British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, March 4, 2014 (40th Parliament, 2nd Session) (20140304pm-Hansard-v7n4) (20140304pm Hansard v7n4)

20140304pm-Hansard-v7n4

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 7, Number 4

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Second Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Pat Pimm Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation......................................................................................................Hon. Don McRae Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ......................................................................................................................................................Adrian Dix Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ....................................................................................................................................... Marc Dalton Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) .............................................

Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Scott (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal) ........................................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) ..................................................

Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal) ...............................................Peace River North Plecas, Darryl (BC Liberal) ....................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ................................................

Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal) ........................................ Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ............................................................................Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon.

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

Bill Routley Delta North ..................................................................................Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola....................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ............................................................... Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan .........................................................

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North .......................................................................Hon. Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 49; New Democratic 34; Independent 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 1801 Bill 6 — Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act (continued) R. Fleming C. James A. Weaver M. Karagianis Hon. C. Oakes Bill 3 — Missing Persons Act Hon. S. Anton K. Corrigan J. Th ornthwaite L. Krog J. Martin M. Karagianis G. Heyman C. Trevena S. Robinson D. Plecas N. Simons M. Morris J. Kwan Hon. S.

Anton Bill 5 — Forests, Lands and Natural Reso urce Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2014 Hon. S. Th omson N. Macdonald A. Weaver B. Routley Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 1842 Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) Hon. A. Virk D. Eby B. Ralston A. Weaver G. Heyman H. Bains

TUESDAY , MARCH 4, 2014 Th e House met at 1:33 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. T. Stone: I call in the main chamber here, the big House, continued reading of Bill 6 and, in the Douglas Fir Committee Room, continued estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. Second Reading of Bills BILL 6 — PROVINCIAL CAPITAL COMMISSION DISSOLUTION ACT (continued) R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to fi nish my remarks that were interrupted by our adjournment ear- lier. I know I only have a few minutes left . [1335] [D.

Horne in the chair.] I think I gave some reasons as to why this side of the House is going to oppose the dissolution of a Crown corporation that has had an illustrious history — one, indeed, that the minister praised in her introduction of the bill that would destroy the commission and wind it down for all time. I think the thrust of my remarks, though, in the re- maining time I have is to focus on what comes next. I know that government will have its way . I t has the ma- jority of seats in this chamber. Th is bill will pass.

Maybe at committee stage we'll have a chance to make this bill more palatable through amendments. Maybe the minis- ter will be able to answer some of the unanswered ques- tions that surround introduction of this legislation. We'll see what happens. But I think what loses the confi dence of the oppos- ition party on this bill is that there is no plan surround- ing the dissolution of the PCC. Th ere's no indication of what comes next.

I mentioned in my earlier remarks that what we are losing is an organization that has shown incredible cap- acity to deliver, in an entrepreneurial way, stewardship of Crown assets that have been bought for strategic pur- poses over many decades and to do great things with them. I mentioned the example of St. Ann's Academy. Government has, by happenstance and through no par- ticular initiative of its own, also seen something good come together that was just announced last week with regards to the Point Hope shipyard.

One of the outstanding things that remains in the port- folio of the PCC, over which there's now no direction given in this bill, is around the Belleville international ferry terminal. Th is is important for two reasons. One, it's an economic development opportunity for the prov- ince that will support tourism, will support international visitation in particular. It will help this region. It will help other parts of the province when those tourists and busi- ness services can enter and do business here. It's also critically important, going back to the original mandate of the Provincial Capital Commission.

Th is in- ner city harbour on the shores of the legislative precinct is exactly what W .A.C. Bennett, his son Bill Bennett aft er that and Premiers from the New Democratic Party and others supported in terms of beautifi cation. Having a body that is in charge of planning — wheth- er it's at the National Capital Commission here or in Washington, D.C., or state capitals in the U.S. or most of the provincial capitals in Canadian provinces — is a unique responsibility that requires a unique focus.

In this case, in British Columbia what we are losing is a small Crown corporation that supported itself, didn't cost the taxpayers anything. It had a portfolio of prop- erties that they managed in a businesslike way and that made money that supported all of the festivals and in- itiatives, education programs and the operations and the administration of the Capital Commission. Th at's going to be gone.

I think government is already hearing — I look for- ward to speaking to the Minister of Transportation; his ministry will become the new owner of the Belleville ter- minal property and what was formerly the responsibility of the PCC — the longstanding wishes about what might happen and occur there in the future. It's been held for a strategic reason.

Little has hap- pened in the last decade during this government, and I think the greatest fear in this community, amongst busi- ness people and others who have an economic interest in what happens on that property, is that government will continue to neglect it and that perhaps they will even pri- vatize it, take the proceeds and put it towards the defi cit of the government. I mentioned earlier that this bill is completely pre- mature. Th ey've dissolved the PCC without deciding what comes aft er. But it's intentional. Th e government is doing this for a reason.

I suggest the reason they're doing it is that there is an imperative by government to support the budget, and that is based on selling as much land as quickly as pos- sible with as little community and public input as pos- sible. We've seen it done already. Th ey've got a target to meet — $450 million worth of land sales in this fi scal year, $200 million worth of land sales in the next fi scal year. Th at's two-thirds of a billion dollars. And it's a shame that the Provincial Capital Commission is being part of this liquidation in B.C. without the right consideration for it to happen. 1801

British Columbia Debates1802 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Th ank you for the opportunity to make remarks this aft ernoon. [1340] C. James: I rise to speak to Bill 6, the Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act. I, as well, rise, as the mem- ber for Victoria–Beacon Hill, to speak against this bill. I want to talk a little bit about the concerns and the questions that this bill brings forward. I want to start — because I think it's important to start — at the beginning, which was around the establishment of the Provincial Capital Commission.

As has been said by my colleague, the Provincial Capital Commission was actually put in place in 1956 by W .A.C. Bennett, the Premier at the time, who decided that the capital city of our thriving prov- ince, as he described it, deserved to become the focus of beautifi cation and enhancement. I think it's interesting to take a look at the irony of the forming of the Provincial Capital Commission by a Premier who understood the importance of a capital city to our entire province — that Victoria isn't important simply as a city.

It's important to all the people of British Columbia, not simply the residents of Victoria but in fact all the people of British Columbia as the capital city. Given the current Premier's comments about Victoria and the sick culture that she sees here and her lack of interest in attending here in Victoria, I think it is, as I said, not without irony that we're sitting here today aft er a Premier in the '50s saw the vision of having a Capital Commission to today where we have a Premier who is getting rid of the Provincial Capital Commission.

It started off with the four core municipalities in our area, which are Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Saanich and Victoria, and then was expanded to include the Saanich Peninsula and all the Western Communities. I also think it's im- portant to mention — and it's interesting as someone who has grown up in Victoria, who has lived here in James Bay in this community since I was fi ve years old — that the very fi rst project that the Provincial Capital Commission ever took on was in 1957, the year I was born. It was to improve the Dallas Road walkways. I'm sure that, yes, the member is doing his math across the way.

When you are a provincial politician, there are no secrets about your age, and I'm quite proud to be in my 50s. But I think it's interesting that their fi rst project was the Dallas Road walkways. I think members on both sides of this House, when they're staying here in Victoria while the Legislature is sitting, have probably walked along Dallas Road. It is one of those icons in our com- munity. It is one of those areas that anyone who lives in the neighbourhood or comes to visit Victoria talks about — the opportunity to walk along the waterfront on Dallas Road.

It's interesting to note that the Provincial Capital Commission did that work as their very fi rst project in 1957. I also think it's interesting to look at the fact that it cost $65,000 to do all of the walkway. Since then the Provincial Capital Commission now, more than 50 years later, has put over $19 million into beautifying the capital city — into projects for various improvements, for herit- age, for history — and protected those. I think it's important, as we look at getting rid of some- thing, that we take a look at why it was put in place and why it was there in the fi rst place.

When we look at the historical signifi cance of buildings, when we take a look at our heritage, when we take a look at natural signifi - cance, that really was the reason the Provincial Capital Commission was in place. It was to acknowledge that your capital city doesn't belong simply to the residents of Victoria; your capital city belongs to the entire prov- ince and to the people of British Columbia. Just as this building belongs to the people of British Columbia, so do all of the things and the assets that belong in the capital city.

Th at really was the role that the Provincial Capital Commission played so well. My colleague before me mentioned St. Ann's Academy. I think probably for many of us, that's one of the icons of the Provincial Capital Commission — beautiful grounds, a beautiful heritage building that was protected by the Provincial Capital Commission at the time. None of us can imagine that not being there as part of our history of, as I said earlier, not simply the capital region but all of British Columbia.

Also, part of the vision of the Provincial Capital Commission was to make sure that it celebrated British Columbia and provided supports for the capital celebrat- ing British Columbia. [1345] I just fi nd it interesting that when you take a look at that history and when you take a look at the 1950s and a Premier who felt it was valuable and important to have a Capital Commission in place, why we would see the gov- ernment of today taking a look at dissolving something so important and so valuable, and something that's also there across the country.

Provincial capital commissions are not something unique to British Columbia. Provincial capital com- missions are there in almost every province across our country, again, because there is a recognition that there is something special about a capital city that needs to be shared with all of British Columbia. When I fi rst heard of the Provincial Capital Commis- sion being dissolved and had people in my community raising their issues and raising their concerns, one of the fi rst things I asked — and certainly I know that some of the city councillors in Victoria had asked — was: where was the business plan?

Y ou'd imagine that if you're looking at dissolving a Crown corporation, you're looking at dissolving some- thing that has been in place for such a long period of time, your fi rst step would be a business plan that would give

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 4, 2014 1803 the rationale, give the explanation and talk about why that was the direction being taken. Well, it's interesting that there is no business plan. There is no business plan that talks about why the Provincial Capital Commission is being dissolved and why…. I heard the minister in her remarks, when she brought this bill in, saying that the government knows it can take on the Provincial Capital Commission duties. Well, that may be true.

But we don't know that, be- cause there is no business plan that shows that or points out the rationale and the argument and the facts around why this is going to make a diff erence and why the duties can continue to be done within government. Th at's another very important point that I just want to take a minute to speak to, which is all of the activities of the Provincial Capital Commission and what's go- ing to happen to those activities. Th e Provincial Capital Commission was self-sustaining. Government says that they're going to save $1 million — that this is part of the core review.

As we all know, the core review is looking for effi cien- cies across government. Th e government's rationale is that $1 million will be saved by moving the Provincial Capital Commission within government. Well, if that's accurate, I'm curious where the money is for the pro- grams and services that are being provided now for the Provincial Capital Commission. If $1 million is going to be saved and the Provincial Capital Commission was self-sustaining, where are the dollars to provide the programs and services and the maintenance of the heritage buildings and the looking aft er of the land that is already there?

I reviewed the provincial budget, and I certainly didn't see anything in the budget that said "providing programs and services that were formerly with the Provincial Capital Commission." I think that's a big outstanding question from my perspective. What exactly is going to happen to those programs and services? What exactly is going to happen? I think the other piece that is worrisome is the issue of local voice and local control.

I think the strength of the Provincial Capital Commission was that it had provin- cial representation, recognizing, as I was saying earlier, that the capital belongs to the province, not simply the people of Victoria. It also acknowledged that the capital city is Victoria. So it also had representatives from city council, local repre- sentatives sitting on the Provincial Capital Commission. Th at really provided a very valuable voice to be able to assist with decision-making, to be able to build partner- ships.

We've seen — my colleague who spoke before me talked about it — some of the land swaps that have been made. Th ere's been some real value in those land swaps. Th ere's been some good work done, where they've been able to stay in public hands, where you've been able to benefi t the community and benefi t the Provincial Capital Commission. Th ere's been some very good work done, but that kind of work doesn't occur without building those relationships. Th at kind of work certainly doesn't occur if you shut out local voice, if you don't assist the opportunity for those voices to be heard.

If you're looking at doing plan- ning in the capital city, the people involved in that plan- ning oft en are mayor and council. Th ose are oft en the individuals who are involved in assisting. The local First Nations — involved in assisting, looking at their own projects and sitting around the Provincial Capital Commission and saying: "How can we maximize the lo- cal projects and the local work that we're doing?" [1350] I'm very concerned that in eliminating the Provincial Capital Commission, we lose an opportunity.

We lose an opportunity to be able to make sure that we're get- ting the best use out of those public lands that we have — lands that are valuable, lands that you don't get back once they're gone, lands that belong to the people of this province and are held in the capital city. I think it's very tough to lose that local control and that local voice and still build that relationship and still build those decisions and make the right decisions for the land.

I want to take just a minute to talk about the Belleville terminal, because it is a critical economic driver in the city of Victoria, a critical driver for tourism for not only the city of Victoria but for all of Vancouver Island and, in fact, for bringing people here to British Columbia. It is an investment and an area that needs work and that has not received any attention over the last number of years. Th e Belleville terminal, through this bill and through this act, will be moved into the Ministry of Transportation.

I certainly hope — and I'm always an optimist — this means that the Belleville terminal will go to a priority list in the Ministry of Transportation and won't sit idle and not get paid attention to. Th ere is an understand- able concern. Th ere are very few cities across this country, in fact across North America, where you have ferries com- ing in to your capital city right into the downtown. In most cities, when you are looking at ferry terminals and even if you look at the provincial ferries here, they're out of town, and they bring visitors in.

We have a jewel in Victoria where we have two ferries, the Coho and the Clipper, that bring people from the United States here right into downtown. Th ey come into that beautiful harbour and have people delivered right to downtown, where they bring their re- sources, where they spend money, where they support our local businesses, where they provide economic ac- tivity for the city of Victoria — again, both great busi- nesses who have provided huge support to the city of Victoria and who work in great partnership with the city of Victoria to provide that.

British Columbia Debates1804 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 I'm not sure if anybody on the other side of the House has taken either of those ferries over the last number of years and has seen the kind of security terminal that you have to go through since 9/11, that has shift ed on those ferries. It's an embarrassment, and I think everyone would say that it was an embarrassment. It is not worthy of the kinds of good businesses that they run and the good work that we do coming here to Victoria. Y ou go through trailers. Th ey're unheated. Y ou oft en have lineups.

Th e businesses have done everything they can and the city has done everything they can to try and tidy those up, to make sure that they're as quick possible at moving visitors through and that you get great service with the individuals who work there. Th ey provide won- derful opportunities. But it needs upgrading. It needs upgrading to make sure that we meet the security needs that are there, and it needs upgrading to provide better customer service for people coming to Canada, their fi rst glimpse of Canada as they come through.

Th at's work that I would certainly hope, as we look at the transfer of Belleville terminal over to the Ministry of Transportation, won't get lost and that I hope will in fact rise to the top as a critical project that needs to be taken on and needs to be looked at here in British Columbia and here in Victoria, in the capital city. I think there are opportunities missed and opportunities lost if we don't get that work done. So that's a piece I'll be looking for. I want to touch for a moment, as well, on the programs and the sponsorships that are done by the Provincial Capital Commission.

Again, I heard the minister, and I've seen the comments in the press where the minister has said that government will ensure that those projects get covered off . Government will ensure that those pro- jects are taken care of, that they're not going to go by the wayside — that government will provide them. I want to read a list of a few of the events that hap- pened that were sponsored by the Provincial Capital Commission, the very organization that's going to dis- appear with the passing of this bill. [1355] Earth Day festival.

I think that anyone who lives in greater Victoria in the capital region has been to Earth Day festival over at St. Ann's Academy, a wonderful op- portunity that brings together musicians, artists, local businesses, community groups. Last year during the election, for example, we had a panel discussion with members from all diff erent pol- itical parties, to have an opportunity to talk about our priorities when it came to climate change and to address the issues around protecting the planet — very fi tting for Earth Day, a wonderful festival that is sponsored by the Provincial Capital Commission.

It's something that is supported by the Provincial Capital Commission. Swiftsure, the yacht race for Victoria — anybody who has lived in Victoria or visited Victoria knows that Swift sure is something that is a given in Victoria and, again, is supported by the Provincial Capital Commission. One of the areas that they spent a fair bit of time in partnership with First Nations on is Aboriginal Day in our capital city. Th at, again, is something that's been sponsored by the Provincial Capital Commission. I've at- tended many wonderful events that have occurred, oft en using St.

Ann's Academy, where they have the theatre in the back of the academy. Th ey've provided opportunities for us to learn about our First Nations culture, to respect our First Nations culture. What will happen, with this bill, to Aboriginal Day and the sponsorship that's provided and supported by the Capital Commission? Canada Day — I think most people would expect that their capital city is going to be part of Canada Day and that it would have a recognition. Th at, again, is some- thing where the Provincial Capital Commission provided support for that kind of event.

Th e buskers festival — I'm not sure if any members visited Victoria during the summer and saw the buskers festival going on. Each of these festivals are extraordinary in themselves, but they also bring economic activity to the area. Th ey also increase economic growth in Victoria. Symphony Splash is another example. Th is is a long list of events that take place, that are sponsored by the Provincial Capital Commission. B.C. Day — I don't think it would be any surprise that people would expect that the capital city, on B.C.

Day, would be celebrating and that that would be supported by the Provincial Capital Commission. Th e Dragon Boat Festival is another event. Th ose people who take a look at the Provincial Capital Commission and perhaps have wondered, "Well, maybe it really doesn't make a diff erence. I'm not really sure why it's in place.

I'm not really sure why it's there," I think can take a long look at these festivals along with all of the pro- tection of the heritage and history of our capital city and know that the Provincial Capital Commission has an im- pact in Victoria, has an impact on the life, both economic and social, of Victoria. Th e Classic Boat Festival; the Victoria Fringe Th eatre Festival; Tidings of Comfort and Joy Festival, a wonder- ful music festival that's held through December in the chapel at St. Ann's — that's just a list of the kinds of ac- tivities that the Provincial Capital Commission has been doing.

I wonder, when I see no budget put aside for those activities…. I hear the words from the minister and the government that they're going to look aft er them, but I don't see any specifi cs that give me comfort. One of the other programs that I wanted to touch on before I wrap up is the Capital for Kids program. Th is is a program that was begun by the Provincial Capital Commission to bring children from all over British Columbia to their capital city to learn about their capital city. Whether it's northern British Columbia, whether

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 4, 2014 1805 it's our coast, whether it's the Kootenays or the northern part of our Island, every year we see 38,000 young British Columbians coming to the capital city for programs, to experience the capital. I've had the opportunity over a number of years to at- tend their events and visit them in the Mungo Martin House, which is right at the foot of the museum. To see the young people…. Th e day that I dropped in two years ago, they were learning about First Nations and our his- tory.

What an extraordinary experience for children, many of whom had never been out of their community. Th is was their first big trip to a big city from small-town British Columbia to learn about their capital and to learn about the history of their capital. What a valuable oppor- tunity for those young people. [1400] Th is is a program that is important, that is critical. I think we need to have assurances — more than sim- ply words, but assurances. With the Provincial Capital Commission disappearing, unfortunately, with this gov- ernment's direction, what is going to happen to those programs and services?

In closing, I just want to say that I will be voting against this bill. I do believe that the bill leaves a number of ques- tions unanswered for people in my area and people in the region and people across British Columbia. What is the kind of protection that's going to be there for the existing sites, for the heritage sites, for the historical sites? I've had no assurances, no specifi cs around what kind of protec- tion will be there. What land is going to be sold? I'm very concerned about losing the opportunity to have that land stay in public hands.

I'm very worried about the fact that it may be sold off for one-time resources to help the government balance their budget. Once that happens, that land and that history and that heritage is gone forever. One of great strengths of the Provincial Capital Commission was to assure people in our region that we would be protecting that history. So I'm very concerned about the selling off of that land and what could happen to those lands and to those dollars — as I said, shortsight- ed to think that we could sell it and help a budget one year and then have the money gone for good.

I think the last piece I just want to mention is the lo- cal voice and local control for the capital city and where that voice will go now. Where will that planning occur? Where will the opportunities and the conversations hap- pen if there is a land swap to be had, or if there is work that needs to be done on projects, or for new proposals that come up in the capital city? Where will that discus- sion go for our local mayor and council? Where will the discussion go for our local citizens, to ensure that kind of development is done in partnership with the city? Th e very last thing is just respect.

As I said as I start- ed, it's respect for the capital city being the city for all British Columbians and not simply being for the people of Victoria, not simply here for the people who live here but, in fact, here as part of our history, as part of our past and part of our future as a capital city. Where is the recog- nition and support for the capital city from this govern- ment? I think it's pretty clear it's not here, with this bill coming forward, and that's why I'll be speaking against it. A. Weaver: I wish to reiterate almost word for word what the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill just spoke about.

In fact, much of what I was going to say was ac- tually brought forward by the member. A key word that was raised at the very end by the mem- ber was the word "respect." I think that's an important word to refl ect upon, because this is our capital. Let's explore, then, some of the history of where the Capital Commission came from.

It's been in operation for over 50 years, and it's played a critical role in managing some of Victoria's key and most important heritage properties, properties that are essential to one of this region's, if not British Columbia's, most vibrant industries — that is, the tourism industry. Th is is an industry that creates jobs, particularly for students in the summer who are struggling under debt created by reduced funding for education.

I have con- cerns with respect to the impact this will have on the tourism industry, not necessarily because of the proposed change in the administration but because of the lack of assurances that we've been given that those key heritage properties and parks will remain in the public hand and will not be sold off to the highest bidder. Th is is what I'm looking for. I'm looking for some gov- ernment assurances, real assurances, that these heritage properties, such as St.

Ann's Academy, which the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill just described, the CPR Steamship Terminal and others, will not be sold off and that they'll continue to function as well-maintained, tourist-friendly, heritage buildings. Of course, I want to acknowledge at the same time that there was a piece of good news that came as a con- sequence of this soul-searching for the PCC, Provincial Capital Commission — that is, the recent trading of land with the city of Victoria. [1405] In my view, that was benefi cial and that did go some way to address some of the concerns that I've had, but only a small way.

Th e city of Victoria benefi ted from this as has the province. I'm hoping that the government has actually thought through this and that there are similar thoughtful plans in place for the other key properties. Something that's oft en overlooked with the Pacifi c…. I'm sorry. I keep saying "Pacifi c" because there's PCC in my fi eld of climate, of course. I'm hoping that the government has planned to con- tinue the very, very important outreach programs that are run through the PCC — programs like the travel-funding

British Columbia Debates1806 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 program, which again, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill spoke about, which assists student groups in visit- ing our capital from around the region, from around our province. It provides wonderful educational opportun- ities for these youth and children in our communities. Th ese programs have great value. I'm hopeful, again, that the government can actually give us some assurances that these opportunities will remain as we move forward.

Coming to the Belleville terminal, I'd like to quote the Minister of Energy and Mines for what he said recent- ly with respect to the proposed transfer of the Belleville terminal to the Ministry of Transportation. He suggested that there was a healthy capital planning branch within the ministry. The Belleville terminal is an eyesore to people in British Columbia, not just Victoria. It's the fi rst thing many people see when they come not only to Victoria, British Columbia — even Canada.

I'm certainly hoping that in the transfer to the Ministry of Transportation, should this bill pass, there is indeed money set aside for rapid use to actually upgrade that terminal. With that said, as it stands, there are so many uncer- tainties with respect to what will happen with these prop- erties. I fi nd it so diffi cult to understand how I could vote for this bill with those glaring omissions not being fi lled. M. Karagianis: I'm rising today to join my colleagues in speaking out against Bill 6.

When I was fi rst elected to municipal council in the mid-1990s, one of the fi rst assignments I had was to sit as part of the Provincial Capital Commission. It was a great eye-opener for me to understand and to learn exactly what the Provincial Capital Commission did and how valuable the organization was in maintaining the assets here in the capital — heritage properties, various events around the region, and certainly, some assets that helped to make this body completely self-sustaining.

It was, I thought, a brilliant plan that an organization like this could fulfi l so many aspects of keeping our cap- ital attractive, interesting and vibrant, preserving heritage sites and, at the same time, paying for all of that without going to the taxpayers for any money. I thought, "What a brilliant commission that's been set up here" — not unlike those set up across the country, many of which are not self-sustaining, many of which are funded by governments because they understand the importance of these kinds of capital commissions to help enhance capital cities.

So I was quite mystifi ed when I saw that we were about to pass legislation in this House and debate the Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act.

I thought: "Now why, of all of the things that government is currently charged with — all the very important and vexatious and concerning issues that government faces — were we pick- ing on the Capital Commission and the dissolution of the Capital Commission as one of the very fi rst pieces of legislation that's been passed here in this current session?" Th at, for me, meant delving deeper to say: "Now, why would the government…?" Considering the important things that they do have to concern themselves with, why is this such an important act for us to undertake?

Well, of course, my colleagues have already alluded to what we believe is some of the underlying heart of this, which is the issue of asset sales in order to balance a budget. [1410] Really, in a very shortsighted way, it's evident to me in reading through Bill 6 that that's what this is all about. Th is bill refers to, primarily, the transfer of Provincial Capital Commission properties and assets.

Page aft er page, clause aft er clause in this bill, talk about all of the properties and assets — no reference whatsoever to the other duties and responsibilities that the Provincial Capital Commission has undertaken over the years, and certainly, as my colleagues have also mentioned, no clear understanding of who and how some of the responsibil- ities of the Provincial Capital Commission are going to continue in the future. Certainly, there's some discussion in this bill about taking on the liabilities of the Provincial Capital Commission.

Is that where we fi nd the various events and critically important undertakings of the Provincial Capital Commission? Do we fi nd it under the liabilities? Is that how it's referred to here in this bill? Th ere is great historical importance in this organiza- tion. My colleagues have alluded to that as well. It's been in place for over 50 years. It has great signifi cance to the capital in more ways than just the assets that it owns.

It is for all of the other things it undertakes, for the tradition that it undertakes, for the importance around — I think what other col- leagues, including the member from Oak Bay, have talked about — the respect we have for the capital, for the way the capital looks, the way it feels, the preservation of some the great assets here.

It would seem to me that this bill speaks to a throw- away culture in this government, that this is about fi nding some assets and fi nding a way to maximize those to bal- ance the government's budget and throw away all of the other great values that come with the Provincial Capital Commission — its assets, many of which are not prop- erty, which are more intangible. I mentioned at the beginning of my comments that I had, early on in my time as a municipal councillor in Esquimalt, sat on the commission.

Over time, of course, I've watched how the commission has functioned — vari- ous representatives that have sat there, the great decisions that they've made, the initiatives that they've under- taken over the years to ensure that the Provincial Capital Commission continues to thrive and function as a self- sustaining body, that it involves itself in great commun- ity events, in improving assets. We've heard many of my colleagues talk about the amazing St. Ann's Academy and

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 4, 2014 1807 the beautiful site that was restored there. All of these things were handled by local representa- tives who sat at the commission table and talked about the value, from fi rsthand knowledge, in each of their communities — those around the core who sat on that commission — and continued to make sure that the Provincial Capital Commission operated to the very best and highest use and represented the preservation of assets of the capital here.

Over time in the last 12 years I have watched — we've all watched — as this govern ment has slowly stripped away that local representation. It was with great sadness that we saw, bit by bit, the commission itself being dis- mantled in advance of this onslaught against the assets. It seems to me, again, it's a bit of a throwaway culture here.

If we see that in fact, other communities across Canada have thriving capital commissions that look aft er the value and assets of capital cities, and some new ones that have been created in the last number of years, why then are we taking this really draconian move of getting rid of an organization that wasn't costing taxpayers any- thing, that had great representation, great value for the local community, undertook great community events and owned a lot of properties, many of which helped it be self-sustaining and many of which have been part of the rare and wonderful character of the capital and main- tained that character here in the capital?

Now, one of the most recent activities that's been undertaken here, which others have pointed to, is this issue around property and land swaps. Well, this has always been the purview of the Provincial Capital Commission. Th is is not a new initiative undertaken by this government. Th e Provincial Capital Commission has always had the ability and, in fact, the will to make these kinds of great swaps and investments to help to enhance the capital area. [1415] Th e Point Hope shipyard, which is in my constituency, is, I think, an example of a very good property swap.

But it's not unusual for the Provincial Capital Commission to be able to do that. With or without this dissolution, that has been an attribute of the commission that certainly was not hampered by the current structure. Th e issue of heritage site preservation, I think, is also really important, and it's very important to this commun- ity. We have a very rich culture in greater Victoria, and we have a very strong, staunch and I think very valuable heritage ethic in this city.

It would seem to me that there has been a trend both at the federal and provincial level over the last decade of slowly sort of stripping away the importance of historical sites. We've seen privatization occurring on federal sites. We've certainly seen it on provincial sites. I think this is to the detriment of our communities, because what hap- pens with these sites is they begin to lose the care and concern and supports that make them heritage sites that we can all be proud of.

When you have to have a user-pay system in order to sustain these historical sites, inevit- ably there is some erosion of fi nancial supports for those. It concerns me greatly that this, again, strips away one more piece of a preservative environment for herit- age properties. I know that others of my colleagues have spoken about this, and I want to talk a little bit about what happens once this bill passes.

Despite the fact that I will be voting against it, and I know that my colleagues will be voting against it, we know the government's ability to just ram these things through and not listen to the community or not give deeper concern and thought around the ac- tions that they're going to take on this act. But I am very concerned about what happens to the assets, the self- sustaining assets, of the Provincial Capital Commission. Let's assume that asset sales are what this is all about.

First and foremost, we take a number of these lands, and we sell them off — a one-time quick gain, and we use that to help to prop up the government's attempts to bal- ance their budget. Now that asset is gone forever, and we will never be able to use it again for the betterment of all British Columbians — everyone in British Columbia, and certainly, everyone in the capital. But more importantly, will those dollars be put some- place where they could then be used to help do some of the great work that could come out of this, like improv- ing the Belleville terminal?

Can those dollars be held in escrow so that they can be used for the greater good of the capital? I've heard no indication from the govern- ment whatsoever as to what they're going to do with any of those dollars and how they will be used. I'd be very interested to hear the government's views on that, and perhaps the minister, when she makes her closing remarks, can address some of that. My colleague my friend from Victoria–Beacon Hill spoke earlier about the list of events and other respon- sibilities that the Provincial Capital Commission has taken on.

Many of these are significantly important events in this region. When I think of things like the Symphony Splash, when I think about the Swift sure race, when I think about the Dragon Boat Festival and when I think about Fringe, these are all really important cultural events in this region and part of a larger fabric of cultural events that take place elsewhere that are linked to this. I do not believe or have confi dence for one moment that those, in the hands of this government, are going to be sustainable.

We are going to see a government who has shown no indication as to how they are going to treat all of those responsibilities and functions of the PCC. It's certainly not listed here in Bill 6, unless they are under this nebulous little category called "liabilities." Everything in this bill is about property transfer and assets. Nothing in this bill talks about the functions, responsibilities and other components of the Provincial Capital Commission that are being caught up in this dissolution.

British Columbia Debates1808 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Who is going to be paying for these events? How are they going to be managed in the future? Are they in jeop- ardy? Th e government should tell us that — if, in fact, that's true. In reality, what will happen with all of these events is that the government…. If they choose to not pay for them, to not contribute, to not sustain the responsibil- ities that they're taking on by dissolving the Provincial Capital Commission, where are they going fall to? Well, to local government, hon. Speaker. [1420] Is that really the ultimate plan?

We're going to take the Provincial Capital Commission. We're going to dissolve it. We're going to strip all of the land assets away and use the money from that to try and off set the provincial budget. Secondly, we're going to take all the responsibil- ities, all the great things that the PCC has done over the years and is responsible for, and we're going to download those onto local government. I think if that is the route we're taking, I want to hear that from the government's own lips.

So far, we have seen no clear indication of what will happen with any of those great events and with those assets that can't be sold, that still do need care and preservation. What happens to St. Ann's Academy? What happens to any other heritage site here in the capital city that still needs care and attention, that might need restoration? What happens to those? If it can't be sold off to balance the budget, what happens, at the end of the day, with those sites? I certainly cannot support the bill as I currently see it.

Unless I hear something significant from the gov- ernment that says to me that they are not planning on just using these dollars in general revenue to help bal- ance the budget; that if properties are going to be sold or swapped, those dollars are held in escrow to be used to further preserve and enhance and care for other prop- erties in the capital; and thirdly, that all of the respon- sibilities for the events and functions that the Provincial Capital Commission now contributes to our community will be preserved — that they are safe and are not going to be somehow either abandoned or downloaded to lo- cal government….

Until I hear that, I will not be satisfi ed in any way with the actions the government's taking. So I will not be vot- ing in favour of this bill based on that. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close. Hon. C. Oakes: Th ank you very much for the com- ments that have been raised today. I'm confi dent that when we go into the committee, there will be answers for you. Th is really was a decision around empowerment as well. Many of us in this House have experience with local governments. I oft en think back to 1956. As I was going through this, I was thinking about W .A.C.

Bennett and about the decisions that have been made in this House. I was thinking about how times really have changed. Th ere's been a lot of empowerment and a lot of change that has happened. I think the most signifi cant one…. We heard lots about ensuring that there's local voice, lo- cal choice, decision around land use planning for mu- nicipalities. How do we make sure that that respect and those pieces are in place? But I think there've been some changes since 1956 that have changed the framework of how land use planning happens, not only in the capital but in British Columbia.

First of all, we've empowered municipalities, since 1994, with the responsibility for communities' heritage values. In 1994 the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amend- ment Act was passed, with 22 provincial statutes that were amended to include provisions for heritage conserv- ation. A policy decision, also in 1994, around the Herit- age Conservation Statutes Amendment Act provided local governments with the authority and responsibility for heritage in their community. Further, and something that local governments across this province fought for, in 2004 the Community Charter came into eff ect in British Columbia.

It's Canada's most empowering local government law, giving B.C. commun- ities broad powers to address local issues eff ectively, local issues that have been raised as very important to people in this House. It's a model for all of Canada regarding intergovernmental respect and collaboration. We've also heard that the decisions that have happened and have evolved out of these decisions on the land use swap have been good for the municipalities, have been good for the province, have been good for private busi- ness.

We are encouraged that this will continue. [1425] I'd also like to take a moment to talk about my passion and my excitement around ensuring that programs like kids in the capital, the Y outh Parliament, the heritage fairs — which both sides of the House absolutely respect and admire, and we know it's important that we continue to contribute to these valuable programs — will continue. We're looking at new ways to broaden this, looking at new partners that we can bring in to ensure that not only do we have 38,000 kids coming to the capital….

But let's see how we can use resources or look at how we can bring in other partners to ensure that we broaden and grow that program. As I've spoken around the province of British Columbia, I talk about the importance of civic engagement. I talk about how it's important, when we talk with Elections B.C., how we engage that next generation so that they, too, can have the experience that we have in this House. I remember one of the fi rst times I travelled out of my community as a small-town girl from Quesnel.

One of the fi rst times I ever went on a plane was to Ottawa, and it was for exactly one of these examples of youth in par-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 4, 2014 1809 liament. I know it set me on a journey that I'm proud to say I participate in today. So we have that commitment to ensure that those types of programs continue within our ministry. Th is decision on this bill was about ensuring that we don't have duplication. It's about ensuring that we have effi ciency. When we talk about programs and talk about the importance of things such as the Fringe Festival and the Symphony Splash, we have been funding these kinds of hosting events in our budget.

Our budget within the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development has a record level for arts and culture funding — $24 million to the B.C. Arts Council, $350,000 for the arts legacy fund, $2 million for the arts and culture program, $2.2 million for the arts branch operation, $11.86 million for the Royal B.C. Museum, $17.5 million for arts and culture community gaming grants, $2.5 million for Creative B.C. When we reviewed this, we thought that these important festivals and things that are happening in this capital can be looked at within our ministry.

Y ou know, Bill 6 is about change, and change is diffi cult. But one of the things that we're incredibly proud of…. On Family Day we decided to try something diff erent. We supported the Royal B.C. Museum on Family Day to en- sure that there was free admission at the museum. I am proud that that day had 10,000 people come through the museum. Th at was the greatest one-day admission ever at the RBC Museum. Th ese are the types of changes that all of us in this House should look at. We want to make sure that we improve. We want to make sure that the legacy of W .A.C.

Bennett and the things he envisioned for British Columbia are things that we carry on. I commend and thank the tremendous work that the commission has done over the years to provide us the ability now to step up and continue with their outstand- ing work and to ensure that their legacy continues. I very much am looking forward to the committee phase of this bill. I now move second reading. Motion approved. Hon. C. Oakes: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Bill 6, Provincial Capital Commission Dissolution Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 3. BILL 3 — MISSING PERSONS ACT Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act, now be read a second time. In the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry report, Commissioner Oppal noted that police faced a major obstacle to obtaining timely information when investi- gating missing women.

He recommended that the prov- incial government enact missing-persons legislation to grant speedy access to personal information of the miss- ing persons without unduly infringing on privacy rights. Th is proposed legislation does just that. [1430] In Canada we value privacy, but we need to recognize that there are times when police need the tools to pro- tect us. Th e Missing Persons Act we are introducing rec- ognizes this need and addresses it with the appropriate limits and judicial oversight.

Th e act will allow police to apply to a justice for quick access to a missing person's information that will help to locate their whereabouts and determine if they are safe. To be clear, this bill is not about criminal activity. Instead, our proposed law focuses on cases where a miss- ing person has not been seen or in touch with people who are normally involved in their lives. Our act will apply to those times when a person goes missing and there is no suspicion that their disappearance is the result of a criminal off ence.

Th e Missing Persons Act also focuses on minors and vulnerable or at-risk persons whose safety and welfare are of concern because of their age, physical or mental capabilities, or the circumstances surrounding their ab- sence — for example, a teenager who was last seen leav- ing a friend's house and has not been seen since, or a person with dementia who has wandered away from home, leaving vital medication behind.

Basically, the legislation allows police to apply for a court order to compel someone who has the missing per- son's records to hand them over if the justice determines the information will help to locate the person. Th is legislation is consistent in intent with other legis- lation passed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia. However, in B.C. we have made several enhancements that we believe strengthen public safety. For example, we have enhanced police access to third-party records in situations involving a minor, vulnerable person or a per- son at risk.

We have strengthened our off ences for con- travention of the act, and we have increased oversight over use of the act. Also unique to B.C. is our proposal to create a new category of missing person called a person at risk. Like the legislation in other jurisdictions, our act recognizes that minors and vulnerable people are more at risk of coming to harm. In these cases, police are given the au- thority to access the records of third parties and apply for search orders.

British Columbia Debates1810 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Our new category of person at risk is intended to en- sure that police have these same additional options in cases where the missing person does not fall neatly into the defi nition of a minor or vulnerable person — such as, for example, a sex trade worker. Who will qualify as a person at risk will be determined after significant further consultations have occurred. Consultations will be essential to correctly capture those persons who may be at higher risk to go missing and come to harm than the general population.

Our legislation also includes the ability for police to re- quest access to the records of a person last seen with the missing minor, vulnerable person or person at risk. Th is provision is not in other jurisdictions' legislation, but we feel that in certain cases the records of these third parties may hold valuable information on the missing person's whereabouts, even though they may no longer be in the present company of the missing person.

Before police may submit a request to a justice to access the records of a third party who was last seen with the missing person, police must make reasonable eff orts to obtain consent from that person. Th e act balances privacy considerations by restricting the types of records that police may apply to a justice for disclosure and requiring the justice to be satisfi ed on rea- sonable grounds that the information will help to locate the missing person's whereabouts.

Records that police may request be disclosed include telephone records that may indicate where a person has gone, cell phone data that may indicate where a missing person may be located and employment information that may indicate whether a missing person has shown up for work since they have been reported missing. In emergency situations where there is no time to apply to a justice for an order, this bill gives police the authority to make demands when persons go missing.

Th ese demands can only be made if there is a serious threat of harm or death to the missing person or there is concern that the records may be destroyed. Th e types of records police may demand in an emer- gency are more restrictive than what they may apply for from a justice. Th is limitation ensures that police are only getting the information they absolutely need to locate the missing person. When police make these demands, they are required to provide a report regarding the circumstances in which the demand was made and to fi le this report with their offi cer in charge.

Also, police forces must provide the minister with an annual report regarding their demand for records. [1435] Th e act provides further safeguards on the use and dis- closure of records accessed by police. Any information and records collected under the act can only be used for the purposes of locating a missing person or in a related criminal investigation. For example, if a missing-person investigation reveals that the person was, in fact, kid- napped, the records collected under the Missing Persons Act may be used in the subsequent criminal trial.

I want to emphasize, however, that this legislation does not allow police to gather intelligence for investigations other than locating a missing person. Th at is not the pur- pose of this act. Th e purpose of this act is to locate miss- ing persons and save lives. We have built a more robust off ence

section than other jurisdictions. It is an off ence if a person uses or discloses information and records in contravention of the act. In B.C. we have gone further by making it an off ence if a person fails to comply with an order. No other jurisdic- tion has an off ence for failing to comply with an order, so B.C. is a front-runner here. Off ences under the act carry fi nes up to $10,000 for a person and up to $25,000 for a corporation. Additionally, a fi ne can be levied up to the maximum amounts for every day when a person or corporation fails to comply with an order.

We are aware that it's not a crime for a person to will- ingly disappear. Sometimes adults choose to leave their normal day-to-day lives on their own accord. Th ey may do that. Much like what happens in current missing- person investigations, police will not disclose informa- tion regarding a missing person who does not want to be found without their consent. Police do this now. When they fi nd somebody who doesn't want to be found, that's as far as it goes. However, they are still obliged to fi nd the missing person to ensure their safety.

In closing, our proposed Missing Persons Act strikes the appropriate balance between an individual's right to privacy while ensuring that police can get appropriate access to records and places in the event this access may help locate a missing person faster, which is the ultim- ate goal of this legislation: fi nding missing persons and saving lives. Th is House will know that this was one of the themes in Commissioner Oppal's Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. It was one of the sets of his recommendations that we give police additional powers in locating missing persons.

It was one of the tragedies of the missing-person investigation that, in some of the cases, the women were known to be missing very quickly, but the police did not have the tools that they needed to go and fi nd them. Th is act fi lls that gap. It gives police the tools they need to locate persons who they know are missing and to fi nd them and to either bring them back or to leave them be, whichever the case may be. It allows the police to go and look for missing persons. It provides public safety, and it has the potential of saving lives. K.

Corrigan: I'm pleased to be able to rise and speak on Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act. I suspect that we on this side of the House are going to support the bill, but we do have some real concerns — I'd say grave concerns

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 4, 2014 1811 — about the scope of some of the provisions. I am going to talk about some of those today. In fact, I'll let the minister know now that at the next stage I'm going to be suggesting and submitting a number of amendments — I think around fi ve or six amendments — that address some issues that have been raised by the Privacy Commissioner, by organizations like B.C. Civil Liberties, certainly lawyers — a whole variety of people who have some concerns about the scope of the act.

But the spirit of the act and the heart of the act — we are supportive of government doing this. Th e minister is absolutely right that this act is fulfi lment of one of the im- portant recommendations made by Commissioner Wally Oppal in his report on the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. I want to just set the stage a little bit and say how im- portant that inquiry was. We were disappointed that some people did not get to participate as much as we hoped they could. Th ere were many interveners who were not funded by government. [1440] Nevertheless, we have some very strong recommenda- tions.

We have 63 recommendations in all, and govern- ment is now starting to move on those recommendations. Frankly, it's been slow in coming. Th ere have been some recommendations that Co mmissioner Oppal made where he said that there are some things that should be immediately taken care of.

For example, he said in his report: "I urge the provin- cial government to commit to these two measures im- mediately upon receipt of this report — one, to provide funding to existing centres that provide emergency ser- vices to women engaged in the sex trade to enable them to remain open 24 hours a day." Now, there has been some funding in Vancouver, but another centre that pro- vides exactly those kinds of services in Victoria is, I be- lieve, at risk of closing because it doesn't have funding — so one organization, but others are starved.

Th e second one and a very important one, certainly to the people we talked to, who are very concerned — fam- ilies of the missing and murdered women and organiza- tions that work very closely with the families of those that are either missing or have been murdered and with the communities — is "to develop and implement an en- hanced public transit system to provide a safer travel op- tion, connecting the northern communities, particularly along Highway 16." Th e minister knows and many people in this House know that we in the offi cial opposition have been repeat- edly and regularly supporting those calls from the com- munities, who say that it is wrong and it is dangerous.

Th ere have been deaths on Highway 16. It is wrong that people — that women, particularly — are hitchhiking on that highway as we speak. Th ere is an easy fi x there, which is the fulfi lment of the recommendation that I just read, which former Justice Oppal, Commissioner Oppal, said was something that should be committed to immediately upon receipt of this report. I believe this report is about a year and four months to a year and a half old. So we have some concerns. It's also very important….

We are supporting government on the Missing Persons Act — with some concerns, as I've said — but I wanted to read from Justice Oppal's report a little bit at fi rst, be- cause one of the things he said in his

summary of recom- mendations is that he talked about the fact that there was a total of 63 recommendations. He said: "It should come as no surprise that I have made a large number of recommendations to address these complexities — 63 in total." Th e issues are very, very complex. We certainly acknowledge that. All of the issues regarding policing, coordination, safety, respect, understanding, collaboration — the importance of all the pieces fi tting together was very clear from Commissioner Oppal's report. What he said in conclusion is: "Th e recommendations dovetail one with another.

Each provides an additional tool, an additional check or counterbalance, an addition- al collaborative mechanism, all geared toward the central goals of enhancing the safety of vulnerable women and improving the initiation and conduct of investigations of missing persons and suspected multiple homicides." Th en he says: "I have found that the missing and mur- dered women were forsaken twice — once by a soci- ety at large and again by the police." It is imperative that we understand and remember those words from Commissioner Oppal, when he says that the recommen- dations and the implementation of the recommendations need to dovetail together, need to work together and need to be seen as a whole.

While we support…. Now that we have a few fi rst steps, aft er a long period of time, with the Missing Persons Act, we have some legislation introduced yesterday that is go- ing to go some distance towards fulfi lling another recom- mendation. Th at has to do with audits of major case fi les. [1445] Th ese are steps in the right direction, but we have to re- member it's important that everything dovetail together and that we come up with a comprehensive plan to im- plement the recommendations, to consider the recom- mendations.

I understand that in some cases the recommendation will not be implemented exactly as it is worded by Justice Oppal, and I respect that. But the important thing is that the legacy of the missing and murdered women be re- spected and that we work collaboratively, I would say, be- tween government and opposition in order to honour the spirit and honour the legacy of those women and make sure that we fulfi l the various recommendations. It is an important act — 63 recommendations, as I said. Certainly, safety of women and, in many cases, aboriginal women, particularly when we talk about Highway 16….

British Columbia Debates1812 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Certainly, recommendations for supports for aboriginal peoples, restorative measures, equality-promoting meas- ures — these are all important recommendations. But to- day we're going to talk particularly about Bill 3. Th is is one of those cases where we have to fi nd the correct interface and the correct balance between our concern for safety…. It's the primary purpose of the bill. Concern for safety needs to be correctly balanced with and interfaced with a protection of privacy and individ- ual rights. Th at is where our concerns largely lie.

As I said earlier, we are going to propose a number of amendments. I will certainly invite the minister, as I said, and members to listen to my suggestions and, I hope, support the amendments, because I think they will make a fundamentally supportable bill more supportable and a better bill. Th ose amendments, the ones that we are go- ing to propose, will address those privacy concerns and concerns about individual rights. I think it's important, from this side of the House, that we look carefully at whether or not individual rights and privacy concerns are being respected.

Frankly, the other side of the House, the B.C. Liberals, have quite a history of introducing legislation that they claim is constitutional, that they claim follows the law and later is found not to be constitutional, is found to be breaking the law. In the case, of course, of the education bills, two bills in a row — the last one being Bill 22 — ended up being unlawful and created a mess in the education system. I think it's important that before this legislation is passed, we look at it very closely.

As I said, we are going to propose some amendments that we think will help en- sure that the challenges and the concerns that individuals have will, to some degree, be addressed. And I hope that we can, on both sides of the House, work together in or- der to have those amendments come to pass. We also have concerns about civil forfeiture, which some people feel at times has been used as an end run around the criminal law. We've had challenges of the roadside suspension laws, successful challenges.

And the millions of dollars that have gone — public dollars, as well as dollars from organizations that have fought some of this legislation — is money that is wasted. It's taxpay- ers' money that is wasted — millions of dollars that could have gone into good public services like education and health and other public services. I'm very serious about making sure that we get it right, and I think we haven't quite got it right with this bill. [1450] I just want to mention a young woman who is working with the offi cial opposition at this point as a legal intern, Ashley Sehra.

Ashley is a legal intern who is working with the offi cial opposition right now. She has worked with me very closely on writing amendments that we are go- ing to propose at the next stage of the bill. I want to thank Ashley very much, as well as all the staff that we are so lucky to have working with us in the offi cial opposition. Th is is a bill which gives the police the authority to compel the production of records that may assist them in fi nding a missing person. As the minister has said, this doesn't have to be part of a criminal investigation.

Th e types of records that can be compelled are records con- taining contact info, identifi cation marks, telephone and other communications records, Internet browsing his- tory, GPS, employment information, travel information, video records and health records. So it is providing sig- nifi cant increase to police powers. Th ese are police pow- ers that are important to support in cases where we have a missing person and probably could have been used pre- viously in many cases to have a more favourable outcome for people who are missing.

I just note that my colleague from Coquitlam- Maillardville introduced legislation that would also help in the case of missing persons. I believe it's called Silver Alert. It's on the order paper, and I think that's another piece of legislation that could enhance the safety of com- munity members who get lost. I'm really hoping that government will see fi t to support the legislation of my colleague, as well as some of the amendments that we are going to propose in this bill. It's a great deal, as I said — all those types of records that can be accessed by police.

When it isn't a criminal investigation, we have to be very careful when we tread that way. I think we have to be very careful that we get it right. I have a great deal of respect for the police and the great work that they do. Certainly, in my commun- ity of Burnaby the RCMP are the policing agency, and we have a fabulous detachment, fabulous members, who look aft er us well. I had a couple of break-ins and a threat- ening event in my offi ce over the last several months, and I've got to say that the service we received from the RCMP in that situation was absolutely fabulous in each and every case.

I think we all, every member in this Legislature, cer- tainly respect the work that the police do. They do fabulous work keeping us safe in our communities. Nevertheless, when you are considering

an act that ex- tends the powers fairly signifi cantly of the police, for a good purpose…. When that happens, we have to make sure that we safeguard people's privacy and their rights as well. I'm going to talk about some of the concerns that I have. Just before I talk about the individual sections, I want to go to the report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry and talk about the specifi c recommendation.

I think it's important for us, when we're talking about the scope of the powers that are going to be given to police, that we need to think about what was the purpose of the legislation as foreseen by Commissioner Oppal in his report. Here's what he said: "Timely access to information is integral to the analysis of a missing-person case and can be of vital importance in an investi-

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 4, 2014 1813 gation. Th e commission found that an enormous amount of time was spent by police offi cers on basic data checks for information on the missing women. One of the barriers police face in investigat- ing missing-person reports is that they do not have ready access to personal information about the missing person because it's protected through privacy legislation. "Th is inaccessibility presented a signifi cant challenge in the missing and murdered women investigations and continues to be an obstacle today.

Th is obstacle can be overcome through the adoption of provincial missing-person legislation, providing a statutory basis for police to obtain access quickly, thereby expedit- ing the investigation." [1455] He goes on to point out…. It was interesting that the commission received numerous submissions supporting the adoption of B.C. missing-persons legislation — in- cluding from family members, members of the public, the Vancouver police department and the RCMP — and no dissent was voiced. Very strong support for the legislation that has been introduced.

He recommended that the provincial gov- ernment enact missing-persons legislation "to grant speedy access to personal information of missing persons" — and here's a key, to me — "without unduly infringing on privacy rights." Th is legislation should be enacted on a priority basis. Now, it's been a year and four months, but we do have the legislation now. Unfortunately, we haven't sat very much the last while, so we haven't been able to implement the recommendations of Commis sioner Oppal. But we do have this now.

I think it's important to remember that Commissioner Oppal recognized that there had to be a balance there and that we had to fi nd the right line between protecting the safety of individuals and making it so we can fi nd people more quickly, and also respecting the privacy rights — and, I would say, the Charter rights — of individuals who were going to have their information accessed. Certainly, when you widen police powers that way, we want to make sure that we do that. I think that's the backdrop to it. Number 1, we have to respect the privacy rights and have to be careful how we do this.

Number 2, I think we have to remember al- ways that the purpose of this act is that we are trying to fi nd missing persons. Th at is why I looked at this piece of legislation and said: "Okay. All sections of this piece of legislation — are they framed in a way that is consist- ent with that? And are they framed in a way that could not be used for diff erent purposes, or that the powers are more than are necessary to assist in fi nding a miss- ing person — in other words, without unduly infringing on privacy rights?" [R. Chouhan in the chair.] One of the sections that I have concern about is sec- tion 13.

We will have more time to talk about this when we get to the committee stage. But I wanted to talk about them now because I wanted to explain why it is that I have concerns, and we can do that more when we're at the committee stage. But I also want to give the govern- ment an opportunity to consider the amendments that we're suggesting in order that we can improve the bill.

Section 13 is one that deals with the emergency de- mand for records. Th e minister outlined that usually when a member of a police force is looking for records, they need to go before a judge. But

section 13 provides that there can be an emergency demand for records if there is a concern that there could be serious bodily harm to, or the death of, the missing person or destruction of the record. Th en that creates an emergency situation. However, the Privacy Commissioner wrote a letter to the minister expressing concern about this section. It was a fairly minor concern — a minor fi x, not a minor con- cern. What the Privacy Commissioner suggested should happen to the bill was simply: "I recommend that my offi ce be notifi ed aft er an emergency disclosure demand is made.

Th is would not be designed as an ap- proval mechanism but would enable my offi ce to monitor the use of emergency demands and evaluate, over time, whether they are being undertaken in an eff ective manner that is proportional to the privacy impacts on the individual whose records are disclosed." [1500] We have proposed an amendment, which we will sub- mit at a later time. It simply says that the offi cer in charge must forward a copy of the written report to the Offi ce of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

It seems like a fairly easy fi x, and I can't really see any reason at all why government would not make that small amend- ment in order to satisfy the concerns of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Th at's one of the concerns that I have and I share with the Information and Privacy Commissioner and others. I'm hoping that we can get a change in that as well. A second concern is with

section 7 — another con- cern raised by the Offi ce of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Th is deals with third-party records. Th e Information and Privacy Commissioner says: "Th e bill provides authority for police forces to demand the records of missing persons as well as records of third parties who may be in the company of or who were last seen with the missing person. However, it did not provide for notice to those individuals whose records are collected by police forces. Individuals should know who is in possession of their personal information and the purpose to which that information is being put." She concludes that little

section with: "I recommend that individuals whose information is collected pursuant to the Missing Persons Act be notifi ed of that fact within a reasonable period of time aft er the information is collected." The act requires that the police, before they make that request, do try to fi nd the third party and get their consent. Nevertheless, if they don't, then what the Information and Privacy Commissioner is saying is that there should be notice aft erwards. People should know that their records have been accessed and what records those are. We have a second amendment that would provide that

British Columbia Debates1814 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 there be notice not only to the third party but also to the missing person, if they indeed are found. And that will happen, hopefully, in many cases, particularly with this act. Th ey will be found, and in that case, this proposed amendment requires that a notice of disclosure is sent to the third party or in the case of missing person if that per- son is found. Another fairly easy fi x that will satisfy the concerns of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Another area of concern is about the disclosure of in- formation for purposes other than investigating missing persons. Th at has to do with

section 21. Th is talks about disclosure of information. Th e act as it presently reads says: "Th is

section applies despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act." It says: "A police force may disclose infor- mation in a record accessed under this Act only as fol- lows…." And there are a number of sections that follow that. The one that is of concern — both to the Privacy Commissioner, again, and certainly to me and others — is: "A police force may disclose information in a rec- ord accessed under this Act only as follows: (

a) for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose." Th e concern the Information and Privacy Commis- sioner had about that particular

section was that it sig- nificantly broadened the authority for disclosure of information collected under the Missing Persons Act. In that case, the Privacy Commissioner said: "I do not believe personal information disclosed under this pro- posed legislation should be used for any other purpose." I go back to what I said earlier, when I was quoting from the missing-women's report. It's that we have to remember what the purpose of the act is.

Th e purpose is to fi nd missing people, so there doesn't seem to be any necessity, if that's the purpose, to have that last part: "for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consist- ent with that purpose." We need to make sure that the act does what it is meant to do. [1505] Mr. Speaker, I'm the designated speaker in this case. Th ank you very much. For the purpose of…. Interjections. K. Corrigan: I'm not done yet. I'm just telling him I have more time. Oh, you're excited that I have more time. Oh, yippee. Th ank you. I know.

It's a riveting conversa- tion, but it's an important conversation about an import- ant piece of legislation. What we are going to be proposing is that that last part of that

section 21(2)(a), "...or a use consistent with that purpose," simply be removed. Th at's another concern. We also have a concern about another

section that has exactly the same phrase, and this is about the use of infor- mation in a record. It says in

section 20: "A police force may use information in a record accessed under this Act only for the purpose of locating a missing person or a use consistent with that purpose." Again, we have concerns about that — the widening of the scope of the use. We are going to be proposing that that last part of the sec- tion, "...or a use consistent with that purpose," again be stricken from the act. Th is is the

section that B.C. Civil Liberties Association has said they are particularly concerned with. It says in that

section as well: "For certainty, this

section does not prevent information in a record accessed under this Act from being used for the purpose of a related criminal in- vestigation." Th ey are concerned that this is a repurposing — and, again, widening — of the powers of the act. I'm con- cerned about repurposing; certainly, the B.C. Civil Liberties are concerned about repurposing, so we are going to suggest an additional

section to make sure that the missing person's rights are protected by suggesting an addition of a subsection that says: "A police force may not use information in a record accessed under this Act for the purpose of incriminating the missing person." Another suggestion that we have, just to make it abso- lutely clear that the purpose of this is to access records so that we can fi nd an individual, as opposed to perhaps…. I know the minister will say that's not the intent, but it's not what the minister's intent is, it is how will the sec- tions be interpreted and how will they be used in real life.

We want to make sure that missing people's rights are protected as well, or at least that we stay to the purpose of the act. One of the comments that I've heard various groups making is that there is a real concern by groups that indi- viduals might not be willing to report missing persons or provide records if they thought the records of the miss- ing people might end up incriminating them, resulting in criminal charges, which I think would be an unintended consequence. Certainly, I'm not suggesting that I want people to be able to commit criminal acts and get away with it.

We want to be very clear, though, that we stay with the intent, which is to fi nd missing persons. Th at's another amend- ment that we are suggesting. Finally, I have a concern with one of the defi nitions. Th e defi nition that I'm concerned about is the defi nition of missing person. I look at the defi nition, and there are a couple of ways that someone can be declared a missing person. Th ere are a couple of triggering qualifi cations, and I have concerns about those.

In the act "missing person" means "an individual whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable ef- forts to locate the individual" — so that's the fi rst thing; they have to be unknown — "and (

a) who has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in con- tact with the individual, or (

b) whose safety and welfare

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 4, 2014 1815 are feared for given (

i) the individual's age, (ii) the indi- vidual's physical or mental capabilities, or (iii) the cir- cumstances surrounding the individual's absence." [1510] I don't see why it is necessary to have subsection (a). Maybe when we're in committee stage, I'll talk about that a little bit more. I see a danger with that. It could be used in a way…. Here's an example. If somebody hasn't been in contact with family, could the police declare somebody a miss- ing person? Th at would involve an investigation.

Many of us, many people, would say that that's fi ne and that they would like to see that, but again, that is not the intent. Th e intent is to provide tools to fi nd missing persons who are missing for a variety of reasons. But I have pos- sible concerns about the way that is framed. We're going to have an amendment on that one, as well, that changes the defi nition of "missing person." Some of these concerns that are being raised now. Th e reason that they are being raised, or part of the reason that they're being raised, by the Offi ce of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, by B.C.

Civil Liberties, by lawyers who are going to be dealing with this in court…. Th ey will be in court, I'm sure, possibly challenging some of the provisions, as many provisions of several acts have been challenged in the past, sometimes successfully. Th e thing that I don't understand is why the appropri- ate consultation and discussion, which could have fi xed some of the problems I've talked about, did not happen in advance of the legislation being brought to this House. I know that there's a provincial policing standards com- mittee that is tasked to deal exactly with this and with these kinds of situations.

Th is is exactly the place. Th ere is representation from a variety of organizations there, including B.C. Civil Liberties. If this piece of legislation had been taken to that com- mittee for discussion, maybe some of these questions that I'm raising now, some of these issues that I am raising now and that others are raising….

If it had been taken to the Trial Lawyers Association, if it had been taken to the criminal bar of this province, then perhaps some of the problems that I see and we see with this piece of legislation, concerns about privacy and concerns about rights, could have been ironed out at that meeting, in those consultations. We wouldn't have had the Information and Privacy Commissioner, for example, writing three-page letters to the minister, saying: "We think there are some serious problems with your act." Y et that apparently did not go to the provincial policing standards committee.

I think it just speaks to the importance of having full consulta- tion before you bring in

an act like this so you don't end up having to fi x it later. I think that pretty well covers all, certainly, the amend- ments that we are going to suggest. It covers the concerns that I have. Just in

summary, there are many, many recommenda- tions that Commissioner Oppal made — 63 in all. We've been waiting a long time for action. We had some small action, but we've got to remember that what he said in his report is that this is such a complex system, a com- plex set of issues and failures — and he called them bla- tant failures — that there are many answers and there are many recommendations. Th ere are many things that we need to be doing, and the recommendations, as he said, dovetail one with an- other, which means that we need to look at them as a whole. We need to act.

Certainly, some of the ones, as I said earlier, that he said needed to be done immediately there hasn't been action on. We need to act on those recommendations, as we have been calling for in this House. [1515] Overall, we are likely going to support this bill, but we are very much concerned about some of the defi ciencies that we see in it. We are off ering a solution. We want to get yes, as the other side oft en says. With that, I am going to take my seat. J. Th ornthwaite: I rise today to give my support to the Missing Persons Act, Bill 3. I also thank our Minister of Justice for bringing the bill.

As well, I appreciate the re- marks from the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake. Just to comment on some of the things that the mem- ber for Burnaby–Deer Lake did mention. I agree; this is a bill that is an interface between the protection of safety as well as the protection of privacy. I agree wholeheart- edly that the entire purpose of this act is to fi nd missing persons. Th e proposed legislation will support the implementa- tion of the recommendations contained in Forsaken: Th e Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry.

Th e proposed Missing Persons Act is consistent with the intent and spirit of one of the recommendations of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry: to enact missing-person legislation to grant speedy access to personal information of missing persons without unduly infringing on privacy rights; and adoption of single-purpose legislation, as in Alberta and Manitoba. Th e purpose of this legislation is to fi nd those people.

It's about providing police with more timely access to in- formation about missing, vulnerable and at-risk people and others who may be in their company and to places where they are believed to be. But it strives to weigh safe- ty needs and privacy rights, requiring police to obtain a court order in all but emergency circumstances when time is critical. Overall, we are striving to empower po- lice while maintaining sensible limits on sensitive infor- mation in extraordinary circumstances. Th e proposed legislation builds on similar acts now en- forced in Alberta, Manitoba and recently passed in Nova Scotia.

Notably, B.C. has included a defi nition — "person

British Columbia Debates1816 Tuesday, March 4, 2014 at risk" — which, when regulations are developed, may help to better protect marginalized women and is making it an off ence to fail to comply with orders and demands for information made under the act. Currently police must have reasonable grounds to be- lieve that an off ence, such as a kidnapping or an assault, has occurred before they access phone records, fi nancial and job particulars, and other restricted information about a missing person who may be at risk.

Th is legislation includes the meanings for "missing person" and "vulnerable person" and "person at risk." Th is distinction is required to provide police with addi- tional powers in cases that are at higher risk. It addresses the gap that currently exists when the po- lice are trying to locate a missing person whose safety may be at risk by providing them with access to infor- mation, records and search orders they could not nor- mally get.

Regarding the points that the member for Burnaby– Deer Lake raised, there are concerns that were brought up by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, but we have attempted to mitigate these concerns by restricting in the act that this information can only be used for the purpose outlined in the act. With regards to the comments that the member made about the civil liberties association, the purpose of the legislation is to help locate a missing person in order to help ensure that he or she is safe and out of harm's way.

Th is legislation balances the rights of an individual to keep their information private while ensuring that po- lice can obtain information and records in order to help locate that individual. In addition, our government has included a provision for the province to designate a central missing-persons agency to provide a coordinating function so that infor- mation pertaining to missing-persons investigations is shared and linked amongst law enforcement agencies across jurisdictions in order to more eff ectively and ef- fi ciently help locate the missing individual.

Th is was a recommendation of the Missing Women Commission. [1520] Th is act also pertains to low-threshold cases — for ex- ample, a few hours aft er a teenager has run away or when a dementia patient has wandered off . For example, a missing person is defi ned as a person whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable eff orts to locate them and who has not been in contact with persons whom they would likely be in contact with or whose safety and welfare are feared for, given their age, physical or mental capabilities or the circumstances surrounding their ab- sence.

If the circumstances meet these criteria, the act can be used. Th ere was a sad case last year in Lynn Valley in my riding, when a patient, a resident from one of the care homes, wandered away. Despite the heroic eff orts of the RCMP and North Shore Rescue and the social media ef- forts that searchers used — using a special emergency alert system of the North Shore Emergency Management Offi ce to send e-mails and automatic phone calls to area residents — this poor woman was not found in time. Th is act would have been able to assist in that case and others.

Th ere have been consultations with stakeholders, with the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the B.C. Police Association, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and B.C. Police Missing Persons Centre, and at this time con- sultations with the Privacy Commissioner are ongoing. Government is committed to ensuring that consulta- tions are done with all those aff ected by this legislation, including First Nations, police forces and any other af- fected organization. For those reasons, I am supporting this bill, and I am happy that our Minister of Justice brought this bill for- ward.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Nanaimo. [Applause.] L. Krog: Always delighted to hear the thunderous ap- plause that greets me when I rise in the chamber — well, at least two hands clapping, in any event. I'm reminded of what Jean Chrétien said some years ago. He said something to the eff ect that everybody want- ed to go to heaven, but nobody wanted to die. Of course, that's the only way to get there. Th e aim of this bill is laudable, appropriate, desirable. It represents the fulfi lment of a recommendation of the Oppal Commission.

It would provide tools to the po- lice to do the job that they desperately want to do when they're confronted with a person who's missing. Y ou have to step back sometimes and remember that the police force in any community are the people who deal with oft en the saddest and most diffi cult and dark- est parts of anyone's lives. Th ey're the ones who bring home the drunken teenager, the teenager who's had some issue with drugs, picked up for doing whatever. Th ey're the ones who attend at the scenes of domestic violence.

Th ey're the ones who are told that someone's missing, and they desperately want to assist in trying to fi nd that person. One can understand their signifi cant support for this legislation and, indeed, broad community support.

Th e point of my remarks today — and I intend to be fairly brief — is that in getting to that desirable end, to enable the police to do their job eff ectively to locate miss- ing persons, you have to respect very carefully the rights of all of us to our privacy and to ensure that the infor- mation that is obtained is used only for the purposes of the act and also for the purposes with which the missing person is literally reported to the police. Th at's where it becomes a little more problematic. It's interesting. We're now on, arguably, the 30th an- niversary of what was supposed to be 1984.

I suspect a number of the members in this chamber read 1984 when they were much younger, or Brave New World.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, March 4, 2014 1817 In many respects we've actually arrived. I think in Great Britain there is something on the order of 14 mil- lion security cameras now. So anywhere you go in what my grandmother referred to with some love and aff ection as the old country, wherever you go at any given time of the day, you are likely to be the subject of some camera that's watching what you're doing. [1525] I suspect many of the members have cards that they use when they go to the grocery store.

I always joking- ly say that Jimmy Pattison, if he really wanted to know, could tell the brand of toilet paper the Krogs are using, for heaven's sake, or the type of deodorant or how many vegetables they buy. The bank certainly understands every fi nancial transaction. We have given up our privacy, in a sense, sometimes innocently, sometimes knowingly, sometimes without a care. Indeed, many people don't care, but many still do.

Notwithstanding the availability of all that informa- tion, there are privacy laws — not perfect — that pro- tect our rights to that privacy and that information, and I must say, honestly, thank God for that, because the world that was envisioned in 1984 is not a world in which any of us want to live. We hope we never see it used for those darker purposes, but in fact, Orwell prob- ably wasn't far off .

Th e real objection to this legislation — and it's the only signifi cant objection, in my view — is where the good purpose of it runs up against privacy and runs up against the purpose for which that information is obtained by the police. Th at's where I think we must pay heed. Indeed, I'm always hopeful that the government will pay heed to the remarks contained in a letter dat- ed February 14, 2014, from Elizabeth Denham, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.

Now, it's not a valentine, notwithstanding it's dated February 14, but it is a message, nevertheless, that I think bears repeating in this House today. Ms. Denham, having viewed the legislation carefully with a critical eye, has suggested three amendments to ensure, in her words, that "personal information is col- lected in a manner that is transparent to the individuals involved. My proposals would also ensure accountability for the personal information that is subsequently used and disclosed." What she recommends is this.

Firstly, she recommends that "my offi ce be notifi ed aft er an emergency disclosure demand is made. Th is would not be designed as an ap- proval mechanism but would enable my offi ce to monitor the use of emergency demands and evaluate over time whether they are being undertaken in an eff ective man- ner that is proportional to the privacy impacts on the in- dividual whose records are disclosed." Now, my friend the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, who spoke earlier, raised an excellent point in her re- marks around the use of the civil forfeiture laws. When that matter was debated in this House….

Again, it's surely a good end that people would not be entitled to retain the profi ts of their crime, if you will. Consciously voting for it, as I knew I was…. Indeed some people who'd never been convicted of a crime but had obtained assets or wealth by, literally, as someone once said, taking it from somebody else or getting it in a way that wasn't right and proper, would in fact be required to forfeit it. Th at's a good end. Th at's a very good end.

But there is some suggestion now that the civil forfeit- ure cases, the claims, are in fact being used in a way that is not consistent with the legislation, where people who have assets that were not accumulated as the result of any activity that

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20140304pm-Hansard-v7n4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20140304pm Hansard v7n4
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	680ea8fc0fe741812292f0b9bd285a15e3671fd6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).