Elections B.C. officer that opportunity to delay it further, and the act actually only stipulates that we as MLAs would be given a report as to the nature of that decision after the fact. I take the

[ Page 6609 ]

point that the minister has indicated — that the Chief Electoral Officer has the leeway under the act to move this around. I'm not comforted, necessarily, that that addresses the issue.

Let me ask the minister this, because the September 24 date is kind of the end date that's being cancelled, and that's more what I'm concerned about. The resolution to this, under the current circumstances, is definitive: September 24.

[1540]

Does the minister believe on balance, based on the information he has available to him and discussions he's had with Elections B.C., that this issue will be resolved before that September 24 date one way or the other?

Hon. B. Penner: That is the basis that we're proceeding on.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)

Initiative Vote and Referendum Act

Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Bell: I call committee for the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

JOBS, TOURISM AND INNOVATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:44 p.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $236,513,000.

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks so much, Madam Chair, for being here again today. Looking forward to going through the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. The critic has generously volunteered an array of topics that we'll be canvassing today, and I look forward to following through with the individual items.

The ministry has broad areas of responsibility, including economic development for the province and international trade as well as marketing initiatives around the globe. We also have responsibilities for rural economic development. Other key areas of importance, of course, include tourism and innovation along with trades training.

[1545]

We have some very interesting areas that I think we will be wanting to canvass today. I will say that having been in the portfolio for seven weeks now, I find it very, very exciting and stimulating — the opportunities associated with this ministry — and we intend to bring a very focused effort at our international marketing efforts, perhaps learning from some of the accomplishments that we've had through our forest innovative investment attempts in China and how we've been able to develop that opportunity.

With that, I know I'll have many questions, and I'm looking forward to hearing them from the critic.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the minister for his opening remarks.

We do have a number of areas, as his ministry, as he knows, actually covers quite a range of areas in the Ministry of Jobs, Innovation and Tourism, better known as JTI — sort of like Darth Vader and Jedi. So we'll see whether or not you're the dark forces or if you're really the Jedi. But we'll see about that.

As the minister mentioned, his MA touched base with me, and I provided him with a list of areas to which we'll canvass for the purposes of, hopefully, orderly estimates debate. Just to reiterate and just to make sure that we've got the list correct, because there's been some flux in terms of changes with people's schedules and so on, I expect to go in this order with the items.

We'll deal with immigration, provincial nominee issues, and then we'll be into the ITA labour market development matters, and then we have more or less of a local contract related to the Delta community. Then for the rest of the estimates…. I guess we're starting at four, so I lost a couple of hours.

Then we'll be dealing with tourism, PavCo, casino-related issues, and then we'll segue into what I call rural issues and pretty well all the various trusts, the mountain pine beetle issue, the economic development policy issue along with equity hiring policy.

We'll then segue into…. Related to some of those issues are forestry-related matters, and then the green initiative as well. Then we'll move forward to the FII under

[ Page 6610 ]

the ministry, particularly the Dream Home Canada initiative, and then I'll touch on a range of the trade and investment matters. They range from the Asia-Pacific initiative, the Asia-Pacific Business Centre.

I'd like to touch on the venture capital tax credit programs, what the ministry calls economic competitiveness, and then I'd like to touch on CETA, which is also under the minister's responsibility, and then broadly speaking, into some of the boards and agencies under the minister's responsibility and particularly the Premier's Technology Council and the B.C. Innovation Council. Then we'll finally close with small business.

It's a long list of things, and I don't anticipate that, given that we have a truncated period of time in this session of the House, we'll get all of our questions on record. So I would look forward to arranging with the minister at another time to set up perhaps more detailed question sessions with his staff so that we can canvass more thoroughly some of the other items that didn't make it on the floor for this set of estimates.

With that, let's begin with our first set of questions. On behalf of my colleague, actually, who is the critic for immigration policies, immigration matters, who could not be here to ask these questions…. I'm asking on her behalf and as the member for Vancouver-Kensington, touching on the provincial nominee program and particularly the temporary foreign workers issue.

As the minister knows, there are some 45,000 individuals that entered B.C. as temporary foreign workers in 2010. Migrant workers are employed as farmworkers, janitors, cleaners, caregivers, construction workers, cooks, food service assistants. They work in a variety of sectors, whether it be farming; the food and restaurant businesses; the food courts at the airports, hospitals, private homes; and so on.

[1550]

The Coalition for Migrant Workers Justice is a coalition of 12 organizations. They include Amnesty International Richmond; the Agriculture Workers Alliance centre; the B.C. building trades council; Canada-Philippines Solidarity for Human Rights; Justicia for Migrant Workers; KAIROS, Vancouver and Richmond; Longhouse Council of Native Ministry; Migrante B.C.; Missionaries of St. Charles Scalabrinians; Red Latina Legal group; St. Joseph's Langley Mexican Farm Workers Outreach group; and finally, the West Coast Domestic Workers Association.

The coalition held a press conference back on April 19 to address issues of injustices, vulnerabilities, poor working conditions and barriers to the temporary foreign workers. Many of the temporary foreign workers, particularly in the lower-skilled professions, are in some ways treated as though they're second-class citizens to workers in Canada, and with non-temporary status with respect to their rights and benefits.

Their temporary status renders them invisible and precarious at best and often disposable if they speak up for their rights or speak out against poor working conditions. Many experience their employment relationship as indentured servitude.

These are challenging times, for sure, for these temporary foreign workers. So my first question to the minister is…. Many of the temporary foreign workers pay some $3,000 to $5,000 to recruiters to work in Canada, which we know is illegal. It is illegal to charge a recruitment fee to workers.

What provisions or regulations — enforcement mechanisms, if you will, Minister — are in place to ensure that the temporary foreign workers are not illegally charged thousands of dollars as a recruitment fee so that they can come here to work as temporary foreign workers?

Hon. P. Bell: I was remiss in not introducing staff that I have here with me today. To my left is my deputy minister, Dana Hayden. Immediately to my right is the ADM, Shannon Baskerville, responsible for labour market and immigration. Also, one of our executive directors, Ian Mellor, is to her right.

The critic should be aware, I think, that the temporary foreign worker program is actually a federal government program. This ministry has responsibility for the provincial nominee program, but temporary foreign workers are controlled by the federal government.

If there was an issue with regards to temporary foreign workers paying a recruitment fee, that would fall, likely, to the Ministry of Labour. There is specifically, as I understand it, in the legislation a restriction against that being done. But that would fall to the Ministry of Labour, not this ministry.

J. Kwan: Yeah, I was just talking to our critic about that, and she had in fact spoken with some folks from Immigration. They had said that it would fall under this ministry. Perhaps that's misinformation that was delivered to the critic on that front.

That said, maybe it's the Ministry of Labour to which…. We'll try our hand at the Minister of Labour with this set of questions as well.

Let me ask this question. If in fact, then, illegal fees are being charged, recruitment fees are being charged, will the minister, with his government, along with his colleagues, be prepared to raise this issue? If in fact it is solely the responsibility of the federal government, will the minister work with his colleagues to ensure that this issue is brought to the federal government's attention and dealt with effectively?

[1555]

Hon. P. Bell: While the temporary foreign worker program is a responsibility of the federal government, I actually didn't mean to intimate that we wouldn't like to have delegated responsibility for it. I think that

[ Page 6611 ]

would actually be a fairly attractive opportunity for British Columbia.

However, having been in the portfolio for seven weeks and the federal government having spent five of those seven weeks in an election process, I've been unable to contact the minister to see if they'd be interested in engaging in that discussion.

That all said, it would always concern our government, or any government, if there was an abuse of workers in this province. Although the responsibility for that clearly would be aligned with a Ministry of Labour, as the minister responsible for the provincial nominee program, if I were to discover that something of that nature would be occurring, I would definitely raise it with the federal government and ensure compliance with the laws.

J. Kwan: Okay, so we will bring this issue up with the Minister of Labour during that set of estimates, for sure, to follow up with that.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Now, so there's something to say on that issue around work permits related to temporary foreign workers. Would that not also be a matter dealt with by this ministry, then? That's also the Ministry of Labour?

Hon. P. Bell: Madam Chair, welcome to your lower-Chair position instead of your upper-Chair position.

The issuing of permits for temporary foreign workers would also fall to the responsibility of the federal government, not the provincial government.

J. Kwan: Why I raise this issue, of course, is this. The temporary foreign workers pay, of course, employment insurance premiums, and they're unable to collect EI because of their status.

Because their work permits are employer-specific and not occupation-specific, it actually causes them a problem, in the sense that if they are subject to mistreatment, they will have no recourse. They're stuck with that specific employer. They have no recourse. If there's a system where that work permit could be transferred to a different employer, it could give them some protection at least, in some ways, to address some of these kinds of abuses and practices. That's why I asked this question of the minister.

Again, I guess it's the federal government, although as I said, the critic who talked with Immigration people on the federal level side had said that these are the kinds of questions that could be put here. In any event, maybe there's just confusion and miscommunication all around because of the federal election, amongst other things, so we will try to figure out where we go. We will certainly try these questions with the Minister of Labour in her set of estimates and then, of course, raise it at the federal level as well.

I want to ask this question. Maybe this is also the Ministry of Labour's bailiwick, but I want to bring this to the minister's attention as well. It's about work conditions, ultimately, and trying to get some access to support and information when they're in tough situations.

Temporary foreign workers have many challenges, as I've identified earlier, and there is an urgent need for front-line services to help these workers. They are prohibited from accessing settlement services, and there are few places for them to turn to when they're in need of assistance.

In Alberta, actually, they do provide services. There are a 1-800 hotline and storefront services to assist these vulnerable workers. I don't know whether or not, for the Minister of Jobs, this would fall into the minister's bailiwick — that he would look into providing assistance in this regard, similar to that of the Alberta model, for workers that would be in urgent need from potentially being exploited by their employers or who've run into trouble and need some assistance.

[1600]

J. Kwan: Yes, I appreciate that there are documents and access to website information which foreign workers could look into, but it's a little bit different, though. Having been an advocate in my previous life before I landed here, it makes a difference, though, when you talk to a real person who can actually assist you as you're going through your problems, and as you're stating what the problems are, he might be able to give you direct advocacy work and support. It's very different, I think, than what the minister is talking about.

Given that there isn't a 1-800-number-type hotline service in place, and given that there aren't really front-line storefront services available, could the minister advise whether or not there's something that he would be considering, something that he would think is worthwhile putting in place to provide support and assistance to temporary foreign workers who could be in very trying situations?

Hon. P. Bell: The Ministry of Labour does have the resources that go out and visit sites and enforce existing labour laws in British Columbia. The Ministry of Jobs,

[ Page 6612 ]

Tourism and Innovation doesn't have those resources; they aren't located within this ministry. While government does provide that, it's not provided through this particular ministry.

In terms of the issue of foreign employment, immigration and that sort of thing, the primary area of responsibility that this ministry has is for the provincial nominee program.

The questions that I think the member is asking probably are best canvassed of the Minister of Labour.

J. Kwan: Okay, then we will canvass these questions with the Minister of Labour.

I certainly hope that around the cabinet table the minister would advocate for these kinds of changes and in support of the Minister of Labour when she brings these matters up. For the Minister of Jobs, these folks in the community, when they are faced with challenging working conditions…. I think it does fall into this minister's and this government's overall responsibility to look into and to provide the various supports that are necessary so that there are fair working conditions in place for all people who are here — people who are Canadians, people who are immigrants and most certainly people who are foreign workers as well.

I understand that the provincial nominee program just expanded a little bit. I wonder if the minister can provide us with some information about that. How much does the provincial nominee program cost? How many people have applied to be participants in this program? How many have been processed, and how many have been successful?

[1605]

Hon. P. Bell: For the provincial nominee program, the provincial contribution to the budget is $3.4 million. There is a user fee associated with the provincial nominee program that generates an additional $2.4 million for a total budget to run the program of $5.8 million. The $2.4 million does fluctuate, depending on the number of applications in any given year, but that was what it was for 2010.

There were just over 4,000 applications received, and all would have been processed. The member opposite broke down her question into applications processed and successful, and the applications processed from our perspective would have been the same number. It could be that the member opposite is thinking, perhaps, inquiries or something. I don't think we track that number.

So in terms of the number of applications that we've processed, we're just over 4,000. There were 3,526 nominations recommended and put forward, so out of the 4,000 were 3,526.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have a breakdown of what sector, in terms of what the applicants have applied for? For example, is it in the health care sector? Is it in — I don't know — engineering or whatever the case may be? What sectors have these applicants accessed the programs in?

Hon. P. Bell: Madam Chair, just if I may for a moment deviate from my response to the member opposite.

[1610]

I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House some people that are joining us from a fair distance — actually, probably not that far away if you went straight up the coast. But noting that they have a bus driver with them, I'm guessing they may have driven. I hope they didn't because I've been up and down the hill into Bella Coola before.

I'm seeing nods that, yes, you drove. That's an accomplishment, so congratulations to the bus driver, Mr. Leonard Kozak, for that.

I would like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House a group of students, teachers, a principal and, of course, their bus driver, who are visiting us from Sir Alexander Mackenzie School in Bella Coola through our government's Year of Science program.

There are ten grade 11 and 12 students here. They're travelling to Victoria and Vancouver to visit science facilities and post-secondary institutions to help develop an awareness of the opportunities that science can offer. They're accompanied by their principal, Jeremy Baillie; teachers — and I hope get this right — Elysebeth Revell-Roy and Sara Germain; and their bus driver, Leonard Kozak.

As well as the tours of UBC, UVic and Camosun College, their journey will be taking them to Science World, PNE's physics day, the Museum of Anthropology, UBC's advanced molecular biology lab and a visit to the Royal B.C. Museum.

I'd ask that all members of the House please join me in welcoming the students and teachers from Bella Coola.

So we are in a highly anticipated and exciting process — every year — of what is called estimates.

G. Coons: I seek leave to continue an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Coons: I would also like to welcome my constituents from the Bella Coola Valley. I was just there a week and a half ago and attended quite a few functions in the arts festival. As the minister mentioned, they're from Sir Alexander Mackenzie School, which is getting its gym redone.

I would like to one-up the minister and introduce the students: Jordan Hunt, Francois Jacques, Ben Fernandez, Jasmine Edgar, Chantelle Mack, Brody Tuck, Dylan

[ Page 6613 ]

McFaren, Felicia Harris, Francis Phillips, along with Sara Germain, Elysebeth Revell-Roy, Jeremy Baillie and especially the driver, Leonard. Thank you so much for making it down here.

In a few minutes, after they partake in estimates, we are going to go down to the legislative dining room for our afternoon snack, so I'm really looking forward to that. Would you please make my constituents welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. P. Bell: I was just going to let the member for North Coast's constituents know that it is normal tradition that the MLA representing the constituents always buys downstairs in the dining room. So I would strongly encourage you to eat well, eat heartily, because I'm sure your MLA will offer to pick up the tab when it's done.

I also just wanted to let you know that right now we're in something called estimates, which is a review of the budget. The ministry that I have responsibility for is called Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, so highly relevant to the work that you're doing around science. We had responsibility for the Year of Science, so the funding that brought you down here we were able to provide for you.

This process will be iterative between myself and the critic. The critic will be asking various questions about the budget. I have staff here. These three individuals are staff who help provide me with accurate information so that we can provide that to the critic. These can go for any length of time, and usually the critic likes to keep me in here for ten or so hours. So we'll see how that goes. With that, I will respond to the question. So welcome.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Bell: It was 18 last time. I know. I think I set the record.

The response to the critic's question in terms of what the breakdown is for applications. This is from 2008-09 to 2010-11, so I think a good representative period. About 70 percent of the nominated individuals are in skilled professions like registered nurses; doctors; computer information systems professionals; post-secondary instructors; skilled trades like carpenters, chefs and that sort of thing. Then the remaining 30 percent, or actually about 28½ percent, are entry-level or semi-skilled positions, and 1½ percent is the international post-graduate pilot project. So that is the approximate breakdown.

[1615]

J. Kwan: For a minute, I thought you were going to be running in Bella Coola.

I want to ask one last question because time is of the essence, and we're fast running out of time, even though I know we just began the set of estimates. One last question I want to ask the minister of this program. Of the 3,500 or so folks who entered into this program, how many of them — does the minister know? — actually were able to have employment? And then how many of them are able to be gainfully employed in the profession in which they were trained in their home country?

Hon. P. Bell: One of the rules in the House is that you're not allowed to use props. So you're not allowed to hold up anything on camera to show that there's a wonderful card that I received from the students in Bella Coola. So I'm really not holding up this card right now.

One thing I do want to tell the students from Bella Coola, though, is that within a day or two if you go and google your name on the website or on Google, you will now find your name as introduced in this House today by the member for North Coast, and for the teachers and bus driver by myself. So you'll be forever famous in Google as well.

The answer to the member opposite's question is 94 percent.

J. Kwan: Sorry, the answer was 94 percent of the people find employment in the sector in which they were trained?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm sorry; I only answered one question. The question I answered was the second question, which is that 94 percent continue to be employed in the sector that they have specific skill sets in. The answer to the question of how many originally are employed in that sector is 100 percent, because it is the nature of the program that the person has to be sponsored in order to qualify for the program and has to be sponsored by an employer.

So when the employee arrives, when the nominee arrives, they become employed. It's part of the contract that's required. We did an analysis. We just completed a five-year review of all people that had been sponsored by the provincial nominee program. Of the five-year window that we looked at, 94 percent of the people that originally came under that specific skill set continue to be employed in that skilled trade.

J. Kwan: I'd be interested, actually, in getting that analysis from the minister — if he will, please — and then, at a later time, in following up further with the minister's staff around these issues. So if I could get a commitment from the minister on that, then I'm going to wrap up my set of questions in this area.

I know it sounds very strange. Estimates have just begun, but we have a very truncated period of time in which we can ask questions on the detailed spending of ministries across the government. I think somebody

[ Page 6614 ]

from our caucus did a calculation of that. At the rate at which we're going, with the limited time that we are able to sit, we have to actually, basically, pass estimates spending to the tune of some $400 million a day.

You could imagine that $400 million a day really should warrant a lot more questions than what we're doing here, but we don't have the time because the sitting is much truncated. We've only sat for four days since February, until last week. We have, basically, one month to get this work done.

So if I could get the commitment from the minister to ask these questions and to get that full report from him at a later time, I would appreciate it.

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be happy to ensure that that occurs.

[1620]

However, I will advise the member opposite that the great news is that this is free time, because we're only in the big House in this particular situation. That was not calculated, I believe, by the member opposite's calculation in terms of the number of hours that were available for estimates. So this should be considered bonus time for estimate review.

J. Kwan: I'm tempted to enter into debate about that, because it's not bonus time, I've got to tell you. I already lost an hour to Bill 4, and I'm counting every minute of the day.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: No, actually. Not all my people.

In any event, that's not here nor there, but I think the minister gets my meaning in terms of needing to expedite and to get the answers for the spending for the ministries. So with that, I thank the ministry staff for this short canvassing of the minister's responsibility.

I'm going to move into another area, equally important within the ministry, and that is around the ITA, the industrial training piece within the ministry. The minister knows that we are actually faced with a crunch in terms of the labour market. We have people who are aging, the baby boomers who are moving on into retirement, and yet, of course, we have situations where people are not producing as many children. So therefore we have this thing called the labour skills shortage crisis.

Things are sort of happening. We're anticipating this to take its course. So now I'm just going to cut to the quick. I have a whole lot of

preamble, but I'm not sort of going to the

preamble too much.

The government is, according to their service plan and to the government's budget…. It shows that it is cutting nearly $2.4 million from this year's budget in this area and that they're planning a $4.8 million cut next year. This comes out of the minister's service plan 2011-12 and 2012-13. So I wonder if the minister can explain how the government could justify this cut in the ITA by $2.4 million this year and $4.8 million next year, given that the government themselves have acknowledged and expressed concerns about the upcoming shortage of trained workers in B.C.

Before I take my seat, I'm just also going to preface by saying that I'm asking these questions on behalf of my colleague who is the critic for this area but who is not able to ask these questions today, and that's the member for Nelson-Creston.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm joined by Kevin Evans, who is the CEO for the Industry Training Authority now.

Certainly it's a good catch, I think, by the critic. The issue, actually, is that $4.25 million to the ITA is provided through the Ministry of Advanced Education, which keeps its total budget at $108.587 million. So good catch.

I asked that question myself when I was looking at the budget, and the money had already been pre-agreed to come over from Advanced Education.

J. Kwan: Okay, so the minister has responsibility for this. Formerly it was in Advanced Education — this area, ITA. So that money is going to now flow to this ministry. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. P. Bell: This is a one-year agreement, and it was as a result of the transitions that were made. So for next year's budget, we would go forward and apply accordingly.

[1625]

J. Kwan: So is the minister saying that he's not expecting a budget cut, then, for next year because of these transitions? There's this gap. Part of the money that was for this program is in a different ministry. That's why the books read accordingly. Or has there been an actual cut in the dollars? Maybe the minister can clarify that for me, because I'm not clear.

Hon. P. Bell: I'll go into a bit more detail for the member opposite. The funding for the Industry Training Authority is broken down into a number of components. One of those components is the provincial contribution, which annually is $94.4 million. That number continues to remain consistent through the three-year budgetary period.

The reason why there appears to be a budget shortfall or reduction — I shouldn't say shortfall; a reduction — in the 2012-13 year is because of a labour market agreement that we have with the federal government. They contribute the incremental funding, roughly $14 million, that tops up the $94 million to $108 million in funding for the Industry Training Authority, and that number, as a result of the labour market agreement with the federal government, gets a bit smaller next year.

[ Page 6615 ]

That is an ongoing negotiation and something that we'll be talking to the federal government about, as they re-engage post-election, to see if we can mitigate that. But the provincial funding envelope remains consistent at $94.4 million, and what appears to be a reduction in the '12-13 fiscal year is a result of a labour market agreement with the federal government.

J. Kwan: So there is a reduction, then, in the budget, though from the federal stream. Given that that's the case, though, for us there are implications — right? There are implications for this program.

What are the effects of this funding shortfall for the ITA? What does it mean in terms of the number of workers being trained in the province? Would there be implications for that, and if so, what are the minister's projections?

Hon. P. Bell: I understand the reason for the question and why the member is asking this question. But it should be noted that this debate is about the estimates for the '11-12 fiscal year. While the blue book shows the budgetary lines for '12-13 and '13-14, this actual estimate process is here just to discuss '11-12.

The '12-13 fiscal year is a projection, from our perspective. We are in negotiations with the federal government on an ongoing basis about ensuring that that's fully funded. So I wouldn't want to presuppose that we won't be here a year from today discussing this budget, discovering that the federal government has agreed to fulfil that budgetary line.

[1630]

It is an important issue, and it's not one that I minimize the member opposite's concerns over. It will be at the top of my priority list as we re-engage with the federal government after cabinet appointments are made.

J. Kwan: In this set of estimates, of course, we're here to deal with the service plans, to which the government had committed to bringing in three-year service plans. These numbers are a part of that service plan.

I just want to say this to the minister, because we're actually getting on fairly amicably here. Hopefully, we can follow in that tradition here and not repeat what we did last year, where I was with the minister for 18 hours trying to get some basic answers that were not forthcoming. I don't want to play that, so hopefully we won't go down that road.

The minister is saying that because it's the federal government — because they had an election and don't know what they were doing and now they know what they're doing because they are now in a majority…. Of course, he's going to go and negotiate these dollars. Hopefully, he will be successful, because I think that there will be huge implications to have a loss of some $2.4 million in this sector, as we are already projecting a labour skills shortfall, and we know what's coming.

There's an aspect of me that says…. The Liberal government like to pride themselves in saying that they're always ready, that they're good managers of our economy and that this Minister of Jobs, in preparation for jobs, would ensure that there are skilled workers in our communities. Then he would be, I think, working on a backup plan, just in case the federal government says, "We're so broke that we don't have the money because of the economic downturn," and so on and so forth — that there would be no money forthcoming and that there would be a plan of some sort to deal with that.

I would have thought that the minister might have something to that effect. That would be, I guess, prudent planning in anticipation of. Of course, it would be great to have the full funding in place, but in the event that it doesn't come into play, what will we do? Hence, I would assume that's what those service plans are meant to do. You do these projections so that you think ahead.

I actually do remember the current Premier out there saying, when she was the Minister of Education going on and on ad nauseam, how she wants to make sure that the education sector would have the opportunity to plan ahead so that they know where their funding is coming from. Of course, little did we know…. That never did materialize. There was no planning, and funding cuts came on an ongoing basis for the education sector when she was the Minister of Education.

That's why I ask these questions. I think that for prudent planning and forward-looking purposes there would be some sort of contingency plan. Maybe there isn't one. Maybe we're just waiting for those negotiations to wrap up, and then we'll find ourselves in the middle of somewhere, whether or not we'll find those moneys. We'll wait for that answer from the minister then.

Now, I want to ask the minister about some changes related to this program. Recently there have been significant changes to the foundation skills courses for trades training. Many of the programs have been delisted so that EI recipients are no longer eligible to access the courses. Programs that remain listed as eligible for EI recipients have fewer dollars attached to them and a maximum tuition level. Some of those questions were actually raised, I know, in the House in question period by former critics.

None of these changes help B.C. to address the 160,000 shortfall in B.C. tradespeople as predicted by the Conference Board of Canada. One employment service provider, who does not want to have their name mentioned because they're actually in fear of retribution by the government…. From the people on the ground, though, they say: "These changes have made it much more difficult to upgrade skills, and the whole situation is a complicated mess when it doesn't need to be." These are folks in the community directly saying that this is the situation as a result of these changes.

I'd like to ask the minister: what analysis was done prior to the changes, and why make such changes?

[ Page 6616 ]

Why did the government go ahead with these changes that actually, in effect, are complicating people's lives in terms of their ability to be retrained and to get back into the workforce?

[1635]

Hon. P. Bell: This is going to be a role reversal, because I'm going to ask the member opposite a question as well. I think the two questions I heard were that the member opposite believes there are some programs that were delisted. I think the other question I heard was that EI recipients now are only able to acquire funding at lower levels.

At just an early scan from my staff here, we're not aware of any of the programs under the Industry Training Authority that have had those sorts of impacts. So if the member opposite could explain just a bit further, then hopefully I'll be able to answer the question accurately.

J. Kwan: The foundation skill courses that have been delisted.

Hon. P. Bell: If the member opposite…. I'm not trying to be cute. We're struggling, trying to make sure we get an answer for the member opposite. If the member opposite is referring to the pre-apprenticeship programs, we're not aware or don't believe that there have been any reductions made in those programs or any reductions in the percentage of funding available. So it could be that we're just misunderstanding the question, and maybe I could just ask for a bit more clarity.

J. Kwan: My understanding is that there are various courses which people are eligible to get retrained in, and a number of those courses have been delisted. That is to say that access to a number of different courses under this program is no longer available.

Hon. P. Bell: We don't have any knowledge of that. Because the member opposite has suggested that the person that's advised her of this doesn't want their name to be disclosed, we will be unable to go back and ask that person. Perhaps the member opposite could ask the person tonight for a bit more detail on that, and then we could review that tomorrow. But we're unable to identify any areas as described by the member opposite.

J. Kwan: So why don't we do that. I'll see about how we can sort of get that information to the minister without jeopardizing the folks who are in fear of retribution. That's always the tricky situation when we are dealing with those kinds of circumstances. So we'll follow up with the minister, then, on that.

I actually see my other critic is here, and in the meantime there's also a local issue. Let me just quickly ask these questions, and then I will suggest to the minister, too, that what we'll try and do with this area is to again set up, I think, a time where we could meet with the minister's staff so that we can ask some of these detailed questions in that setting.

Could the minister please tell us, if he could shed some light, because I'm a bit confused about this? There was a report by the Auditor General. The Auditor General's office had been critical of the ITA and had recommended that it report to the Minister of Advanced Education. So here we are. It was put back, and then it was taken out again and put into this ministry.

I wonder if the minister could shed some light on that as to why that is the case. Why is it the case that the government has decided to go against the recommendation from the Auditor General's report?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member opposite is referring to the 2008 report by the Auditor General. The Auditor General made 11 recommendations. One of those recommendations was that the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Advanced Education work more closely together on issues as they relate to the Industry Training Authority.

[1640]

I don't have the recommendation here with me, but my understanding is that it was not worded specifically that the Industry Training Authority should be located in the Ministry of Advanced Education. It was just that the two ministries needed to work more closely together to deliver those services. So of the 11 recommendations, all of those have been acted upon and complete.

Again, my understanding of the recommendation as associated with where the ITA was located simply was a function of the two areas of Economic Development and Advanced Education working more closely together. The decision to put it in Economic Development clearly relates to our ability to influence the necessary trades for economic growth.

J. Kwan: Quick question for the minister. Does the minister think it's a good fit?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't know. I've been here for seven weeks. I'm joking. Yeah, I think it's a great fit. It does make sense that we should locate it there, but it's in early days. We're still making sure everything fits well.

J. Kwan: Always good to keep the back door open.

Okay, a quick last question, and then we're going to wrap this segment up. Then we're going to move on to the Delta local question, and then we'll move into tourism, etc.

The industry training organizations, the ITOs…. On the website, actually, it provides for various service plans, training

summary, information, etc. It has various links that you can get into it. But the website shows that the

[ Page 6617 ]

service plans are for '08 to '09, training plan summaries of these various ITO organizations, '08-09. Some of them even go back to '07-08. In other words, none of them, it appears to me, are up to date.

I'm wondering: is it the case that they're not up to date, or is it the case that this is a computer sort of glitch in the sense that the websites weren't updated or what is the problem? Is it that there are no new service plans, no new summaries, and they've just sort of ended when they were posted, or is it just that new reports have not been posted?

Hon. P. Bell: The accountability framework for the ITOs has changed. That's why the websites and service plans are no longer current. The Industry Training Authority purchases services from the ITOs on a fee-for-service basis. There is a contractual arrangement that is entered into.

The measurements relate to the specific service that's being provided and an accountability measure around that is calculated and determined. If that link still exists to the ITO websites, it probably shouldn't, because those service plans are not the model that we use for accountability any more. It is a fee-for-service model.

J. Kwan: Just to follow up on that, though, on the website it says industrial training organization, etc., and then it says that ITOs are established by industry and are accountable to and co-funded by the ITA. One would assume that they would be reporting to the ITA in terms of the work that they're doing, the

summary and their service plans. Have they stopped doing that altogether, even to the ITA?

Hon. P. Bell: The model of accountability is simply different. As opposed to preparing a service plan ahead of time, they enter into a contract with the ITA that articulates the service that they will be providing and the accountability measures that they will be held to account for, and then they're measured against that. So it is not a service plan–related model that was historical. The confusion here, I suspect, just simply relates to some links that probably should have been deleted from the website.

[1645]

J. Kwan: The minister is saying that these are old. They're not relevant anymore. The accountability model that the minister is now following is completely different. My question, then, to the minister…. I'm sorry, that was supposed to be my last question. Of course, as we know, these things generate more questions.

Why did it change? Why did the accountability model change? And the way in which they're reporting out, then, to the ITA — where can we access that information? Is that information made public?

Just to follow up with that, if it's not made public, will the minister provide that information to our critic?

Hon. P. Bell: The answer to the last part of the question — will we ensure that the critic has all of the relevant contracts and information? — is yes, we will. In fact, in an endeavour to accomplish the commitment that our new Premier has made to a more open, accountable government, I have also just recently — in fact, as recently as 12 or 15 seconds ago — directed the CEO of the ITA to post those agreements on his website.

G. Gentner: Recently in an

article in a local newspaper, the Delta Optimist , there's been discussion of a foreign trade zone perhaps even coming to a municipality near me. On February 22, 2011, the then Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Investment issued an RFP for a feasibility of a B.C. foreign trade zone program. I'm wondering how much has been earmarked for such a study and where I can find it line by line in, perhaps, the service plan. I didn't find it.

Hon. P. Bell: The contract for this particular project actually rests with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. But I can tell the member opposite that the contract amount was for $76,785, and the contract completion date is July 31 of 2011.

G. Gentner: Well, I have a request for proposal in my hand, Feasibility of a British Columbia Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) Program , Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Investment. Maybe the minister can correct me, but this request for proposal was a joint venture by both ministries. Am I wrong to assume such?

Hon. P. Bell: We always work collaboratively with other ministries, and I'm happy to answer whatever questions, certainly, that I'm capable of answering relative to this issue.

G. Gentner: I'm intrigued by it all because why would it be issued in partnership along with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, which deals with freeways and the like, and yet this request for proposal is about opening up trade as a free or foreign trade zone?

Hon. P. Bell: I should also identify a new staff member that has joined me, Don White, who is an executive director in the trade, investment and innovation branch.

I think the answer to the member's question is reasonably simple. The Ministry of Transportation also has responsibility for ports. Foreign trade zones typically are developed in and around port areas, so it would be an area that would be collaboratively developed.

[1650]

[ Page 6618 ]

G. Gentner: Now we're getting somewhere, because now we know that the foreign trade zone is coming to a port near you. I thank you for bringing that to our attention. It's very much important, if you understand what's happening in my community and in the member for Delta South's. We're seeing extreme development proposals hitting us in both ways.

Now, the request for proposal closed on March 10, 2011. Has there been a candidate chosen?

Hon. P. Bell: There has been a successful proponent. There were two proposals received, one from a company called InterVISTAS Consulting Group and the other from a company called CPCS Transcom Ltd., which was a Quebec-based company. The contract was awarded to the B.C.-based company, InterVISTAS.

G. Gentner: InterVISTAS — is that a company that is part of the greater Vancouver gateway committee?

Hon. P. Bell: No, they are, as I understand it from my staff, independent of that group.

G. Gentner: Has the provincial government been in discussions with the federal government relative to changing existing federal foreign trade zone programs?

Hon. P. Bell: I can assure the member opposite that since I've had responsibility for the portfolio, there have been no discussions between myself and the federal government, or staff members and the federal government, as I understand it, around foreign trade zones.

I can't assure the member opposite that at some point in the past there hasn't been some level of d