2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Ralph Hutchinson

L. Krog

World women's curling

championship in Vernon

Hon. T.

Christensen

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Surrey Board of Trade export

awards

D. Hayer

Canadian poetry

L. Krog

Guthrie House

Mayencourt

Volunteer firefighters

Simpson

Michelle Stillwell and employment

of disabled persons

Cantelon

Metchosin Community Association

Karagianis

Oral Questions

Investigation into ICBC vehicle

sales

C. James

Hon. J.

van Dongen

H. Bains

Farnworth

Funding for post-secondary education

Fleming

Hon. M.

Coell

Simpson

A. Dix

Conroy

Comments by Liberal MLA in

Children and Youth Committee

Fraser

Hon. M.

de Jong

Recommendation from Sullivan mine

accident inquest

Macdonald

Hon. K.

Krueger

Petitions

S. Fraser

D. MacKay

C. Trevena

C. Puchmayr

C. Wyse

M. Sather

Committee of the Whole House

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2008 (Bill 2) (continued)

G. Coons

Hon. C.

Taylor

Ralston

Reporting of Bills

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2008 (Bill 2)

Third Reading of Bills

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2008 (Bill 2)

Second Reading of Bills

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 11)

Hon. R.

Thorpe

J. Brar

C. Wyse

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Labour and Citizens' Services

Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13)

Hon. O.

Ilich

Puchmayr

Chouhan

J. Brar

Conroy

Macdonald

H. Bains

A. Dix

Lekstrom

Farnworth

Hon. O.

Ilich

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir

Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

Karagianis

Hon. K.

Falcon

Chouhan

H. Bains

Horgan

J. Brar

[ Page 10717 ]

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

C. James: It's my pleasure to introduce two amazing

constituents in the Legislature today. Pippa Blake and Penny Goldrick are

involved in a number of activities in this community — everything from social

issues to environmental issues, sports and fitness. We've been very fortunate to

have their energy contribute to our community.

But it was their latest adventure that I just want to take a

minute to talk about, because it really was an inspiration to those of us not

only in Victoria but all around the province. Pippa has been an active hiker and

climber her entire life and has always dreamed about trekking in the Himalayas.

When she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1991, she thought her dream

was finished. Last fall with the hard work and support of her two sons, her

partner Penny, the Rise Above Barriers Society and two extraordinary Sherpas,

Pippa fulfilled her dream and reached Mount Everest base camp.

When Pippa arrived back in Victoria after this amazing adventure,

her comments spoke to us all. She said: "I hope it sows a seed in people's minds

that there are a lot of things you can do if you believe you can."

Pippa is donating the trail rider that she used for the climb to

Recreation Integration Victoria, an organization that helps disabled people. But

I want everyone in the Legislature to know that they're not stopping there — at

heading off to Mount Everest. They're already planning their next trip to look

at hiking the 485-mile pilgrimage trail in Spain.

It's a real inspiration to all of us that someone with

disabilities is able to continue their fitness adventure in life, and I'd like

the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased today to let everyone know

that we have 80 visitors from Queen Mary Elementary School in Vancouver–Point

Grey. They're grade 5 students. They're here with their teacher Ms. King and a

number of parents.

As you know, hon. Speaker, Queen Mary is an exceptional school. My

wife taught there. My boys went to school there. It's got to be one of the great

schools in British Columbia, and I hope we'll make them welcome.

[1335]

B. Simpson: I have the distinct pleasure of introducing a

very good friend of mine from Quesnel, Mary Gradnitzer. Mary is an amazing

individual in our community. She's a seniors advocate who works very strongly

with our seniors community.

She also happens to be a very strong supporter of mine and has

been the membership chair in our constituency association for a long time. We

just had our AGM, and she signalled that this is really the last year that she's

going to be membership chair. That's okay. There are lots of other people who

will take care of that.

Mary is here today with her sister from Toronto, Janet Goodfellow,

and a friend of her sister, Miriam May. I ask the House to make them feel very

welcome.

R. Hawes: If the members, particularly the ones who bring

their computers in, were to look at the wiring, I hope they would realize that

it's there because the former Deputy Speaker from the last parliament pushed

very hard and had a very big fight, I know, with the Clerk's office to go

against tradition and have that wiring put in place.

Our colleague John Weisbeck, former MLA for Kelowna–Lake Country,

is in the gallery today. He tells me that he played 140 rounds of golf last

year, so he's saying there is life after politics. Could the House please make

John welcome.

R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce a very special person

in my life, my first grandchild. She was born on March 18, and her name is Chloe

Amrita Sanford. Please join me to welcome her to British Columbia.

Hon. P. Bell: I, too, would like to pass on a warm welcome

to the students from Queen Mary. That was my alma mater as well.

I would like to add that the government caucus members and cabinet

members had an opportunity to meet with B.C. Wood officials earlier today at

lunch. I know they had a variety of meetings, and I know they have some this

afternoon with the opposition as well.

B.C. Wood is a tremendous organization that represents the

value-added sector. On behalf of the Minister of Forests, I would certainly like

to welcome all of them.

We're joined in the gallery today by Grant McKinnon, who is the

chair of B.C. Wood, Brent Comber, Mike Friesen, Sam Froese, John Gillis, Tony

Pistilli, Brian Hawrysh and Brian Menzies. I'd ask that the House please make

them very welcome.

I did skip one on purpose because he's also a constituent of mine,

who runs a tremendous value-added business in Prince George called Northern

Capital Wood Products. He makes the best kitchens and the best value-add wood

products probably anywhere in North America. I'd ask that the House please make

Wayne Ward very welcome as well.

J. Horgan:

I had the pleasure to dine with some winners of the member for Malahat–Juan de

Fuca in an auction for lunch and a visit to the precinct for question period and

a tour after that. Joining us today are Hanny Pannekoek, Hugo Sutmoller and Liz and Mike Graham. They participated in a

fundraiser to raise money and awareness about multiple sclerosis. So would the

House please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Visiting in the gallery today are two very

fine constituents of mine, Brian Small and his wife Shirley. Brian will be known

to a number of people around Victoria as the former manager of the chamber

[ Page 10718 ]

of commerce. He served that for a long period of time and was well missed

when he left that post. He has also taken up many sports in his spare time, of

which I understand tennis is one. He's an enthusiastic tennis player, as many

will attest to. I hope the House will please make welcome Brian Small and his

wife Shirley.

Tributes

RALPH HUTCHINSON

L. Krog: Yesterday in Nanaimo, the member for Nanaimo-Parksville

and myself attended the celebration of life for the late Justice Ralph

Hutchinson, and I felt it only appropriate to mention his passing in this

Legislature.

[1340]

He was a prominent central Island lawyer, a great counsel in his

day, a fine judge, a rather remarkable mountaineer — 20 first ascents, partly

with larger teams — a great wine writer for The Advocate, a

devoted father and husband, a gentleman and a man with a great sense of humour.

I join with the member for Nanaimo–Parksville, whose constituent

Justice Hutchinson was, in celebrating his life and recognizing his contribution

to the legal profession in this province.

WORLD WOMEN'S CURLING

CHAMPIONSHIP IN VERNON

Hon. T. Christensen: Last week the North Okanagan was

rocked by the top women curlers from around the world. Twelve countries gathered

in Vernon.

On March 20 the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts and I had

the foresight to adopt Canada's team, who is actually from Winnipeg. We're

pretty confident that was a major point in leading them to the gold victory on

Sunday. They certainly welcomed the opportunity to be honorary B.C. citizens for

the week. I can tell you that the fans in Vernon stood behind Team Canada

throughout that week, and congratulations to Jennifer Jones and her team for a

well-earned victory.

It was an opportunity for residents of the North Okanagan to get a

little bit of a taste of 2010 and what we can expect just under two years from

now. It was an exceptional experience for the whole community — lots of

excitement.

I would ask that the House please acknowledge and congratulate the

over 500 volunteers and the organizing committee for pulling off an exceptional

event, making Vernon, making British Columbia and making Canada proud of the

types of events we can host right here in our province.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) SURREY BOARD OF TRADE EXPORT AWARDS

D. Hayer: Last week I had the privilege, along with the

Minister of Economic Development, to attend the Surrey Board of Trade's second

annual international trade dinner and Surrey Export Awards. This dinner

highlighted the remarkable international trade that Surrey business people have

developed in the markets across the Pacific Rim and throughout the world.

Surrey Board of Trade is the only one in Canada to showcase and

recognize companies engaged in international trade, which is driving our economy

and creating a future for British Columbia's workers and our entrepreneurs. As

we move further and further away from our dependence on the United States as the

main market for our products, the Asia-Pacific nations become more and more

important.

Our business people, particularly those in Surrey, are solidifying

B.C.'s connection and our future as North America's gateway to international

trade. We're in the right place at the right time, and the efforts of our

government to encourage and develop these trade links speak strongly of the

vision needed to keep the economic surge progressing.

The progress, vision and entrepreneurship were the highlights of

the Surrey Board of Trade's awards ceremony, which chose from many dynamic

Surrey finalists four companies that are leading the way.

In the agricultural and primary products exporter of the year

category, Punjab Milk Foods took the award. Winner of the emerging technologies

exporter award was Patton and Cooke Company. Winner of the manufacturing

exporter of the year award was Bekaert Canada Ltd., and in the service exporter

of the year division, Fraser Surrey Docks was the award winner.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating these

very forward-thinking Surrey-based companies whose owners and employees are the

ones who make them very successful.

CANADIAN POETRY

L. Krog: April is National Poetry Month. Poetry has played

a great role in Canadian history. The famous explorer Henry Kelsey opened his

journal dated 1693 with a rhyming prologue. The subject of many of our greatest

poets has been historical events. Jonathan Odell in 1812 wrote about the battle

of Queenston, Upper Canada. The Canadian Boat Song ,

celebrating Canadian working-class people, appeared anonymously in 1829. It

speaks of the oarsmen working on the St. Lawrence.

Aboriginals. George Copway, an Ojibwa poet, wrote in 1847 Once

More I See My Father's Land . Women play more than a significant role.

Isabel Valancy Crawford, in 1884, wrote about that quintessential Canadian icon

— the canoe. We all know what Pierre Berton said about the definition of

Canadians. Canadians are those who can make love in a canoe.

[1345]

Bliss Carman wrote about something in 1929 that has been the

subject of many Canadian hunters' interest, and that was Wild Geese .

Pauline Johnson in 1892, of course, wrote The Song My Paddle Sings . What

Canadian school child of a certain generation didn't

[ Page 10719 ]

memorize those lines, including my sainted mother who at 91 is watching this

today.

Of course, Robert Service was our first great internationally

known poet. The Shooting of Dan McGrew — who hasn't heard those words

spoken many times? Of course, first published anonymously in 1915 by John MacRae,

what Canadian has not shed a tear on Remembrance Day listening to the words of

In Flanders Fields .

The great radical F.R. Scott wrote about our geography in

Laurentian Shield . Al Purdy wrote something close to home, The Cariboo

Horses . Robin Skelton wrote about one of our great national birds, the

eagle, in 1974.

I encourage, quickly, all members in this House to go out and buy

a book of Canadian poetry today.

GUTHRIE HOUSE

L. Mayencourt: This past fall I had the opportunity to

witness a small miracle that is taking place in Nanaimo. It's happening at the

Nanaimo Correctional Centre, and it is a place called Guthrie House.

I've talked a little bit about therapeutic communities like the

one we have started up in Prince George, but this is a therapeutic community

that resides in Nanaimo Correctional Centre. It's important because it is a new

approach for helping people recover from their addictions but also deal with

some of the lifestyle choices and values and personal histories that people have

beside them.

In the therapeutic community at Guthrie House, there are four

phases of the program. First, inmates come into an orientation phase where they

learn a little bit about the therapeutic community. They go through primary

treatment, and then they re-enter the general population and work through a

transition phase, followed by an aftercare program which happens when they are

released from prison.

The picture of the people who access this program is pretty clear.

They are experiencing health risks. They have had experience with social crises.

Their drug use is generally out of control, and they have little or no capacity

that they can demonstrate to maintain abstinence on their own. Their social and

interpersonal function is diminished. Finally, their drug use is either embedded

in or has eroded to a socially deviant lifestyle.

The program that we have going at Guthrie House is subject to

evaluation, and there's some really great work being done to show what's going

on there. But more importantly, I saw these miracles face to face. These are

individuals that have had a lifetime of crime. They are prolific offenders, and

they have had the opportunity to change their own opinions about their own

values, about their addictions, about their families.

I can honestly say that in the eyes and in the faces of those men

that I saw at Nanaimo Correctional Centre, there are true miracles. People

will….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

B. Simpson: Every year the Professional Fire Fighters

Association comes down to the Legislature to hold our feet to the fire, to coin

a phrase, on their issues and concerns. Each year that's happened that I've been

an MLA, I've recognized the fact that I get to speak to the Prince George Fire

Fighters association, because my communities are served by volunteer

firefighters.

Volunteer firefighters are critical, and they cover a large part

of the province of British Columbia. I think it's critical that we recognize the

contribution they make to our communities. Many of these people are not just

volunteers for firefighting. They're volunteers in all manner of activities

throughout the community.

They spend enormous amounts of time training to protect our

communities. They spend enormous amounts of time fundraising not only for their

own needs for equipment and facility upgrades but also for other community

events.

In many of my communities those volunteer firefighters are also

our first responders. Where we do not have ambulance coverage, those folks go

and take the training they need in order to provide that first response, to

stabilize critical patients before the ambulance can get there.

[1350]

This weekend, and the reason that this tribute was stimulated, I

get to attend a pancake breakfast. It's a sugaring-off event for birch syrup in

my riding. The company that is doing that has decided to use it as an

opportunity to thank the Bouchie Lake fire department and hold a pancake

breakfast. It's a mix of business and a thank-you to the community.

It struck me that I think all of us as MLAs could foster those

kinds of thanks in our community, if they're not already there. So I ask this

House to join me today in thanking all of the volunteers who spend the amount of

time that they do making sure our communities get the protection and the

professional services they need. I ask the MLAs to join me in finding ways to

make sure we thank those volunteers on a consistent basis year over year.

MICHELLE STILLWELL AND

EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED PERSONS

R. Cantelon: I think the members in this House are well

aware of the challenges and the plight of persons with disabilities. Of the

300,000 persons with disabilities — not all of them physical — in this province,

only 44 percent find regular full employment.

Something happens. It's more than just physical. There are mental

challenges, whether it's lack of confidence or other things that happen. People

don't always get back into the marketplace.

Not all people are affected this way. Michelle Stillwell, who is a

quadriplegic and lost the use of most of her limbs early in life, persevered. In

2000 she was a member of the gold-medallist basketball team. She suffered

another setback with a spinal complication

[ Page 10720 ]

and then took up sprinting. She won the silver medal in the hundred metres

and the gold medal at last year's world championships. In fact, at a later meet

she came within 4/100 of a second….

Individually, they can meet the challenges. But collectively as a

government, what are we doing? We certainly have the 10 by 10 program, which

seeks to improve the employment circumstances by 10 percent by 2010. I'm sure

it's something both sides of this House embrace as a motive. But what are we

doing as individual members? How are we supporting this? The minister's council

has engaged 56 communities to support this.

I'm working with Michelle Stillwell, and she has volunteered to

help make it happen — to do something in the community, to work with

individuals, to work with and challenge the municipalities and businesses in the

community to employ more people with disabilities. I can tell you that with her

competitiveness and her drive, she's going to make a difference and make it

happen.

Today I stand before you and talk to all the members on both sides

of this House and ask the question: what are you doing in your riding to make it

happen? What are you doing to work with the people with disabilities in your

riding to make that connection with employer to employee to help the employment?

I can promise you that Michelle is going to make a big difference

in our riding. She's going to be very assertive and very aggressive and help

make it happen.

METCHOSIN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

M. Karagianis: Today I'd like to share with the members of

this House the story of the Metchosin Community Association and Metchosin

Community House. The Metchosin Community Association was formed in 1993 as a

non-profit community-building organization open to all members of the community

to encourage and organize a variety of educational, recreational, cultural and

other community activities within Metchosin. In its early years the association

facilitated planning for Metchosin youth and seniors, started the neighbourhood

response program, and promoted community awareness and involvement.

In 1999 the association's board of directors arranged to lease for

$1 a year a rundown residence located next to the Metchosin municipal property.

Months of volunteer efforts and assistance from the Juan de Fuca parks and rec

led to the opening of the Metchosin Community House eight years ago.

Within a year the community association took over day-to-day

operation of the house, supported by annual fundraising efforts. The district of

Metchosin, which retains ownership, provides limited funding to help with

maintenance.

Today the Metchosin Community House serves as an information and

resource centre for the entire community. Twice a week it becomes the daytime

home to many seniors in the community, in conjunction with VIHA's adult day

program.

Other partners include the Emergency Operations Committee, Juan de

Fuca parks and rec, Pearson College of the Pacific, Sooke school district and

the West Shore Arts Council. On any given day the community house may be an art

gallery or a poetry café; a gourmet dining venue; a place to learn beekeeping,

tree-grafting or archaeology; or a place for young and old to have fun together.

Most of all, it's a place of comfort and gathering, supporting the volunteers

and community-minded citizens who exemplify all that is good about living in

Metchosin.

I know the members will join me in acknowledging the exceptional

contribution of the Metchosin Community Association.

[1355]

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO ICBC

VEHICLE SALES

C. James: ICBC told the public that several employees

purchased vehicles from its chop shop. What ICBC didn't tell us was that 22

managers bought cars in a scheme that gave them first priority to cherry-pick

those cars over private buyers.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he confirm that as a

result of an internal investigation into this scam, at least three officials at

ICBC have been fired?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I appreciate the question from the

Leader of the Opposition. I was appointed to this position about an hour ago,

and I'm going to take the question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: I do, on a different question. I understand that

the Solicitor General was just appointed. I would think that he'd have been

briefed on such a critical issue in his portfolio. But nevertheless, Mr.

Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: The Premier's handpicked CEO, Paul Taylor, who

oversaw ICBC while the scam was going on, has said: "Sorry. It won't happen

again." Well, sorry isn't enough. Paul Taylor isn't….

Interjection.

C. James: It's a different question.

Paul Taylor isn't taking the rap. He's just saying that it won't

happen again. My question to the Solicitor General is: will he commit today to

release the internal investigation from ICBC?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I've said, I will be meeting with

the deputy minister and staff of the ministry, and I will take the question on

notice.

[ Page 10721 ]

Mr. Speaker: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that

there are no supplementals on questions that are taken on notice.

C. James: It's a different question and a different person

for the question to go to.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

C. James: British Columbians certainly deserve better than

an internal investigation that the public doesn't know about at ICBC and no

response from anyone in government. ICBC is trying to sweep this under the rug,

thinking that an apology from Paul Taylor is enough. Well, it's not enough.

I would like to ask the Premier: will he commit today to release

the internal investigation done by ICBC so that the public can know exactly how

this scheme occurred?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said to the Leader of the

Opposition, I will be meeting with the deputy minister. I have not at this point

had the opportunity to meet with him, and I will take her question on notice.

H. Bains: The consumers of ICBC don't care who the

Solicitor General is.

Mr. Speaker: Just a second. Member, three times this

question has been taken on notice.

Now, is this a new question?

H. Bains: Well, it's a different question to a different

person.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

H. Bains: But while this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: They are looking for some answers. While this

scam was going on, ICBC tried to get away by saying that several employees

purchased these vehicles, as if somebody down on the shop floor was involved in

this scam. But it turned out that 22 managers in the scheme gave them the first

dibs — senior managers personally benefiting from a scheme of their own design.

So my question is again to the Premier. Will he tell us that the

ICBC managers were involved, and what senior vice-presidents purchased any of

these rebuilt cars?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I appreciate the member's question. As

I said to the previous questions on the same subject matter, I will be meeting

with the deputy minister and staff in the ministry, and I will take the member's

question on notice.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Remember, there are no supplementals on questions that have been

taken on notice.

[1400]

H. Bains: It's a different question, and then I'll go to a

different minister.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

H. Bains: ICBC also says that there was some evidence….

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

is three, four times. This has to be a different question — okay? Proceed.

H. Bains: It's a different question, and I was just

starting to read the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: ICBC's report says that there was some evidence

that facility and staff time was used to repair employees' vehicles — no

details, no explanation. So my question is to the Attorney General. Can he

confirm that the senior managers of ICBC used ICBC mechanics and repair shops

for their personal use, and can he tell us how widespread this practice was and

who was involved?

Mr. Speaker: That is the same question as before. Members,

it's going back to the same intent as the original questions.

M. Farnworth: This is a very serious matter that goes to

the heart of the public's confidence in ICBC, and it goes to commitments that

were made in this House.

Yesterday we had a Solicitor General who was perfectly capable of

answering questions on this issue in the House — the current Attorney General. A

cynic might say that we've got a new Solicitor General today to avoid answering

questions on a very serious issue.

Now, I know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Opposition House Leader, proceed.

M. Farnworth: This government, we know, has a problem with

accountability, but this is the wrong way to go about being unaccountable.

My question is to the Attorney General.

[ Page 10722 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Can he confirm whether or not there is a

criminal investigation into what has been taking place at ICBC?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. van Dongen: This question is about the same subject

matter as the previous questions, and I will take the question on notice.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member, there's no supplemental. Is it a new question?

M. Farnworth: This is very much a new question.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

M. Farnworth: This is directed to the Attorney General. The

last time I checked, the Attorney General was still responsible for the criminal

justice branch in the province of British Columbia. This government has used

"It's before the courts" so many times that I'm surprised they haven't got it

trademarked. They've used "It's under investigation" so many times that I'm

surprised they haven't got that trademarked. Now we're getting a new response:

"On notice." Fine — on notice.

But to the Attorney General, who's responsible for the criminal

justice system: can he tell this House whether (

a) there's been a special

prosecutor appointed in this particular case? Or (

b) is there a criminal

investigation underway on what's been going on at ICBC?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. van Dongen: My understanding of the question is

that it relates to ICBC. That is within the Ministry of Solicitor General and

Public Safety.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It is within my….

Interjections.

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

cannot hear you.

Continue, Minister.

[1405]

Hon. J. van Dongen: My understanding is that the question

the member asked is within my ministry. I have not as yet had the opportunity to

meet the deputy minister and the staff. I will be doing that shortly. As such, I

will take the question on notice.

FUNDING FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

R. Fleming: College and university presidents, students and

faculty groups across British Columbia are dealing with this government's sudden

cuts to the Ministry of Advanced Education's three-year budget plan. Every day a

new impact of these cuts emerges.

Just this morning UBC's board of governors was forced to reduce

400 student spaces and cancel 32 faculty and staff hirings in engineering and

business at its Okanagan campus. In fact, every school in every part of this

province is being hit by this government's reckless, last-minute cuts.

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why won't

the minister listen instead of breaking the budget commitments he made?

Hon. M. Coell: Only the NDP would see a $38 million

increase in my budget as a cut. Only the NDP would see a 40 percent increase in

my budget, since we became office, as a cut. Only the NDP would see an increase

in every institutional budget this year — a cut. And only the NDP would see a

1.5 investment in infrastructure in this ministry — a cut.

Now, I don't know whether the member…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: …has been on any campuses lately, but there

is $1½ billion worth of construction building new classrooms. I don't know

whether they can remember voting against $1 billion worth of increase in

research in our institutions, but they did.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: You know, only this minister would see hundreds

of pink slips and thousands of cancelled student spaces, which are being debated

at board of governors meetings…. Only this minister and only this government

would see that as an increase.

This minister's actions are making rushed and panicked decisions

at all 25 public post-secondary institutions in B.C. right now. Those are bad

decisions that are going to be made, which were supposed to be avoided in

three-year budget service plans in the first place.

At least two of B.C.'s major universities have said that they

won't cut further, and they're asking permission to run deficits. Last weekend

UNBC's president said: "The minister's cuts shouldn't be put on the backs of

students."

[ Page 10723 ]

Will the minister show that he gets it, stand up for students

today in this House and honour his original funding commitment and reverse these

cutbacks?

Hon. M. Coell: I repeat for the member: a $68 million

increase in a budget is not a cut.

Let me personalize for this member, because I know he represents

the same area that I do — Greater Victoria. Has he been up to UVic to see the

$200 million worth of construction up there?

I know he would have liked to support the medical school, but

didn't. When we announced $100 million for climate change solutions, what did

the NDP do? They voted for it. Isn't that nice?

Since we've been in government, a 40 percent increase in the

budget for advanced education…. And the NDP voted against every one of those 40

percent increases in this ministry.

[1410]

B. Simpson: Well, it's unfortunate that the minister sees

this as a joke and that this side of the House over there sees this as something

to laugh about.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Simpson: This is not something to take lightly. The

University of Northern British Columbia and the College of New Caledonia went

through a very difficult budgeting process on the presumption that this

government would follow through on its promise of three-year stable funding.

They finished very difficult decisions about program cuts and staffing levels

only to find out on March 20 that this government was going to cut their base

funding by 2.6 percent. That's why the boards and the presidents of the College

of New Caledonia and UNBC have got into a public spat with this minister.

The minister is challenging the member for Victoria-Hillside to go

see the capital projects. Well, I have news for the minister. Capital and

operating budgets are a little different. You're cutting operating budgets.

That's the debate here, so if we can stick to the operating budgets, it would be

helpful.

I challenge the minister to this week go up to Prince George.

Instead of writing letters to the editor debating the boards and presidents and

questioning the veracity of their statements, go up to Prince George, sit with

those folks and tell them exactly how a cut is not a cut.

Hon. M. Coell: I think there's a new campus in Quesnel, in

that member's riding. I think there's a new medical school at UNBC. I think

there's a new sports facility at UNBC. I think there are new medical students at

UNBC. I don't know how much of an expansion this member has missed, but this is

the biggest expansion in post-secondary education in 40 years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: I have a book on economics 101. So you learn….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

B. Simpson: Not for my edification but for the minister's

edification, the minister again in his response shows a gross misunderstanding

of the difference between capital funding and operating funding. What's the

point of having all that new capital if the boards and the presidents can't

operate the programs in those new facilities? That's the point. Again the

minister is saying that his cut to operating funding, despite a promise to

stabilize three-year funding, is not a cut.

So again, here's my challenge to the minister. The Prince George

region is the region that's going to be the most impacted by the mountain pine

beetle epidemic. We need every opportunity for every citizen to engage in the

changes that we need to make economically and socially. Instead of cutting base

funding, will the minister commit today to restore that 2.6 percent and add

incremental funding for the targeted programs that the minister is going to tell

them they have to deliver with that cut?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member misses the point. I

mentioned that the budget for advanced education has gone up by 40 percent since

we've been in government. That's the operating budget.

The member probably doesn't realize that when we built that new

campus in Quesnel, we actually increased the funds in their operating budget to

run it. When we built the medical school in the north, we increased their

operating funds to run it — and when we built the sports centre and we built the

teaching centre. This is the biggest increase in post-secondary education in 40

years, and you don't like it because you voted it against it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

A. Dix: The presidents of the colleges don't like it. The

boards that you appointed don't like it. The students don't like it. The faculty

don't like it. Nobody likes this government's budget on post-secondary

education. In Vancouver Community College 1,000 — mostly ESL — student spaces

are gone, and the minister is laughing and celebrating. Thirty-six instructors

[ Page 10724 ]

are gone, and the minister is laughing and celebrating. At SFU over 50

faculty to lose their jobs when cuts to programs and departments are forced on

them by this government, by that minister.

When will he stand up for students? When will students have to

stop paying the price for his lack of clout at the cabinet table, hon. Speaker?

When will he come to Vancouver Community College and fight there to ensure that

those thousand student spaces aren't cut?

Hon. M. Coell: I know the member would like to return to

the golden age of NDP frozen budgets for years and years and years. No

development on campuses. This government has taken the opportunity to develop

the campuses throughout this province, which didn't happen in the '90s — add to

the budgets to make sure that those programs are there and to make sure that

we're serving the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the thing that was frozen in the 1990s was

tuition fees, which this minister has raised by 100 percent in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Now, after soaking students on tuition fees, he's

cutting programs. When will the minister stand up…? If he wants to defend his

record of cutting student spaces, of cutting positions, of cutting important

programs, of cutting funding to ESL, let him stand up and do it. What we need in

British Columbia is a Minister of Advanced Education who stands up for students

and stands up for colleges and universities.

I ask the minister to get up now to say that he will fight for

those positions, that he will fight in the cabinet for those positions, and not

give up and allow our post-secondary education to be sabotaged in British

Columbia.

Hon. M. Coell: The member mentions the '90s. Let me go back

and look at the '90s when he was a chief adviser to the government. No new

nursing spaces in the '90s — period; 83 percent increase with this government.

No new medical spaces with that government; 100 percent increase with this

government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: When we needed more nursing spaces in this

province, we added 85 percent more. We're going to add more because we've asked

the colleges, institutes and universities to focus on nursing, to focus on

trades and training.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Conroy: Well, Selkirk College in the Kootenays doesn't

agree with the minister, nor does the president, nor do the staff, nor do the

faculty. It's the oldest community college in B.C., and it is facing cuts.

Somehow this minister puts out a press release saying that they're getting an

increase, but in fact they're facing cuts. They are facing $1.8 million in

deficits because of this minister's cuts and this government's cuts.

I'll quote. Let me quote the college president, because the

minister seems to have trouble connecting: "We're going to have to cut programs

and services and not serve our communities to the extent that we had hoped."

So $1.8 million in cuts. This college has done its darned best to

try to make services meet for the Kootenays, for students of the Kootenays. And

what does this minister do? He does nothing to make sure that students in the

Kootenays get the services they deserve. So how about stand up today, rescind

those cuts and make sure post-secondary education is provided in rural B.C.?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, every institution, every college,

every university in this province is getting an increase in their budget this

year — a $68 million increase in their budget this year.

[1420]

What we've asked them to do is target their funding to nursing

spaces, to trades and technology — the things that British Columbians

desperately need right now. I have confidence that they'll do it.

COMMENTS BY LIBERAL MLA

IN CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

S. Fraser: The chief councillor for the Moricetown band,

Ron Mitchell, wrote to the Premier on March 17: "On behalf of the Moricetown

band council, I am requesting that the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine be removed

from the Standing Committee on Children and Youth immediately. The member made

some insensitive and misinformed remarks at a meeting of the Select Standing

Committee on Children and Youth on March 12, 2008."

It is the Premier that made the appointment. Does the Premier

think it is acceptable, given the request from the Moricetown band, that the

member remains on the committee?

Hon. M. de Jong: If the comments are the ones that I

believe the member is referring to, I've had a chance to review those. I don't

think anyone on this side of the House and the government has anything to

apologize for with respect to the efforts that we have made to effect genuine

reconciliation amongst first nations. There is tangible evidence of the work

that is taking place. We're proud of that work. We are proud of the partnerships

that we are forming and continue to form. We are proud of the respect with which

aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples are conducting themselves with

[ Page 10725 ]

one another, and we are proud of the genuine reconciliation that is the

hallmark of a new relationship in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: There's no pride from this side of the House.

It's obvious the minister has never spoken with a survivor of residential

schools.

Concerns are being raised across the province. Nuu-chah-nulth

Tribal Council president Tom Happynook called the comments despicable. As Ron

Mitchell's letter says — and I'll go on: "The member has not only offended the

people from our community but the thousands of first nation people who were

forced into residential schools throughout Canada."

Will the Premier do the right thing and apologize to the community

of Moricetown and to first nations all over the province and all over the

country for the remarks made by the member of his government?

Hon. M. de Jong: I disagree with the member. There is no.…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: There was, in my view, no attempt and no

intention on the part of the hon. member to malign or show disrespect for

anyone. In fact, if the member carries on in the transcript of the proceedings,

I think he will come to find that other members of the committee made similar

commentary.

I think it's time for the member to step back and appreciate the

fact that during the course of debate, members ask questions. There was no

intention here to malign anyone.

The new relationship is built on a foundation of respect for all

British Columbians, for first nations, for aboriginal peoples, for understanding

the history and for understanding the injustices that have taken place in our

past. This government and the members of this government caucus have

demonstrated in spades our commitment to that new relationship.

RECOMMENDATION FROM

SULLIVAN MINE ACCIDENT INQUEST

N. Macdonald: My question relates to the Sullivan mine

tragedy. A coroner's inquest jury heard evidence for a week last summer in

Kimberley, and they made a number of recommendations about what needed to take

place. Among those was recommendation 12. Recommendation 12 is clear. There

needs to be an increase in penalty provisions with regard to enforcements of the

Mines Act to reflect the seriousness of non-compliance.

It's been almost two years since four deaths in Kimberley. The

question I have for the minister responsible is: when is recommendation 12 going

to be fully implemented?

Hon. K. Krueger: There were two investigations by the chief

inspector of mines as well as the coroner's inquest and the jury

recommendations.

[1425]

As the member knows, there was a thorough review by a code review

committee, which is comprised of three union representatives, three management

representatives and chaired by the chief inspector of mines. All of the

recommendations that came out of the code review committee with regard to the

Sullivan tragedy…. I would like to pause to express the government's ongoing

sorrow about the loss of life that occurred in that tragedy and empathy for the

families and friends who lost loved ones.

All of the recommendations were incorporated in the OIC, which has

been provided to the member. Recommendation 12 would involve an annual

inspection of 9,000 sites around the province. Many of them are no longer

operating mines, obviously, and it would not be a good use of the government's

manpower.

We have one of the best safety records of any heavy industry in

British Columbia, and the member asks about penalty provisions….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: By leave, I present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have a petition from residents of Denman and

Hornby islands and also Courtenay-Comox calling for a freeze on the B.C. Ferry

rates.

D. MacKay: I have a petition here signed by 66 people from

the Hazelton and Smithers area asking the government to cancel the carbon

emissions tax that was set into force in the budget of 2008.

C. Trevena: I have a petition to present — on the day that

ferry fares have gone up yet again by more than 4 percent — from more than 400

people from Cortes Island, Alert Bay, Malcolm Island and Comox-Courtenay on the

central Island asking for a freeze on ferry fares and a review of the Coastal

Ferry Act.

C. Puchmayr: I have a petition from 202 people throughout

British Columbia opposing the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement.

C. Wyse: Likewise, I'm rising and seeking permission to

present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

C. Wyse: On the one-year anniversary of the implementation

of the trade, investment and labour

[ Page 10726 ]

mobility agreement, I have a petition here from 560 people from around the

province looking for open debate on this item.

M. Sather: I also have another petition signed by British

Columbians, 348 of them, calling on the government to debate the trade,

investment and labour mobility agreement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued committee

stage debate on Bill 2 and, in Committee A, continued estimates debate. For the

information of members, the debate continues on the estimates for the Ministry

of Transportation.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2008

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

section 83 (continued) .

G. Coons: I do have a question on

section 83 and a couple

more after that. While we believe it's important to support the development and

expansion of ports, we believe it can't be done at the expense of downloading

onto cash-strapped municipalities.

The original plan in the ports competitiveness initiative was

scheduled for four years, and this new initiative, I guess, is going to be ten

years. We've seen a lot of municipalities concerned. Vancouver has lost almost a

million dollars since 2004 in the unilateral capping of their municipal taxes.

Port Moody saw a 35 percent decrease in port taxes, and they had to increase

taxes for their taxpayers by 3 percent. Delta got $300,000 but lost a revenue of

$600,000.

Plus we have to consider that municipalities were given the task

of managing hazardous waste and policing of ports, which was downloaded by the

federal government. Now it seems that there's more downloading and no real fair

compensation. I was wondering why the minister had a ten-year time line for the

extension of this versus a more workable, say, four- or five-year time line.

Hon. C. Taylor: As I mentioned earlier — I'm not sure that

the member opposite was here at the time — we did extensive consultation.

Without question, we heard from people who had different opinions on this.

One of the goals of this port competitiveness tax is to make sure

that business has certainty about its future within the ports in the various

municipalities — and to encourage investment, which is positive for

municipalities as well, of course. While a lot of the terminal operators and

port businesses would have preferred a much longer time line, we felt that ten

years gave certainty enough that business would make some of those major

investments that the municipalities talked to us about and certainly wanted. But

at the same time it would, in ten years, allow an opportunity to review this

again.

Just for the record, the first time we did it, it was for five

years, and then this time it's ten years.

G. Coons: Again, as we go through this, the minister said

that they had considerable consultation. As we look at quite a few initiatives

and programs that this government does, we start to see the initiatives having

lots of concerns for municipalities.

I just want to make a comment before we move on. I believe that

the downloading on lots of municipalities…. I'm sure the minister heard in some

of their consultations that there needs to be a fair compensation. A lot of the

municipalities don't believe they are getting a fair break on this initiative by

the government.

[1435]

Section 83 approved.

section 84.

B. Ralston:

Section 84 extends the property tax cap on new

investments. Is the minister able to give the House any sense of the likelihood

of new investments, or is this simply there to attract new investment? Or is

there any likelihood that this cap will be determinative of any investment

decisions that are about to be made?

Hon. C. Taylor: Certainly, in the first five-year period

there have been new investments that are captured by this, but this is done to

attract new investments. I don't have a specific example for the member

opposite.

Sections 84 and 85 approved.

section 86.

G. Coons: This section, dealing with the formula for the

compensation of local governments from 2009 to 2018, is an interesting section.

I'm just wondering. When calculating the annual payment, what tax year does the

formula use? Does it use the current tax year?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm not sure I've got the question exactly.

If not, please ask again. What we are doing in 2009 is taking the inflation

since 2004, adding that and then taking inflation forward.

G. Coons: I was more looking at…. Back in 2004, when the

base rate was calculated, it was based on the tax rate of, I believe, 2003 tax

figures. So until 2018, will it still be based on the 2003 tax figures, or will

it be current tax figures as we move along?

[ Page 10727 ]

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it will, with the inflation from the

2004 period to 2009 and then increasing with inflation each year.

G. Coons: In other words, back in 2004 it was based on the

2003 tax figures. So as we move along — say, for the 2009 year — will it be

based on the 2009 tax figures of the properties that are within the port

municipalities, or will it still be based on 2003 figures?

Hon. C. Taylor: The original was based on the 2003. The

formula actually fully compensated the municipalities for the difference between

that 2003 rate and what we were capping it at. What we are now going back and

doing is taking that full compensation from that period, but adding the

inflation that would have happened each year as we went along, and then tying

the future after 2009 to inflation each year.

So your compensation goes up and then will go up with inflation

automatically, going forward. That was something that the municipalities did

come to us and ask about, so we believe this is positive for them.

[1440]

G. Coons: I guess that's a concern I've heard through a lot

of port municipalities — that for fair market compensation, yes, you're

increasing it by the cost of living, but it's based on values back in 2003. By

2015, let's just say, the values will be quite out of whack, and the gap that

municipalities will be losing seems to increase.

Basically, when we look at this section, there's going to be new

rates. You said it's going to be increased with the rate of inflation since 2004

and then with inflation for each year after that. What is the percentage rate

that the base rates are going to increase by from 2004 till 2009?

Hon. C. Taylor: We don't have, of course, the final year's

numbers that would result in the specific answer for 2009. But it looks like

approximately 11 percent over that period of time, and it goes from $4.5 million

to $5 million.

G. Coons: So the CPI will be increased by about 11 percent?

Okay. That's going to be based on current CPI as far as we've got going. With

the figures I've got, if it continues at the same rate, it will be close to 13

percent. So if it is close to 13, that's what it will be.

Hon. C. Taylor: It will be whatever the inflation rate is.

Section 86 approved.

section 87.

B. Ralston: This

section is, I believe, the mechanism that

the minister referred to earlier, which enables a municipality using provisions

of the Community Charter to negotiate a separate agreement with port operators.

Can the minister advise how this might work in practice?

Hon. C. Taylor: This came, actually, fairly late in the

process, but it came from the North Vancouver municipalities, who said: "Why

don't you give us the opportunity to negotiate with the port industries, and if

we can come to a mutually acceptable solution that may be different from the

other municipalities but we both agree to, why don't you allow us to do that?"

We agreed and also have promised to continue the compensation. So

they don't lose the compensation if they do another deal in terms of what that

tax would look like. This is specifically from those municipalities who want the

opportunity to see if maybe they can do a design for their municipality's

solution.

B. Ralston: I'm sure the municipalities appreciate the

opportunity to make their own provisions. In some sense, I guess, every tax is a

negotiation with the public. But does the minister have any concerns about the

mechanism here, where a municipality will be negotiating privately with

individual port taxpayers to negotiate the taxes that they're about to pay? It

seems to me there may be some public policy concerns about that approach.

Hon. C. Taylor: It is simply using the provisions of the

Community Charter which already exist.

B. Ralston: What obligation would there be on the part of a

participating municipality, aside from announcing the conclusion of the

negotiations, to advise the public of what's taking place in the course of these

negotiations?

Hon. C. Taylor: As elected officials, of course, they would

carry the responsibilities of accountability and consultation with their

community.

[1445]

The North Vancouver municipalities were really looking for an

opportunity to be imaginative and to honour the policy which we as a government

support, which is to encourage port development and to do it in a way that suits

them. But it will happen only if the port operators and the municipality all

agree, and we will continue to honour our compensation package.

B. Ralston: So I take it there would be no obligation on

the part of individual port operators to enter into negotiations with the city,

should they wish to initiate them. It would be at their discretion, and they

wouldn't be obliged to enter into agreements.

It seems to me that if the municipality is one side of the

negotiations, there may be a number of port operators, and force majeure may

apply to a single holdout or something like that. I can well imagine that kind

of situation.

So what's the mechanism for the negotiations, or is that just left

to the discretion of the individual municipality?

Hon. C. Taylor: The member opposite is correct that people

have to be willing to enter these negotiations, and the

section does say that it

is for a specific

[ Page 10728 ]

property. So the municipality might decide to work out a negotiation with a

particular property but not find that everybody else agrees.

Section 87 approved.

section 88.

B. Ralston: It looks as though the minister's officials are

packing up, so perhaps we should wait a minute until there are others arriving.

Perhaps if I might then, Madam Chair, just briefly wait.

This

section initiates a series of sections bringing about changes

in the Property Transfer Tax Act in

section 88 — most notably, an increase in

the first-time-homebuyers program threshold for eligible residential property

from $375,000 to $425,000.

I appreciate the change that's being made obviously. But has the

minister engaged in any discussion about tying the increase in this particular

qualifying value to inflation or some index? There is a concern broadly felt, I

think, about a lack of access to the housing market, given the rising real

estate values in many parts of the province.

This is a program which does assist first-time homebuyers. It

requires legislative change each time to advance the threshold. Has the minister

thought of or is the minister prepared to consider a mechanism that would see

that exemption rise with the price of real estate or fall if it should fall at

some point?

Hon. C. Taylor: There are options, of course. But if you

indexed it, for instance, to inflation, it would be less than this. So what we

have tried to do is index and match it to what's happening in the housing

market, which has been very strong, as we all know, in British Columbia. So

that's the reason for the lift. We anticipate that we will continue to lift the

thresholds as the housing market in B.C. continues to be strong.

B. Ralston: Well, rather than the straight CPI, there are

other subindices of various commodities and prices within the consumer price

index. I believe there's one that deals with real estate. Would it not be

possible to undertake that kind of mechanism — if not in legislation, through

regulation — that would offer a continuing support to first-time homebuyers who,

I'm sure the minister will agree, are increasingly scrambling in a very tight

market, given the present market prices in many parts of the province?

[1450]

Hon. C. Taylor: Indeed, that is why we've been raising

these thresholds, and we have used a reference to what has been happening in the

housing market so that we reflect the great changes that have been happening.

That's why we're raising the threshold for first-time homebuyers from $375,000

to $425,000. We do that every year. We make the analysis, and then we make the

announcement as to what that threshold would be.

B. Ralston: I take it that the minister is not looking

prospectively to the future — or at least the ministry, perhaps — to devising

some other mechanism to revise this, other than legislatively each year. Is that

correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: I believe that the member opposite is

asking us to lock it into that relationship. The danger there is that if prices

drop, then you would be lowering the threshold. We prefer to make the analysis

year by year so that you have more discretion and presumably might choose not to

lower the threshold.

Section 88 approved.

section 89.

B. Ralston: I understand that this

section deals with "the

fair market value of a home transferred from Habitat for Humanity." I think

members of the House will be familiar with this organization which helps people,

in a kind of work bee, build houses for little or no cost other than the cost of

land. I'm wondering why this

section is required in the legislation. It seems to

be, although commendable activity, a relatively rare occurrence.

Hon. C. Taylor: This is part of many sections you'll see

that refer to the 70 percent mortgage requirement that was there. In removing

that requirement, we have to take it out of all the other sections — for

instance, the Habitat

section — because it's no longer necessary.

Section 89 approved.

section 90.

B. Ralston: Yes, this is the more general

section about the

proposition that the minister referred to just a moment ago. It appears that the

present requirement, in order to qualify for the first-time-homeowners

exemption, requires that the purchaser or purchasers have a mortgage of at least

70 percent of the value of the property.

That requirement is now being removed, which would suggest that if

you're in a fortunate position where you're able to buy a house with 50 percent

down or 75 percent down, you will still be eligible for the first-time-homebuyer

exemption. It seems, at the very least, a little counterintuitive. Can the

minister explain what the purpose of this

section is?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, this certainly came to my attention.

I'll speak personally first, but I know it came to the ministry's attention as

well. Complaints were from parents, in many cases, who felt that this

requirement really worked against some of the more unusual financial

relationships that are happening.

Often, with a young person starting out, the family does help a

bit, but it's not a formal mortgage. So that would mean the child would have to

actually go to the bank and get a 70 percent mortgage even though they might not

need that because the family could help a bit.

[ Page 10729 ]

Or perhaps the first-time homebuyers actually had enough that they could put

a bit more in down payment, yet we were saying: "Well, even though you may have

been able to save that and put it towards a house, we're still going to force

you to take out a 70 percent mortgage even if you don't have to."

This was really driven from consumers, people complaining that

this was too rigid. It worked against some of the issues that young people and

families were dealing with. So we have agreed and have taken out that

requirement.

[1455]

B. Ralston: Does the minister have any idea of the likely

take-up of purchasers in this position based on the information that the

ministry has received?

Hon. C. Taylor: We anticipate the cost will be about $8

million.

Sections 90 to 97 inclusive approved.

section 98.

B. Ralston: This

section is amendments to the Social

Service Tax Act. These are, as I understand it, amendments on the application of

the tax on personal property brought into British Columbia to allow for the

adjustments of tax payable on a motor vehicle if the seller accepted another

vehicle on account of the sale. So this would be a trade-in situation. Is that

what this is design to accommodate?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it is.

Section 98 approved.

section 99.

B. Ralston: This

section talks about the passenger vehicle

rental tax not applying to passenger vehicles leased for eight consecutive hours

or less, or more than 28 consecutive days.

Later, in

section 121, there is a reference to what I think are

called car co-ops or car-sharing organizations. I'm wondering if there is some

relationship between what's proposed in removing this tax and

section 121, which

refers to changes to the tax in relation to what are called car-sharing

organizations or car co-ops.

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes. This does relate to the co-op car

share programs. This is on a go-forward basis. Perhaps when we get to 121, we

can talk about what it is specifically.

Sections 99 and 100 approved.

section 101.

B. Ralston: This proposed amendment imposes a tax on either

contractors, such as tradespeople, or their clients at 7 percent of the value of

the materials they use to make improvements to real property.

I suppose my question is: is this double taxation, or is this

attempting to clarify an existing practice? I'm not clear what the purpose is

here.

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, this is intended to simplify and

clarify current practice.

B. Ralston: Just so that we're clear, there's no intention

— I wouldn't expect that there would be, but it always pays to ask — to engage

in double taxation using this section.

Hon. C. Taylor: As you would expect, the answer is no.

[1500]

B. Ralston:

Section 68.3 gives an exemption under the

Indian Act.

Section 68.4 says that if contractor and client enter into an

agreement, the client is liable for the tax. The contract is considered to be a

retail sale of the tangible personal property by the contractor to the client.

Is there some relationship between this proposed amendment and

that provision?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm sorry. We're not certain what provision

the member opposite is referring to.

B. Ralston: Let me attempt to clarify it, if I can, just by

reference to the section.

Section 101 proposes two new sections — 68.2 and then,

over the page in the bill, 68.3. In 68.3 there's a reference in paragraph (

a) to

"an exemption under this Act or

section 87 of the Indian Act (Canada)."

I'm wondering what the relationship between the Indian Act and this proposed

amendment might be.

Hon. C. Taylor: We are not able, of course, to tax in terms

of the Indian Act. What this does is allow that exemption to flow through to the

contractor who might be working, for instance, on a reservation. Rather than a

first nations individual having to actually buy the materials, this exemption

flows through to the contractor, who wouldn't have to pay the tax because it's

going to be used and built on the reservation.

Section 101 approved.

section 102.

B. Ralston: This

section adds an exemption when dental and

optical appliances are sold — an exemption from tax. These are promotional

products, as I understand it. Ordinarily, these are fairly big companies which

are engaged in promoting their products to members of the professions such as

dentists, optometrists or physicians. I'm wondering why the ministry is

proposing this amendment, given that both sides of the transaction seem well

able to bear the costs.

[ Page 10730 ]

Hon. C. Taylor: These items are already exempt when they're

being sold, so it just matches up that they're exempt when they're samples.

B. Ralston: Is this to clarify the existing practice? If

they're already exempt, I'm not quite sure why there's necessity for the

legislation.

Hon. C. Taylor: This is a new exemption. These products are

exempt when they're sold. But the law has said in the past that when an

optician, for example, receives a sample, he or she would have to pay tax and

therefore would be far less likely to give samples to patients or clients. By

removing the necessity for the optician to pay the tax on samples, we believe

it's better consumer service that they would have more free samples they might

be able to try.

[1505]

B. Ralston: Just to close on this. As I understand it,

typically a sample is given away free. Was the present practice that PST was

required to be paid on samples that were given away?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, by the optician.

Sections 102 to 110 inclusive approved.

section 111.

B. Ralston: This is the South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Act. There's a long list of tax exemptions that are

given to this authority. Are these simply exemptions that are being transferred

over to the new authority from the previous one — the TransLink structure — or

are they new exemptions or the opportunity to give new exemptions? Is this new

legislation?

Hon. C. Taylor: This policy is consistent with current

practice.

B. Ralston: As I understand it, unless I'm mistaken, the

transportation…. There's a new agency that's been created in a reconstituted

form under the act that was passed last session. What I'm interested in is this

list of exemptions. Is that simply transferred from the old act, giving the new

agency the authority to grant the same exemptions? Am I correct? You've said it

confirms a present practice, but I'm interested in legislative authority.

Hon. C. Taylor: In the past, exemptions have been total.

What this allows us to do is be more specific and so exempt the public part of

it from tax. But if there is a private part to the development as well — for

instance, in a parkade — it would be subject to tax.

B. Ralston: The authority here in the

section appears to be

given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to grant these exemptions. I'm just

looking at

section 3.2 or, alternately, (3) following sub (e) — "a major

crossing." So that's the authority that gives the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, the authority to grant these

exemptions on behalf of the authority. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, that's correct.

[1510]

Sections 111 and 112 approved.

section 113.

B. Ralston: Just for clarity, this

section is the fund or

the operation of the fund that's referred to in sections 1 and 2 of the bill

under the Arts Council Act. This is the

section that describes the mechanism for

controlling the operation of this fund. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, that's correct.

Sections 113 to 116 inclusive approved.

section 117.

B. Ralston: This

section under the Transportation Act

refers to the repayment of any surplus remaining from those tolls or charges

when the system is concluded. Can the minister advise: what is the purpose of

this particular section?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is an enabling

section that allows us

to pass regulations that will enable us to comply with GAAP accounting rules.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister could, just so I

understand this, give an example of where there might be an obligation or a

requirement to repay surplus tolls. I'm sure there might be some interest in

that.

Hon. C. Taylor: A specific example is the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan

road. In this situation, you collect tolls, and the commitment is that they're

used to maintain and improve the roads. If there are dollars left over after

those maintenance and operating expenses have happened, then the commitment is

to return those dollars to the people who paid the tolls. This allows that to

happen.

B. Ralston: Yoyo-Desan is a resource road in northern

British Columbia with probably relatively few users. Is that the only proposed

or envisaged use of this section?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, for now, that is the only example we

have.

Sections 117 and 118 approved.

section 119.

B. Ralston: This refers to the changes in the Financial

Administration Act to, as the minister described it, equalize compensation for

MLAs who serve on

[ Page 10731 ]

boards and commissions or, as I would prefer to characterize it, to give an

additional expenditure to those MLAs.

[1515]

But the purpose of this

section appears to be to make it

retroactive to July 1, 2007. Why is it being made retroactive when most of the

provisions in this act are from the budget date forward or from the present

forward? This reaches back almost nine months, and I'm wondering why that

decision was made.

Hon. C. Taylor: Again, we come down to the question of

consistency. That's when the other per-diem amounts were brought in for other

MLAs, so this matches that. Of course, that is why the July 1, 2007, date is

used.

Sections 119 and 120 approved.

section 121.

B. Ralston: This was the

section that we referred to

earlier, in dealing with my question about car-sharing organizations or car

co-ops as they're sometimes called. There was an issue that arose with car

co-ops both in Vancouver and in Victoria. It was raised by the MLA for

Victoria-Hillside and, I believe, the MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, who were

concerned about these changes or the application of the Social Service Tax Act.

Is this in response to the concern that was raised at that time —

that given the benign nature, I suppose, of the commercial arrangements that are

contemplated in car co-ops and their generally positive approach to the public

use of cars, they're now being exempted clearly and squarely from the

application of the Social Service Tax Act?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes. What this

section does — and this,

again, is in response to the car-sharing organizations — is exempt what went on

before April 1, 2008. They weren't collecting the tax anyway, so it's a

forgiveness for that period of time, and then the new rules come into play.

B. Ralston: Just so it's clear, what the minister said is

that they weren't collecting the tax, they won't be liable for it, and they

won't be obliged to pay it going forward. Is that right?

Hon. C. Taylor: If I can be clear, it forgives the

liability that would have happened previously. They weren't collecting the tax

anyway. But going forward, it is under the new rules, which is the eight-hour

lease arrangement. So they would be responsible to follow the new rules, but

what this does is forgive the past.

B. Ralston: If I could turn back to the section. If there's

a lease for longer than eight consecutive hours or for more than 28 consecutive

days, then the tax doesn't apply. That's the new rule, then?

Hon. C. Taylor: That's correct. As of April 1, 2008,

passenger vehicle rental tax applies to all leases over eight consecutive hours

and 28 days or less. I believe that's what the member opposite said, and that is

what the new rules are.

Section 121 approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move the amendment to add

section 121.1,

standing in my name on orders of the day.

SECTION 121.1,

by adding the following section:

Transition —

Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act

121.1 The transfer referred to in

section 9 (4) (

a) of the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act ,

as enacted by this Act, is deemed to have been made from Vote 41 (

S) of

Supplementary Estimates, 2007-2008 on March 31, 2008.]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. Taylor: This amendment adds the transition section,

121.1, which ensures the transfer of $150 million supplementary estimates to the

BC150 cultural fund, to ensure that it's effective on March 31, 2008.

Amendment approved.

Section 121.1 approved.

Sections 122 to 124 inclusive approved.

[1520]

section 125.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move the amendment to add

section 125

standing in my name on the orders of the day. This amendment changes the

commencement of

section 113 to March 31, 2008, and adds the commencement for

121.1.

[SECTION 125, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding

the text shown as underlined:

Item

Column 1

Provisions of Act

Column 2

Commencement

Section 113

By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council March 31, 2008

53.1

Section 121.1

March 31, 2008 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 125 as amended approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete with amendments.

[ Page 10732 ]

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:21 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2008

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2008, reported

complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. C. Taylor: With leave, Mr. Speaker, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2008

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2008, read a third

time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call second reading of Bill 11,

intituled Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, in the hands

of the Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for

Regulatory Reform.

Second Reading of Bills

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. R. Thorpe: I now move that Bill 11, Small Business and

Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be read a second time.

This bill proposes a number of amendments to the assessment and

taxation statutes administered by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

The amendments in this bill reflect our commitment to continuous improvement in

customer service, streamlining and simplifying legislation, promoting fair and

efficient tax administration.

The bill proposals amendments to the Assessment Act, the Hotel

Room Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Social

Service Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act.

Amendments to the Assessment Act will support the government's

2007 throne speech commitment to use new approaches to address the challenges of

housing, homelessness, addictions and mental health. The creation of a

small-unit supportive housing assessment class will allow eligible properties to

be designated as such. The introduction of the new valuation methodologies will

allow actual value of properties in the new class to be reduced by regulation to

minimize taxes paid.

Amendments to the Assessment Act will enhance taxpayer fairness

and equity for long-term leaseholders of accommodations properties used for

short-term rentals. The introduction of the classification methodology for

long-term lease accommodation properties will provide equitable and fair tax

treatment similar to strata accommodations.

Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act will streamline and

simplify legislation by clarifying how taxes apply to multi-jurisdictional

vehicles. Motor vehicle dealers and private sellers will continue to be able to

sell vehicles intended to be licensed for multi-jurisdictional use without

collecting social service tax at the time of sale.

Amendments to the Hotel Room Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act and

Tobacco Tax Act will promote fair tax administration by ensuring all taxpayers

claiming refunds under these statutes will be treated equally. By eliminating a

six-month limitation period, all taxpayers will be able to claim refunds of

taxes paid in the previous four years.

[1525]

Amendments to the Hotel Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act and

Tobacco Tax Act will streamline and simplify the legislation by ensuring it

encompasses all types of refunds and claims, and by removing outdated language.

Removing references to the outdated concept of mistake of law will

ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly and equally.

Amendments to the Insurance Premium Tax Act will streamline tax

administration by simplifying and clarifying requirements for filing returns.

Increasing the time permitted to file a return and clarifying how interest

provisions apply to a taxpayer other than a taxable insurer will reduce

confusion and encourage compliance. Clear, consistent and fair tax application

improves customer service and ensures that taxpayers clearly understand their

responsibilities.

Amendments to the Income Tax Act will increase clarity by

harmonizing provincial and federal income tax requirements, ensuring the act is

fair and equitable and accurately reflects current provincial policy and

administrative practices.

This amendment will ensure that the B.C. pension credit continues

to have the same structure and eligibility criteria as the federal pension

credit. An individual resident in British Columbia who claims a federal pension

credit will also be able to claim a British Columbia pension credit.

Amendment to the Tobacco Tax Act will expand the director's

authority to cancel a permit or retail authorizations for reasons other than

non-compliance.

Finally, all of these amendments proposed in Bill 11 are

consistent with our government's goal of providing continuous improvement in

customer service excellence, streamlined legislation, and fair and efficient tax

administration.

[ Page 10733 ]

J. Brar: That was quite quick.

I'm pleased to respond to the second reading of Bill 11, Small

Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. The second reading of this

bill comes on April 1. This bill must go beyond the spirit of April 1 and offer

some real, serious, simple and meaningful solutions to customers.

The key purpose of this bill as defined by the minister is to

bring improvements in customer services, streamlining and simplifying

legislation, and promoting fair and efficient tax administration.

In order to improve customer services, one is required to know

what the customers want. To find that out, the ministry has to get into an

extensive consultation process with the customers to make sure the ministry

understands the customers — what they need, what changes they want and what

changes will in fact make the changes defined as customer-friendly changes.

This is the first successful step that will be important to take

to make sure all of the changes proposed in the act will make sense for

customers. The second step will depend on the successful completion of the first

step, which is consultation with all the stakeholders.

At this point in time I would like to ask whether the consultation

process was inclusive of all stakeholders or not. How many consultations and how

many participants attended? Were all regions of the province covered and given a

fair chance to provide feedback on this particular bill? Was the process

inclusive of all the stakeholders we have who are going to be impacted by this

particular bill?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

This bill seems to be a housekeeping bill, based on the

information we have at this point in time, after the second reading stage. The

housekeeping items include adding and repealing

definitions and offering some

clarifications for acts listed in the bill.

[1530]

There are some areas where we have some serious questions to ask,

where we need fulsome discussion and debate at the committee stage. I will

certainly ask questions to ensure that all those changes and amendments are in

line with the spirit of the bill, and that is to bring improvements in customer

services, streamlining and simplifying legislation, and promoting fair and

efficient tax administration.

The proposed amendment to the Assessment Act gives the cabinet the

ability to classify property as supportive housing property and also to reduce

the assessed value of the land. They already have the power to create a new

property class under subsection 19(14) and under subsection 19(14.01).

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The government does not give municipalities the ability to rezone

land for supportive housing, as this bill suggests at this point in time, and

this will interfere with the local government control over land use as well.

Section 4 of this bill creates

section 20.4 of the act, which

provides cabinet with full powers to set regulations that will reduce the

assessed value of supportive housing property. This will reduce the property

taxes that the owners will have to pay, but it will also reduce the tax revenue

for local governments towards the province.

In 2007 the UBCM considered resolution B153 by Vancouver, which

asked for more funding from the province for supportive housing and for these

infrastructure funds to be linked to new zoning laws, allowing for the zoning of

supportive housing. In the resolution committee comments they recommended

decoupling the two, noting that they had been in consultation with the province

over the zoning issues. The amendment succeeded, and the resolution was passed.

We don't know, at this point in time, the consultation process which has taken

place after that or what the outcome of that is.

We must make sure that the bill is reflective of the consultation

that the ministry has had with all of the stakeholders and, particularly, with

the local government toward the province, because they are very, very important

stakeholders in this particular bill.

Therefore, at this point in time I tend to say that in principle I

support the bill, but at committee stage we will have a number of questions on

some areas. We will go along as more information is offered by the minister,

particularly, as I said before, on the issue which I listed before on the

Assessment Act as well as the interjurisdictional purchase situation.

I would like to conclude my comments. Thanks to the minister for

providing very brief information. I will conclude by saying that in principle I

support the bill. We have a number of questions to ask at committee stage, and

then we can go from there.

C. Wyse: In following up with my colleague, likewise, as

the critic for local government affairs, I have some questions that I will be

pursuing both at the committee stage of this particular bill as well as with the

minister's staff, who I have been in touch with.

It is one thing for legislation to have the cabinet set into place

the classification for property taxation, such as the supportive housing

property classification. However, it also becomes important when that

classification is simply put into place, whether it is cabinet that actually

designates that to the property being talked about so that the zoning aspect

becomes removed from the local government and has been transferred over to

cabinet. That is an exceptionally important principle upon where the decision is

made.

[1535]

As the situation exists here in British Columbia and has for long

periods of time, it is the local government where the opportunity for people to

talk to their decision-makers upon such items as the classification of property

presents itself.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 10734 ]

To have legislation that potentially could remove that

availability to the local taxpayers is something that requires more extensive

questioning at the committee stage.

With that, hon. Speaker, having voiced these general concerns, I

will follow up with them at the next stage. I thank you for this opportunity to

present the concerns that I have for my critic area.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Small

Business and Revenue closes debate.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'd like to thank the members

of the opposition who have expressed their comments — especially the critic, for

expressing his support of this bill. But I think it's important that I just make

a couple of closing comments here.

Our government prides itself with respect to consultation in the

area of dealing with adjustments and on the ongoing commitment to customer

service in the area of taxation. Since 2005 we have conducted two consultation

processes. The first consultation, phase 1, was a very, very extensive process.

In that area I want to thank and just remind all members that I was ably

assisted in that first phase of the review by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

We then moved on to a second phase of discussions.

As the member for West Vancouver–Capilano will attest, we have

exceptional staff in the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue who have worked

extensively with stakeholder groups in all regions of the province of British

Columbia. In fact, in the first series of consultations, phase 1, we conducted

21 consultations throughout the province.

The staff have developed an excellent network and relationships in

all regions of the province of British Columbia to make sure that these

important issues are canvassed, that positions are understood and that we find

solutions that will continue us on our goal of continuous improvement in

customer service, streamlining and simplifying the legislation to ensure that

the taxpayers and the citizens of British Columbia know fair well what their

obligations are and that they can fulfil those obligations.

We know that a vast…. Almost 99 percent of all British Columbians

want to comply with their known tax situations.

So I look forward to the members' questions with respect to our

consultation process, our goals and our achievements with respect to

streamlining and simplifying.

With respect to the amendments to the Assessment Act and, in

particular, the area of providing a new assessment class for small, supportive

housing, I think it's important to set aside political rhetoric and to join

together in this House, join together in municipalities across British Columbia,

because so many people talk about the need to address the housing challenges of

the homeless, those with addictions and those with mental illness and mental

health issues.

Our government, under the leadership of our Premier, clearly

stated over a year ago at UBCM — I believe it was in the fall of 2006 — our

government's vision of working with municipalities to provide a partnership so

that the issues of homelessness, addictions and mental health, through new

approaches to housing, could be facilitated.

[1540]

I am pleased with that. We reaffirmed that in the throne speech a

year ago, and now we're moving forward to fulfil that commitment of our

government.

I move that Bill 11 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question is second reading

of Bill 11.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 11 be referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 11, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008,

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call second reading of Bill 13,

intituled Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, in the

hands of the hon. Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services.

LABOUR AND CITIZENS' SERVICES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. O. Ilich: I move that Bill 13 be now read a second

time.

I'm very pleased to introduce second reading of this bill. With

this legislation we are strengthening protection for farmworkers, we are

streamlining the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we are

amending the Labour Relations Code to provide for timely labour relations

decisions, and we are making an administrative change to the Workers

Compensation Act.

The amendments to the Employment Standards Act strengthen

protection for farmworkers and reaffirm this government's commitment to ensure

the safety of workers in British Columbia. They are part of the government's

package of farmworker protections announced in 2007. They are in response to the

tragic accident last year that killed three farmworkers and injured several

others who were travelling in a vehicle operated by a farm labour contractor.

Since that tragedy we have taken a number of steps to support and

better protect farmworkers. We have added enforcement staff to the employment

standards branch and conducted 100 site inspections of farms, interviewing more

than 3,000 workers.

Farm labour contractors are now required to post seating

requirements in each vehicle, and WorkSafe has

[ Page 10735 ]

hired six additional enforcement staff for agriculture, with one more

position pending. Cross-ministry initiatives that provided…. Farm labour

contractors who transport workers in vehicles without enough seatbelts are now

fined $598. The commercial vehicle safety enforcement team and the RCMP have

stepped up their roadside safety blitzes.

An interagency committee was established and supports increased

monitoring of farm labour contractors by regulatory agencies. The committee is

performing valuable work and now has a website where the public can go to see

the committee's achievements.

The amendments that I am introducing today will further protect

farmworkers in British Columbia. Specifically, the changes are to allow for the

suspension or cancellation of a farm labour contractor's licence for significant

WorkSafe B.C. or motor vehicle violations and to allow government to bill a farm

labour contractor to recover the cost of transporting stranded farmworkers when

unsafe vehicles are taken out of service in roadside inspections. This fee will

be established by regulation. This legislation will also prohibit farm producers

from using the services of an unlicensed farm labour contractor.

These changes are supported by the B.C. Agricultural Council,

representing B.C. farm producers, and address suggestions put forward by

families of the workers killed in the March 2007 accident.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

There is minimal financial impact for government from these

amendments, as the fee is intended to recover costs and not to secure revenue.

In fact, our goal is that farm labour contractors will always transport their

workers in safe vehicles and in a safe manner and that we never have to collect

this fee.

Enforcement of these provisions will be managed within current

operations budgets. These amendments to the Employment Standards Act reiterate

our government's commitment to protect farmworkers.

[1545]

The amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of

Privacy Act address recommendations of the special committee that reviewed the

act. With these amendments, government continues the tradition of enhancing the

privacy and access provisions. This will ensure that it not only remains the

strongest legislation of its kind in Canada but also stays workable and relevant

for the public, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and public bodies.

Specifically, the bill ensures that the time period for

transferring an access request commences only when a public body has sufficient

detail to identify the records and the applicant's authority to request the

records. This will ensure that a public body does not run out of time to

transfer a request because it was unable to determine the specific records the

applicant was requesting. This addresses a special recommendation of the special

committee.

The bill will permit school boards to disclose personal

information to museums and archives for archival or historical purposes. This,

too, addresses a recommendation of the special committee.

The bill strengthens the Information and Privacy Commissioner's

inquiry and review processes. It will allow the commissioner to require

applicants to attempt to resolve complaints and requests for review with a

public body before the commissioner opens the file. It will ensure that if a

matter is referred back to an applicant in such a manner, the related time does

not count against the 90 days the commissioner has to review the matter.

It will protect the commissioner and his staff from testimonial

compulsion. It will enable the commissioner to order a public body to perform

its duty to sever accepted material and to disclose the remainder within a

reasonable time specified by the order, and it will allow for the enforcement of

the commissioner's orders as orders of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

All of these amendments address recommendations of the special committee.

The bill also requires employees and service providers of public

bodies to notify the public bodies when they become aware of an unauthorized

disclosure of personal information. This enhances privacy protection by ensuring

that inappropriate disclosures of personal information can be addressed

immediately by public bodies.

Public bodies will be able to routinely disclose predetermined

personal information that they can currently disclose in response to access

requests. This enhances public accountability by permitting public bodies to

proactively release this predetermined information.

These amendments show that government is committed to responding

to the recommendations raised by the special committee that reviewed the Freedom

of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I note that when government announced its intention to make these

changes, Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis expressed his

support for these changes. He said that these procedural amendments will improve

the processing of freedom-of-information requests as well as improve his

office's processes of appeals and complaints about access requests. I'm pleased

that these changes will assist the commissioner, and I believe this is one more

example of why B.C. continues to be a national leader in both access rights and

privacy protection.

The changes to the Labour Relations Code introduce a new

requirement for the Labour Relations Board to make decisions on complaints or

applications within time periods prescribed by regulation. This change will

improve the timeliness of Labour Relations Board decisions, which will better

serve the needs of employers, trade unions and employees in British Columbia.

The proposed amendment responds to concerns raised by businesses,

unions and employees about LRB time lines. Delayed decisions are bad for

business, bad for unions and bad for employees in B.C. Protracted disputes at

the LRB can distract the parties from

[ Page 10736 ]

addressing more important issues, from making progress at the bargaining

table, from developing good labour management relationships and from working

together to develop successful enterprises.

Providing businesses, unions and employees with timely decisions

allows them to move forward and focus their resources and energies on productive

endeavours. These changes will mean better service and more accountability.

There is no additional financial impact for government from this

amendment, and the LRB supports the need to ensure timely decisions and is

improving its case management system and internal processes so that it can meet

the time limits. The specific time lines will be established by regulation.

[1550]

The changes to the Workers Compensation Act provide that workers

advisers and employers advisers will be appointed under the Public Service Act

as employees of the Ministry of Labour rather than by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The workers advisers and employers advisers are

divisions of the ministry that provide independent advice, assistance,

representation and training to workers and employers concerning workers

compensation issues.

Converting the advisers to regular public service employees will

streamline the appointment of these important public service positions.

Specifically, it will remove an unnecessary step for cabinet and the ministry to

process an order-in-council for all new workers advisers and employers advisers

appointments.

It will also allow the advisers to participate in all elements of

the ministry's human resource plan, including in-service postings, temporary

appointments and other developmental opportunities provided to public service

employees. This, in turn, supports our government's commitment to the growth and

development of its employees and our commitment to make the public service an

employer of choice.

This change will have no impact on the services provided to

workers and employers in B.C. The cost of the workers and employers advisers

program will continue to be recovered from the WorkSafe B.C. accident fund.

This is a wide-ranging bill with wide-ranging benefits for British

Columbians — benefits for farmworkers, whose protection will be enhanced through

several changes to the Employment Standards Act; benefits for freedom of

information made stronger through improvements that streamline the strongest

legislation of its kind in Canada; and benefits for workers and businesses

through timely decisions by the Labour Relations Board.

I'm very proud of this legislation, and I look forward to our

discussion around it.

C. Puchmayr: Well, I look at this legislation, and I see

that after everything that has transpired in the last three years — actually, we

can even go back to 2001 in this province — with respect to health and safety,

with respect to how working people are treated, with respect to how farmworkers

have lost their rights to many of the provisions under the Employment Standards

Act…. To hear the minister rise here and speak on this amendment to the

Employment Standards Act like it is some great new direction or some great

direction that this government is going, I find a bit disingenuous.

I do respect the minister. I understand that the minister is not

seeking another term, and I understand that possibly it was a very scripted

presentation that the Labour Minister did for the people of British Columbia

right now. I think what I need to do is go into some of the details and some of

the history of what has happened in the last little while in British Columbia

with respect to farmworkers.

Farmworkers, especially farmworkers in the hand-harvest sector, no

longer benefit from many of the provisions in the Employment Standards Act. They

don't get statutory holiday pay. They are forced to work long hours without

overtime. Their simple means of payment is the weight, at the end of day, of

what they pick or what they produce. Having that as replacing any basic decent

minimum wage is certainly heading in the wrong direction on how we treat and

respect people in that field of work.

It should be noted, also, that many of the people that are working

in the hand-harvest sector in British Columbia are predominantly women from the

South Asian and the Asian community.

Also, in British Columbia — and I will touch on that in my

comments a little later…. I should add that British Columbia, under this

government, now has the most atrocious child labour provisions in North America,

even worse than in Mexico and Bangladesh where children have to be 14 years of

age to work. Here they can work as young as 12 in heavy industries.

This bill, again, does not address that. I was certainly hoping

that after the hours that I've spent with this Labour Minister and with the

previous Labour Minister during the estimates process…. During that estimates

process the issue of child labour has come up on every occasion. I was hoping

that something in this legislation would address this serious situation that we

have with child labour.

[1555]

I've listened to the government, both the previous Labour Minister

and this Labour Minister, when they're surrounded with their advisers, speaking

about child labour, about how one parent can authorize whether a child can work

in an industry. There aren't a lot of restrictions as to what the child can do

in that industry. My concern has been how that parent is able to understand

whether or not that is a safe environment that that child is in.

At one time someone from the employment standards ministry would

go and look at that worksite and would make an evaluation, and they would set

some limitations or some restrictions with respect to what that child could do

in the workplace. That is not happening. Now, the government says to us that a

parent can actually go down there and make that evaluation.

I think: here's a single mom at home, maybe working at minimum

wage. A 12-year-old child wants to go

[ Page 10737 ]

work or has an opportunity to go work somewhere and gets a note from the

mother. Maybe the mother goes down there and looks at the worksite to decide

whether that is a safe place to work or not. What qualifies that parent to even

understand ergonomics or to understand the mechanics or the health and safety of

a workplace?

It sometimes takes people many years of engineering school to be

able to understand the health and safety of different machinery — how a

workplace needs to be set up and how to interpret health and safety regulations

as they apply to specific machinery — and the lessons that were learned over the

years of people being seriously injured or dying on the job. Those are all

incorporated.

How can just any parent have the ability to go into that workplace

and come to that conclusion, when the employer says: "Yeah, this will be safe

for Johnny or Janie to operate this piece of machinery"? How does any parent

have the ability, really, to objectively look at that in a safe, engineering

manner, to say yes or no that that is safe for their child?

We need to look at two recent incidents. It hasn't been shown yet

through WorkSafe B.C. whether or not these two young people were actually

working on the jobsite or whether they were merely going to the jobsite with a

parent. Either way you look at it, for those two young fatalities on that

jobsite, both of them were under the age of 15 and were on that site with a

parent or with a guardian. They weren't working on the jobsite, maybe. Let's

give them that. Nevertheless, the parent who was versed in that jobsite wasn't

able to identify the hazard that led to the fatality of those. It must be just

horrible for the parent to be reliving that over and over again.

So we need strong legislation. If you're going to expose a child

to working on a site or in an industry, you're going to have to have legislation

that has some kind of professional evaluation of that site to ensure that we are

not exposing our children to risks on the jobsite. It saddens me that I don't

see that in the legislation.

I should preface this that we're not talking about a lemonade

stand or a newspaper route. But even on a newspaper route, children have to be

careful about how they deliver those papers, what time of day they go out and

areas that may be of risk. Even with your children selling Kool-Aid on the curb,

a parent has to talk to those kids about making sure they're vigilant, that

they're not being exposed to predators or anything else. There's a certain

amount of safety that a parent can do.

When it comes to industrial equipment and machinery and to

machinery on the jobsites, I do not feel that the legislation we have today…. I

am adamant that the legislation that we don't have today is problematic, and I

only would encourage the government to bring forward legislation that would

throw some protection onto any young worker working in a workplace.

[1600]

Employment standards. I know I've also canvassed this through

Labour estimates, with respect to the decline in complaints by workers since the

closing of the numerous employment standards offices. Well, there's one reason

you're going to have fewer complaints — when you have fewer offices. The other

is that they've basically gone to a self-help program.

A lot of people will call the self-help program. I must thank the

government for at least taking our offer to look at putting some of the

self-help programs into different languages so that people that do not have

hopefully, to access something in their own language. Again, many people that

to access even the other languages by going through the self-help kit.

What happens is that you now log on to a computer. You look for

the violation. Let's say that you're not being paid fairly by your employer. You

get that form off of the computer. You print it out. You fill out the form. This

is probably where it ends. Now you have to go serve it to your employer. You

actually physically have to go to your employer and say, "I'm serving you with a

violation of the Employment Standards Act" — on wages, on working conditions, on

verbal abuse or what have you.

Well, that's certainly a daunting task for an immigrant worker who

has difficulty with the language, who is trying to maintain some level of

employment. Now the decision has to be made whether they proceed with such an

action against their employer or merely abandon it. What I'm being told is that

many people abandon it at that level.

We've gone from where you could at one time pick up a telephone

and talk to an officer and explain the situation to the officer. The officer

could do an initial investigation and then work on a mediation to bring the two

sides together to try to resolve it without trying to end the working

relationship of the person filing the complaint. I think that was a fair system.

Unfortunately, the other side decided that that wasn't a fair

system and went to a different format. That is not one that is comfortable for

workers, especially for immigrant workers. A lot of workers are intimidated when

they have to serve their employer with a document on working conditions or other

matters.

The legislation doesn't address this. It doesn't deal with fixing

that problem, and it's a problem that I believe needs to be resolved, that needs

to be fixed.

The other is that the legislation —

section 2,

section 13 — talks

about how a person "must not engage the services of a farm labour contractor

unless the farm labour contractor is licensed under this Act." We talk about

farm labour contractors. We have some crossovers between two different

ministries on what a farm labour contractor is here in British Columbia. And

then what is the relationship to a farm labour contractor, let's say, in the

Philippines, in India, in a foreign country, in a Third World country or in

Mexico?

Yesterday I had the privilege of attending the parliamentary

committee on immigration. One of the topics of the many submissions being made

was

[ Page 10738 ]

migrant workers, temporary workers and foreign workers. I was actually quite

shocked to hear some of the comments that were presented at the parliamentary

committee.

[1605]

One of the comments was that in some of the countries it has been

identified that there is a labour contractor…. Where Canada has a law that you

cannot charge a worker for the services of a labour contractor, an employer can.

An employer can hire a labour contractor to get labourers, to get workers, but

it can't be charged to the worker.

So now here we have a foreign country where a labour contractor

can operate in violation of the laws in this country and in this province.

There's nothing in legislation today that makes that link from the labour

contractor in British Columbia to the labour contractor in a foreign country or

a Third World country.

I know that Manitoba has just introduced legislation. I don't know

if it has passed yet, but the legislation is a bonding, and it also has an

obligation to a contractor in the other country. The contractor here that is

required in order to get the worker from the other country — the contractor that

the employer has purchased the services for…. If that employer-contractor here

is in violation or if the contractor in the other country is in violation of our

laws, the bonding and the licensing will be affected by the contractor here. It

probably doesn't go far enough, but at least it goes in a certain direction that

will try to ensure that somebody isn't profiting.

In the commission one of the submissions spoke about the labour

contractor that is also charging the workers in the foreign country. They also

have a loan company linked to that same contractor. So the loan company loans

the worker money, and the money goes to the worker. The worker buys the services

of the contractor and then gets sent over here for a job. There are direct

deductions made by employers that the worker has to sign an obligation to, and

those moneys are sent away to pay for that debt.

That is certainly the wrong direction that we're heading when it

comes to how we respect workers, workers from other countries and workers from

British Columbia. So we need to ensure that we go further than this legislation.

This legislation — certainly after what happened in British

Columbia with, initially, the Sunar fatality, where the coroner made numerous

recommendations — took many years and, unfortunately, three more lives before

there was anything. We need to look at everything in the context of what can

happen with the lack of legislation here, what can happen with how we deregulate

it in this sector, and what we need to put back to ensure that these things

don't happen again.

We're seeing it in forestry, Madam Speaker. We saw the reckless

pen of deregulation rip through the forest industry like a wildfire, and then

after a lot of lobbying from the steelworkers and certainly from this side, we

were able to finally have a forestry coroner. That coroner said precisely to the

Labour Ministry, to the B.C. Forest Safety Council, to WorkSafe B.C.: "There are

issues here with the direction that you have gone that need to be addressed to

bring safety back into the workplace."

So to take a pen and gut legislation just for the sake of gutting

it, saying: "Oh, we're against red tape. We're against regulation, so we're

going to deregulate everything." Then you see the fallout of it. Then you have

to come back and say: "Whoops. Too many people are dying in the forests. We had

better bring some of this regulation back."

That's not the direction you go. You need to sit down and look at

the impacts of actions of government. The impact of the actions of this

government in the field of health and safety, in the field of child labour, in

the field of farmworkers and respect for farmworkers, has been nothing short of

atrocious. It saddens me to see that, after all this time, this is the

legislation that we're getting when there's a need for a whole lot more.

[1610]

You know, I've talked to people at WorkSafe, and a lot of people

shared the concerns. I'm sure they shared them with the government when the

government was basically tearing up health and safety regulations, at the same

time they were tearing up workers' contracts and nurses' contracts and health

care workers' contracts. Around those same times, you know, I met with people

from WorkSafe B.C. that were concerned, and they said that there was going to be

an impact to this, and we started to see the impact.

We've seen some change now. Just before the Gramlich inquiry, I

know that the government instructed more inspections in the forests. I think

there were 300 inspections that happened in the forest in one-spot inspection,

and out of that, 600 violations were discovered.

So almost every inspection found two health and safety violations,

which shows that not only do you deregulate the regulations or deregulate the

mandate, you also send a message to the industry that we're not going to be out

there checking on you. Things seem to flow to the lowest common denominator.

When it comes to a competitive industry where you have 6,700

independent forest companies, some one-person companies, people are going to

take chances because they need to make money, and they want to get that contract

again. They want to be able to get the next contract. We saw the impacts of the

reckless deregulation, and now we're seeing little bits of it put back in again.

We talk about this great new direction and this great legislation

in the context of fairness and worker fairness, but where is the worker

fairness? Where is the fairness when an agricultural worker from Mexico can come

into Canada with a guaranteed wage that's above the minimum wage that's being

paid in British Columbia? And we've seen that. We've seen the contracts. Yet if

somebody from British Columbia is doing that work, they're working in the

hand-harvest sector, and they're getting piecework.

So what is the reasoning to destroy the local working economy for

hand-harvest workers, for fruit

[ Page 10739 ]

pickers or berry pickers? What is the science here to make sure that they

receive less money, and then employers will say: "Hey, I can't find anyone to

pick my produce. I need workers from Mexico." So you bring in workers from

Mexico on the seasonal agricultural workers program. They work eight months, and

then you can send them back to Mexico. You don't have to worry about: were they

exposed to any chemicals while they were here? Are they going to have any

industrial disease? Are they going to get sick when they're 60? No, they're

already gone. They're back in Mexico — wow.

That's not how this country was built. If that's how this country

was built, I don't think any of us would be here. Our parents came over here,

and they did the heavy lifting. My dad worked in the farm industry. He worked as

a labourer in the farm industry with six kids, and I remember him coming home,

the smell of pesticides all over him and the tailing pond, the pond where they

got their water from to irrigate the plants. The little three-bedroom house that

eight of us slept in was right there by that pond.

I remember that smell of herbicides and pesticides. It was a daily

thing in the summertime. You had people with the big smokeblowers, and they were

smoking up the fruit trees to kill some kind of an aphid or something like that.

So those are the people that came over. Thank God that we didn't

have this government in those days because at the end of eight months, you know,

my dad would have been sent out of the country and back home to Austria. We

wouldn't have been here to raise a family and to have grandkids and to be able

to prosper while we built this beautiful British Columbia.

[1615]

Where are we going with this? So that somebody can maximize a

profit, we're actually selling out our rights, I think, as British Columbians —

our sovereign rights. People come in here from other countries. They can't vote.

They can't complain without a fear of repercussion. They don't even have access

to the Human Rights Code, because a human rights tribunal…. I think it's the

operating engineers that are dealing with one human rights case of a foreign

worker.

To date it's cost over $200,000 to represent one person on a human

rights violation. So here's a worker making maybe $15 to $18 an hour having to

hire a lawyer that probably makes about $1,000 an hour. How does that person

have access to all the judicial processes to get resolve through the human

rights and through the courts to assert their rights that are being violated

while they're guests of Canada, guests of British Columbia?

So we're not heading in the right direction. It's great that we

have to have…. We support the fact that if a van breaks down on the side of the

road or a van is…. Actually, it doesn't even say "broke down." It's pulled over

and deemed to be unsafe. Well, first of all, there should be a better way of

ensuring that that van isn't unsafe, because what's happened before this

legislation can be enacted is you've got a bus or a van full of people driving

in an unsafe bus, driving in something that could create many fatalities or a

fatality.

We're saying that now they're picked up from the site. They're

taken to the farm. So now the farmer benefits because the farmer gets the

workers, and then at the end of the day the workers get transported back to

where they were picked up. The direction we should be going is ensuring that

there is no way that those vans ever get on the road. Just to put legislation in

after the fact is certainly not as progressive as one needs to be.

You know, there used to be the agricultural compliance teams. They

were an interesting concept. The federal government was involved, the provincial

government, Workers Compensation, employment standards. They went to farmsites,

to worksites, which were farms, and they found all sorts of things. They found

unsafe vehicles. Sometimes employers hadn't paid taxes. I think something like

$80 million in unpaid revenue to the province was discovered through these

agricultural compliance teams.

This was a good thing. When they went on to the farms, what they

were able to find would actually pay for those services. This gove