British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, February 26, 2013 (39th Parliament, 5th Session) (H0226pm-06) (H0226pm 06)

H0226pm-06

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fift h Session, 39th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF , SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 42, Number 6

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fifth Session, 39th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas and Minister Responsible for Housing .............Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ............................................................................................................ Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism ............Hon. John Yap Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Citizens' Services and Open Government ........................................................................................................Hon. Ben Stewart Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ................................................................................................Hon.

Bill Bennett Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................. Hon. Don McRae Minister of Environment .................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health .......................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid Minister of State for Seniors .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Ralph Sultan Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ............................................................ Hon. Pat Bell Minister of State for Small Business ............................................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Minister of Social Development ...................................................................................................................................Hon. Dr. Moira Stilwell Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ......................................................................................................................................................Adrian Dix Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................

Linda Reid Assistant Deputy Speaker ..................................................................................................................................................................Dawn Black Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................................... Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...................................................................................................................................................

Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees ................................................................................................................................. Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Clerk Consultant ..............................................................................................................................................E.

George MacMinn, OBC, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, George (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barisoff , Hon. Bill (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Penticton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bell, Hon. Pat (BC Liberal) ....................................

Prince George–Mackenzie Bennett, Hon. Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Black, Dawn (NDP) ................................................................New Westminster Bloy, Harry (BC Liberal) .....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Hon.

Stephanie (BC Liberal) .................................Surrey-Panorama Cantelon, Ron (BC Liberal) ............................................. Parksville-Qualicum Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chong, Hon. Ida (BC Liberal) .................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ........................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) .................................Vancouver–Point Grey Coell, Murray (BC Liberal) ..............................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon.

Rich (BC Liberal) .......................... Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Coons, Gary (NDP) .........................................................................North Coast Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (BC Liberal) ............................................. Maple Ridge–Mission de Jong, Hon. Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................

Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP) ............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Falcon, Kevin (BC Liberal) ...................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..........................................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gentner, Guy (NDP) .........................................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Colin (BC Liberal) ........................................... Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (BC Liberal) ..............................................

Abbotsford-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (BC Liberal) ................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Heed, Kash (BC Liberal) ............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP) ....................................................................... Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Howard, Rob (BC Liberal) ....................................................

Richmond Centre Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard (NDP) ........................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Kevin (BC Liberal) .............................. Kamloops–South Th ompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Lali, Harry (NDP) ..........................................................................Fraser-Nicola Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (BC Liberal) ................................................ Peace River South Les, John (BC Liberal) ........................................................................Chilliwack Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country MacDiarmid, Hon. Dr. Margaret (BC Liberal) ..............

Vancouver-Fairview Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McIntyre, Joan (BC Liberal) .................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky McNeil, Mary (BC Liberal) ..........................................Vancouver–False Creek McRae, Hon. Don (BC Liberal) ..................................................

Comox Valley Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston O'Mahony, Gwen (NDP) .........................................................Chilliwack-Hope Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................

Surrey-Whalley Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ............................................................Richmond East Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) .......................................................... Nechako Lakes Sather, Michael (NDP) ......................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (Ind.) .....................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Slater, John (Ind.) .........................................................Boundary-Similkameen Stewart, Hon. Ben (BC Liberal) .......................................... Westside-Kelowna Stilwell, Hon. Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Langara Sultan, Hon. Ralph (BC Liberal) ........................... West Vancouver–Capilano Th omson, Hon.

Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th orne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .......................... North Vancouver–Seymour Trasolini, Joe (NDP).................................................... Port Moody–Coquitlam Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island van Dongen, John (Ind.).........................................................Abbotsford South Y amamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, Hon. John (BC Liberal) ............................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission .......................................................................Randy Hawes Abbotsford South .....................................................................John van Dongen Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen .....................................................................John Slater Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ......................................................................... Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed ............................................................................ Harry Bloy Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North ................................................................................ Bob Simpson Chilliwack ............................................................................................... John Les Chilliwack-Hope ......................................................................Gwen O'Mahony Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley...........................................................................Hon.

Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Diane Th orne Cowichan Valley ................................................................................

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

Harry Lali Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ...................................................... Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon.

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

Doug Routley Nechako Lakes .................................................................................. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ..............................................................................Dawn Black North Coast....................................................................................... Gary Coons North Island ..................................................................................

Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ................................................. Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ............................................................ Hon. Ida Chong Parksville-Qualicum ..................................................................... Ron Cantelon Peace River North ................................................................................

Pat Pimm Peace River South .........................................................................Blair Lekstrom Penticton................................................................................... Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ..................................................................Joe Trasolini Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie .............................................................Hon.

Pat Bell Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ............................................................................ Rob Howard Richmond East ................................................................................... Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston .................................................................... Hon. John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands ..................................................... Murray Coell Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap .........................................................................................George Abbott Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine .......................................................................................

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ...........................................................................Kevin Falcon Surrey-Fleetwood ...............................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................ Hon.

Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Tynehead ........................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview .......................................Hon. Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid Vancouver–False Creek ..................................................................

Mary McNeil Vancouver-Fraserview ........................................................................Kash Heed Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .......................................................Hon. Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................................... Colin Hansen Vancouver–West End ...............................................

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

Ben Stewart Party Standings: BC Liberal 45; New Democratic 36; Independent 4

CONTENTS Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 13087 Tributes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13087 Dick Ross Hon. T.

Lake Introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 13087 Tributes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13088 Ted Moff at Hon. S.

Bond Introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 13088 Introduction and First Reading of Bills .............................................................................................................................. 13088 Bill 15 — Justice Reform and Transparency Act Hon. S. Bond Bill M203 — Workplace Bullying Prevention Act, 2013 R.

Chouhan Statements (Standing Order 25B) ....................................................................................................................................... 13089 Alzheimer's disease and work of Alzheimer Society of B.C. K. Conroy R. Hawes B.C. Police Association and work of police offi cers K. Corrigan Heart Month C. Hansen Nisga'a new year celebration R. Austin Hoops 4 Hope sports program for children and youth G.

Hogg Oral Questions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13091 Government response to allegations regarding wood innovation centre bidding process A. Dix Hon. S. Bond Hon. C. Clark L. Krog J. Kwan Government role in loan process for wood innovation centre J. Kwan Hon. P . Bell N. Macdonald Government handling of wood innovation centre project N. Macdonald Hon. P . Bell J. Horgan Health authorities' role in process for labour agreement with nurses M. Farnworth Hon. M. MacDiarmid S.

Simpson Government management of ferry services M. Karagianis Hon. M. Polak

Sale of government assets and Brilliant dam power sales agreement K. Conroy Hon. R. Coleman Tabling Documents ............................................................................................................................................................... 13096 Document from D. McLaren of Commonwealth Campus Corp. to fairness adviser Petitions .................................................................................................................................................................................. 13096 Hon. R.

Sultan Motions Without Notice ....................................................................................................................................................... 13096 Membership and powers of Parliamentary Reform Committee Hon. M. de Jong Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House .......................................................................................................................................... 13097 Bill 2 — Provincial Sales Tax Transiti onal Provisions and Amendments Act, 2013 (continued) B. Ralston Hon.

M. de Jong Report and Th ird Reading of Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 13115 Bill 2 — Provincial Sales Tax Transiti onal Provisions and Amendments Act, 2013 Budget Debate (continued) .................................................................................................................................................. 13116 Hon. I. Chong

TUESDAY , FEBRUARY 26, 2013 Th e House met at 1:36 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members L. Krog: It's not oft en I get to introduce anyone in the chamber, so I'm delighted today to welcome to the cham- ber a former Member of the Legislative Assembly, a now active professor of political science at Vancouver Island University just a few months or weeks short of retirement. I'd ask the House to welcome my friend Allan Warnke. Hon. B. Stewart: I'm pleased to acknowledge and wel- come to the Legislature today John and Maria Byland, who are constituents of mine.

Also, more important- ly, Maria Byland is being recognized today to receive a Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. Certainly, the Bylands have contributed immensely, over the many decades that they've been in the riding of Westside-Kelowna, to the development and improvement of the community. I have to acknowledge the fact that they were recognized as the international nursery of the year last year in China, beating out entries from around the world. Please welcome John and Maria Byland. C. James: I have two individuals who are here in the gallery with me today.

Th e fi rst is an individual who I believe keeps Victoria's volunteer sector running single- handedly. Aft er 30 years as a special education teacher, she now has taken that time and energy and commitment into the volunteer sector. Just to name a few: president of the Black History Society; president of the Inter-Cultural Association; volunteers for the James Bay Community project, Glengarry care home, Global Village; and teach- es citizenship students. She has also been my best role model and support. I'd like to introduce my mother, Mavis DeGirolamo, who is here in the gallery today.

With her is a very spe- cial family friend, who was a friend in the 1960s, who has come back into our lives, much to the joy of my moth- er and the joy of our family. With her is her very good friend Bill Corbin. Would the House please make them very welcome. Tributes DICK ROSS Hon. T. Lake: Communities like Barriere are built on the backs of men like Dick Ross. Th at's how friends de- scribe the tireless volunteer who was instrumental to the success of the North Th ompson Fall Fair and Rodeo and also spearheaded the town's fi rst baseball park.

When it came to the fall fair and rodeo grounds, Dick loved the people who worked there and was always present. Jill Hayward, who is president of the Fall Fair and Rodeo Association, says: "We likely never would have had a rodeo or the fall fair if it wasn't for Dick Ross." Dick died earlier this week from post–heart surgery compli- cations at the age of 82. A former military man and rail- roader, Ross was also a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, the first president of the B.C.

Little Britches Rodeo Association, a charter member of the Barriere Lions Club, an ambulance driver and of course so many more things in a small community. He loved his community. He loved baseball. Bill Kershaw, a longtime politician in Barriere, said that Ross didn't do what he did for any other reason than he loved Barriere. It was his home; he wanted the best for it. Barriere and the entire North Th ompson Valley will gather this Saturday to pay tribute to Dick, who exempli- fi ed service to a small community. Introductions by Members Hon. C. Clark: It's truly an honour to rise today and introduce 68 B.C.

Liberal constituency assistants from all across this great province. I know all members will agree that our constituency assistants work tirelessly. Th ey not only make a diff erence in their communities; they make a very real, tangible diff erence in improving people's lives, one by one, every single day. Th ey have a very tough job. Th ey do it with determination. Th ey do it with profes- sionalism, and they do it, most oft en, with grace. [1340] I want to thank all of them for everything that they do. None of us could do our jobs in serving the people of British Columbia without them on the front lines.

I would like to ask all members of the House to please make them very, very welcome today. J. Horgan: Today at a ceremony hosted by my col- league from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, I had two very dis- tinguished constituents here — the Chief of Scia'new Nation, Russell Chipps, and the Chief of the T'Sou-ke First Nation, Gordon Planes. It was an outstanding presentation by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. It was a real thrill to be part of that, to see aboriginal leaders coming to Victoria. Coming to the traditional territory of the Esquimalt and Songhees people to celebrate a positive outcome was a great thing.

I want to thank the member from Oak Bay for inviting me today. L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf, I have the abso- lute pleasure today to introduce John and Katie Unger, visiting from Oliver, British Columbia. On behalf of 13087

British Columbia Debates13088 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Mrs. Barisoff , as well, I'd like the House to please make them welcome. And receiving a Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal to- day, Dustine Rodier, on behalf of the Richmond RCMP detachment. She is joined today by her husband, Pascal Rodier, and I'd like the House to please make them very welcome. K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce members of the executive of the B.C. Police Association that represents more than 2,500 front-line municipal and police offi cers in this province.

I'll be mak- ing an oral statement in a few minutes, talking about the work that they do. In the meantime, I hope you will make members of their executive most welcome — president Tom Stamatakis; Doug Sage from Abbotsford; Sean Plater from Victoria; and Don Bland, who is the Police Association chief liaison offi cer. I hope you will all make them very welcome. K. Conroy: I'd like to introduce a group of people that are here with the B.C. Alzheimer Society group. Th ey hosted a lovely lunch today.

Th ere are quite a number of them, so bear with me: Harry Diemer, Mark Zuberbuhler, Dan Levitt, Jim Mann, Sandy Riley, Jeff Woodburn, Patrick Th am, Vicki Costas, Tony Yue, Constanta Jarvis, Barbara Lindsay, Jean Blake, Flora Gordon, Ruby Ng, June Hope, Lauren Weisler, Geri Hinton and Susan Wetmore. Will the House please join me in making them all very welcome. Tributes TED MOFFAT Hon. S. Bond: I'm sorry to have to share some sad news with the House today. Prince George this mor- ning lost a pillar of our community. Ted Moff at passed away this morning. He was the president of Northern Hardware.

He was a third-generation store owner. Northern Hardware is 93 years old. I can assure you that Ted was known for his love of his family, for his community, and he was always will- ing to help with local initiatives, many of them aimed at improving our downtown. He will be deeply missed by his wife, Gloria; his son, Dan; his daughter, Kelly; and a very large and extended family. I know that I certainly want to send our regrets on be- half of the members for Prince George–Mackenzie and Nechako Lakes. It's an enormous loss for our community, and I would ask, Mr.

Speaker, that you would share the condolences of this House with Ted's family. Introductions by Members B. Routley: It's good to be here. In fact, it's good to be anywhere today. [Applause.] Th ank you. We have two groups of students here from Cobble Hill Elementary School. Th ey are somewhere in the precinct. I haven't seen them arrive here yet. But I wanted to ac- knowledge that they're here on a student tour — both the grade 3s and grade 4s. I've heard other MLAs talk about their best school. I want to talk about some of the best teachers in British Columbia, and they are right there from Cobble Hill School.

Mrs. Hayley Henderson is along with the group, and there's a group of parents along as well. Please join me in making these students and the teacher and their family members welcome. [1345] Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL 15 — JUSTICE REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY ACT Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Justice Reform and Transparency Act. Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 15 be introduced and read a fi rst time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased today to introduce the new Justice Reform and Transparency Act.

Th e new legislation is a foundational component of the govern- ment's justice reform initiative. Last spring we asked Geoff rey Cowper to undertake a critical review of B.C.'s justice system and provide recom- mendations for change. In response to those recom- mendations, our white paper on justice reform outlined government's vision and plan for creating a timely, trans- parent and balanced justice system. Th e Justice Reform and Transparency Act is a key step in implementing this vision.

Th e proposed legislation establishes a planning and ac- countability framework for the justice system, as well as amendments to support court reform and open data. As recommended in the Cowper report, the proposed legis- lation will establish a justice and public safety council to provide a focal point for justice system strategy, reform, performance planning and reporting. Th e council will be responsible for setting the strategic direction for the justice system, developing an annual plan with performance measures and reporting out on progress each year.

Th e legislation will require a justice summit be held at least once a year to encourage innova- tion and facilitate collaboration across the sector. Finally, amendments to the Provincial Court Act and

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, February 26, 2013 13089 Supreme Court Act will allow for more eff ective judicial administration of the courts in British Columbia. Th is bill supports our focus on outcomes and evidence-based approaches for creating a justice system that meets the needs of British Columbians. I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Bill 15, Justice Reform and Transparency Act, intro- duced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on or- ders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

BILL M203 — WORKPLACE BULLYING PREVENTION ACT, 2013 R. Chouhan presented a bill intituled Workplace Bullying Prevention Act, 2013. R. Chouhan: I move that a bill intituled Workplace Bullying Prevention Act, 2013, be introduced and read for a fi rst time now. Motion approved. R. Chouhan: I'm very pleased to introduce the Workplace Bullying Prevention Act, 2013. Tomorrow is Pink Shirt Day. Evidence shows that bullying impacts vic- tims psychologically and physically. We have also heard that in some cases severe trauma caused by harassment has led people to commit suicide. Bullying comes in many forms.

Bullying aff ects young, old, men, women — everyone. Bullying does not limit it- self to school playgrounds. It also happens at the work- place. It includes willful acts or patterns of behaviour and ignoring and isolating people. Bullying and harassment go beyond the personal level. Th ere is also an economic factor at play. When victims of bullying are not able to work to their full capacity, their productivity is impacted, which could result in a fi nan- cial loss for the worker and the business owners alike.

Th is bill carefully defi nes harassment and provides measures and procedures for workers to report incidents of workplace harassment. It provides sound policy for in- vestigating incidents and making workers accountable for acts of harassment. Similar laws exist in other provinces, such as Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Bill M203, Workplace Bullying Prevention Act, 2013, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND WORK OF ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF B.C. K. Conroy: More than 70,000 British Columbians are currently living with Alzheimer's disease or another form of dementia. Nearly 10,000 of these individuals are under the age of 65. Hundreds of thousands of wives, husbands, sons and daughters are also aff ected, many serving as pri- mary caregivers.

Alzheimer's disease, the most common form of dementia, accounts for approximately 64 percent of all dementias in Canada and is the second most feared disease for all Canadians as they age. Th ere is no cure. Th e Alzheimer Society of B.C. is the only provincewide non-profi t organization dedicated to helping people concerned with or facing dementia have the confi dence and skills to maintain a quality of life.

Th e society is an amazing group of people who I have come to know and respect for the work they do, provid- ing support and numerous services such as educational programs across the province — services like First Link, an early-intervention service designed to connect indi- viduals and families with services and support as soon as possible aft er diagnosis; or Minds in Motion, a fi tness and social program for people experiencing an early- stage memory loss. [1350] Th e latest initiative is Jim's Push for a Plan.

Jim Mann, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 2007 at age 58, is campaigning for a comprehensive, funded de- mentia action plan to address the rising tide of demen- tia in our province. He is travelling around the province, meeting with people to spread his message of making sure B.C. is prepared to meet the dementia-related health care crisis that will peak during the next four years. Jim is here today, and I want to thank him and his wife, Alice, for their commitment to helping others in this province in spite of their own challenges.

To learn more about Jim and his journey, or for more for information on the services provided through the Alzheimer Society, go to their website at www.alzheimerbc.org. To all of you who are here today with the Alzheimer Society — either in your role as a volunteer or staff mem- ber — on behalf of all families who have loved ones aff ected by Alzheimer's, a heartfelt thank-you for every- thing you do. R. Hawes: Y ou've just received the diagnosis from your doctor. Y ou have Alzheimer's. Y ou think: "Why me? Is there a cure? Is life over?

Who can help?" Well, here's the bad news: ten percent of all people 65 and over suff er from Alzheimer's or dementia, and there is no cure. Th e good news? Th e B.C. Alzheimer Society is there to assist.

British Columbia Debates13090 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 For early-stage Alzheimer's, there are three diff erent medications. While there is no known cure, they may slow the progression of the disease in some people by targeting some of the mental function deterioration and behavioural symptoms. Th e B.C. Alzheimer Society's First Link program will be advised of your diagnosis and will contact you within a few weeks of your diagnosis. Y ou will learn about all of the supports available for you and your family and will be connected to support groups.

Th e society will follow up every three or four months to ensure you have all of the information you need and will provide tips and ser- vices as needed. Th e Minds in Motion program, off ered by the society at various recreation centres throughout B.C., provides fi tness and activity programs in a social atmosphere. Th e society's education program will provide all of the knowledge needed for the journey ahead. Y ou will learn to plan for the future and how to maximize your quality of life. Y ou will meet others who share the journey. Early diagnosis and early contact with the B.C.

Alzheimer Society can be critical in managing the im- pact of this disease. Everyone is encouraged to learn the ten warning signs and discuss your concerns with your doctor if you notice any of them. Lastly, the B.C. Alzheimer Society is a non-profit agency doing great work for all of us. Watch for their fundraising activities in your community, and give gen- erously. All of the information is at www.alzheimerbc.org. It could be your life that is helped next. B.C. POLICE ASSOCIATION AND WORK OF POLICE OFFICERS K.

Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to recognize the work of police offi cers in British Columbia and, in particular, the work of the B.C. Police Association. Th e association represents the members of the prov- ince's 11 municipal police services and the south coast B.C. transit association police service as well. Th at is more than 2,500 front-line police officers in British Columbia. Th ey are ably represented by their executive, including the president, Tom Stamatakis, who is in the precinct today and will be meeting with MLAs.

I have to say, the quality of their representation became very clear to me — it has been in the past — most recently in a very well-thought-out and high-quality submission to a legislative committee that conducted a random aud- it of the police complaints process. A very professional representation of police offi cers and the diffi cult, oft en stressful work that they do. Th is is also a good opportunity to thank all police of- fi cers for keeping us safe in our communities.

Y ou are our protection from violent off enders, from those that would be violent to their partners or children, from those that would break into our homes or our vehicles or that would defraud us. Y our jobs have become increasingly complex. Y ou are not only there in volatile and violent situations, but you are also part social and health care worker. As well, you deal with many mentally ill, who are on the streets of our communities. Y ou are there to teach trust to newcomers, who sometimes come from countries where the police or armed forces are the source of violence or corruption, not protection from it.

Y ou not only serve and protect, solve crimes, get criminals off the street; you are ambassadors in our community as well. [1355] To the association: thank you to your members for keeping us safe, and thank you for working on behalf of your members to keep them safe. HEART MONTH C. Hansen: February is Heart Month, a nationwide campaign to rally Canadians together to combat heart disease. Spearheaded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation, Heart Month promotes awareness while raising funds for critical life-saving research. Th is month is all about having a frank discussion.

Heart disease takes the life of a Canadian every seven minutes and does not discrimin- ate between sexes. It is the No. 1 killer of women, taking more lives than all cancers combined. Th ese are statistics we can change. All it takes is educa- tion and adopting healthier lifestyle choices. Ninety per- cent of all Canadians have at least one risk factor — be it smoking, high blood pressure, high cholesterol or dia- betes.

Simple changes, such as increased physical activity, eating more fruits and vegetables, limiting salt intake and managing stress can help address these risk factors and reduce the probability of heart disease. I want to thank the Heart and Stroke Foundation, its 140,000 dedicated volunteers and two million blood donors across Canada. The foundation continues to make a real diff erence in reducing death and disability from heart disease. Now it's time for us to do our part.

Knowledge is part of the cure, and I encourage all mem- bers to educate themselves, to speak to friends, loved ones and constituents and to help make healthy living a priority. NISGA'A NEW YEAR CELEBRATION R. Austin: Mr. Speaker, last Friday and Saturday I had the privilege of attending the Nisga'a new year celebra- tion, or Hobiyee, as it is known in the spectacular Nass Valley. Th e hoobix, or spoon, refers to the last crescent of the moon and is normally held in diff erent weeks of February, depending on the phases of the moon in a particular year. Th e event signals the beginning of the food-harvesting

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, February 26, 2013 13091 year and the forthcoming arrival of the oolichan, a small fi sh about the size of a sardine that is a rich source of pro- tein and oil or oolichan grease, which has sustained First Nations of the northwest for thousands of years. Th is year's celebrations were held in Gitwinksihlkw, but of course, people travel from all over the Nass and the northwest to witness the drumming and singing that is an important part of Hobiyee. Th e highlight on Friday was the grand entrance when all the dancers who attend the weekend come together to dance and drum.

Aside from representation of the four Nisga'a com- munities, there were also dancers from other nations in the northwest, such as the Tsimshian and the Haisla. It's a celebration of community that has to be experienced to see the impact and joy on the faces of the dancers, as well as the spectators. It isn't only First Nations who participate. Th ere are even a few k'amksiwah . Most notable this year were members of the local RCMP and our very own colleague the MLA for North Coast.

One of the highlights for me was the Gathering Strength dance group, led by Gerald Robinson, as well as the Gitmaxmak'ay Dancers from Prince Rupert. I hope that any British Columbian who wishes to see Hobiyee will decide to make the journey up north in person, as listening to huge numbers of drummers and singers in the hall is, frankly, a spiritual experience. For those who would like to get a taste of this incred- ible celebration, I encourage them in the future to vis- it the CFNR First Nations Radio webcast, which gives people an opportunity to see an example of the aborig- inal culture up close.

Th ere were hundreds who attended over the two days, and the food was fantastic, although I still have to get used to eating sea lion soup. Th e atmosphere, as always, was jubilant and raucous, and I want to thank all the or- ganizers in Gitwinksihlkw for a job well done. All that remains is for me to wish everyone here a happy Nisga'a new year. Hobiyee. HOOPS 4 HOPE SPORTS PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH G. Hogg: Rick Gill taught in the Surrey school system.

He was one of the original coaches in a social program for behaviourally at-risk youth entitled Night Hoops, and he has helped to develop Hoops 4 Hope and its sister pro- gram Soccer 4 Hope. Th ese are committed to providing children and young adults in challenged environments with a safe, nurturing place where they can develop not just skills for the playing fi eld, but they can develop skills for life and grow up to be healthy, infl uential, committed, contributing members of their communities.

Th e H4H Skills for Life program focuses on dealing with gender issues, violence, drugs, alcohol, suicide pre- vention and building leadership. Hoops 4 Hope is an on- going, life-changing experience. Developing life-shaping habits does not emerge from one-time classroom experi- ences. Th at's why the educational and athletic programs are designed to be cyclical and persistent. Most chil- dren grow up to stay involved in the programs and give back to their communities by becoming trained coaches themselves. Hoops 4 Hope provides long-lasting community bene- fi ts.

It provides skills and support for young people's need to participate in team sports and to face the challenges of growing up in communities plagued with poverty, crime, drugs and alcohol. [1400] A dedicated team of people on the ground help them to achieve long-lasting community benefi ts such as or- ganizing teams and tournaments, training coaches to deliver Skills for Life, successfully partnering with social development organizations, contributing athletic equip- ment, facilitating exchanges and collaborations, creating job opportunities and increasing employability of young people through community service.

Hoops 4 Hope partnered with local schools and com- munity organizations in Nunavut to offer the young development services to improve children's lives in a holistic, safe environment. Th is has a ripple eff ect, and many positive changes help to infl uence friends, families and communities. Hoops 4 Hope is planning to expand their programs into B.C. and to introduce their programs to First Nations communities. It is an innovative program that uses the power of sport to eff ect meaningful social change. Our congratulations and thanks to Rick and to Hoops 4 Hope.

Oral Questions GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS REGARDING WOOD INNOV ATION CENTRE BIDDING PROCESS A. Dix: Th e wood innovation and design centre was first announced by the Liberal government in a pre- election throne speech in February of 2009. Last fall ser- ious allegations and complaints were made about the bidding process by Mr. Dan McLaren, a person who the Minister of Justice and Attorney General will be famil- iar with. Th e fairness commissioner concluded that these ser- ious allegations were beyond the scope of her review and therefore did not address those allegations in her review.

What steps has the government taken since the allega- tions were made to assess and respond to those allega- tions independently? Hon. S. Bond: Th ere is a lot of interest and enthusiasm in seeing a world-class structure like the wood innova- tion and design centre being built in the heart of down-

British Columbia Debates13092 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 town Prince George. As has been made clear, there was a fairness adviser. Th e process has been looked at by the fairness adviser, and there will be further information on that in the days ahead. But in fact, there has been no ref- erence of any information or any other materials to the offi ce of the Attorney General. Mr. Speaker: Th e Leader of the Opposition has a sup- plemental. A. Dix: Th e letter from Mr. McLaren was copied to the Premier, to the legal services branch and to Ms. Dana Hayden, the deputy minister in question.

Th ose were the allegations. Th e fairness commissioner reviewed that those allegations and concerns were beyond her scope, which was her position. So I guess the question is: what action did the Premier take, having received this letter in November, to review these very serious allegations? Hon. C. Clark: As the Attorney has said, the fairness adviser has made her judgment about this, looked at the procurement process and determined that the process was fair. It was clear, and the process was properly fol- lowed by some non-partisan, highly regarded civil ser- vants.

The Attorney General, who also represents Prince George, is quite right. It will be a much-welcomed change in downtown Prince George for the wood innovation centre to fi nally come to life. It is part of a long-term plan that this government has delivered on to make sure that we are growing our forest industry here in British Columbia. We are growing this forest industry — 3,000 new jobs added in forestry over the last year. Th e wood innovation centre, when it fi nally comes to life, is going to be part of helping us continue to make that case, the case for wood. Mr.

Speaker: Th e Leader of the Opposition has a fur- ther supplemental. A. Dix: I think a fair person would have to con- clude that this process has been a shambles. I mean, in February 2009 they announced this project. It's a pre- election commitment in Prince George. It's a pre-election commitment by the Liberal Party in a throne speech in advance of an election. [1405] In September of 2011 the Premier goes to Prince George — as one of four announcements they've made of this project — and says that shovels will be in the ground in 2012.

Th ere are very serious allegations brought to the attention of the government. Apparently, they took no ac- tion on them — at least, that appears to be their position — in November of 2012. In December of 2012 even the successful bidders forced changes in the bidding proced- ures, forced the government to make changes, given their concerns with the bidding procedures. Can the Premier say that any action was taken with respect to very serious allegations made by some of the unsuccessful bidders in this case?

Is it not a reasonable thing, if it's beyond the scope of the fairness commis- sioner, for the Premier to act on serious allegations that are brought to her attention? Hon. C. Clark: Th e fairness adviser has looked at the complaint, and she has advised that the procurement process was done absolutely properly. It was conducted by highly regarded, non-partisan civil servants. Th e pro- cess was clear, it was fair, and it was done properly.

If the member has other allegations that he would like to intro- duce, he should introduce those allegations, but the fair- ness commissioner has had a look at that and determined that the process was fair. L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Premier and the Attorney General, the fairness commissioner hasn't made any fi ndings of fact in relation to the serious alleg- ations that have been made both to the Premier and to the Attorney General. One would have thought it would be incumbent upon the Premier, when an allegation is made about the conduct of a minister of the Crown, to seriously investigate it.

My question is to the Premier. What steps, if any, has she taken, given the months that have passed since this fi rst arose, to investigate thoroughly this matter? Hon. S. Bond: To the member opposite, the Premier and I have been very clear with the answer. Th e com- plaint was provided to the fairness adviser. One has a fairness adviser so that that person can actually look at the process and determine whether or not, indeed, the process was fair. Th at's exactly what the letter of concern expressed.

In fact, the ministry did ask the fairness adviser to review the procurement process, and indeed, the procurement was actually temporarily suspended to allow time for this review. Th at's exactly what should have happened, and that's exactly what did happen. Mr. Speaker: Th e member has a supplemental. L. Krog: Th ere are two separate allegations to be in- vestigated. Th e fi rst is that the minister was not upfront about the procurement process. Th e second is that the minister was willing to manipulate the process in favour of the Liberal donor and fundraiser.

Th e fairness adviser has made it perfectly clear that this falls outside her au- thority, but the questions, clearly, remain. Will the Attorney General accept that these allegations need to be answered, and what is she going to do about it? Hon. S. Bond: Exactly what British Columbians would

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, February 26, 2013 13093 expect to happen, happened. Concerns were raised about the procurement process. Th at's why this government ac- tually involves a fairness adviser — to take a look at the comments that have been made by proponents. Th ey were taken seriously. Th e fairness adviser actually did the work that she was asked to do. To the member opposite, it is very easy to stand in this House and insinuate that there are other implications.

I would urge the member opposite to step outside the doors of this chamber and bring forward any allegations that he may want to make. [1410] J. Kwan: Th e fairness adviser had said that the mat- ter was outside of her scope. Th e Attorney General was aware of these allegations two months ago. So my ques- tion to the Attorney General is this. What action did she take to address those issues? Hon. S. Bond: Let me be perfectly clear. Th ere was no formal reference of any other allegations to my offi ce or to the Ministry of Attorney General.

All of the concerns expressed by the proponents regarding the procurement process were thoroughly investigated, and the fairness adviser made it clear that the process was fair. In fact, more information about the project will be announced in the days ahead. Mr. Speaker: Th e member has a supplemental. GOVERNMENT ROLE IN LOAN PROCESS FOR WOOD INNOV ATION CENTRE J. Kwan: Th e wood innovation and design centre was announced many times, and yet today it remains a hole in the ground.

What seems strange is that the Northern Development Initiative Trust was eager to move forward on the project even before the government was ready to commit to the centre. In fact, it was June 2009 that work began on the loan that we have heard this week is now in default. In 2011 the Premier reannounced the project and promised money. So my question is to the Premier. Who in government encouraged the trust to enter into this loan before the government had committed money to the project? Hon. P .

Bell: Th e member opposite will know that the Northern Development Initiative Trust, along with the two other regional trusts in this province, are independ- ent organizations. Th ey're not controlled by the province of British Columbia or any minister within that Crown. N. Macdonald: Th e Minister of Jobs has claimed that he had no role, either direct or indirect, in infl uencing the Northern Development Initiative Trust's decision to award Commonwealth this loan. Can the minister ex- plain why the NDIT would approve such a signifi cant loan? Hon. P . Bell: Th e answer is identical to the previous question.

Northern Development Initiative Trust, along with the two other regional trusts in this province, are in- dependent, arms-length organizations. Th e province of British Columbia or any of the members of cabinet do not have any control. In fact, the member opposite, I believe, actually maybe sits on one of the advisory committees of one of the trusts and should know that. Mr. Speaker: Th e member has a supplemental. GOVERNMENT HANDLING OF WOOD INNOV ATION CENTRE PROJECT N. Macdonald: Here's what we know.

We know that there is a hole in the ground in Prince George where we were assured there would be a wood innovation cen- tre. Th at's what we know. And we know that this is one more piece of evidence of the incompetence of this B.C. Liberal government. We know that. We know that this is another failure that impacts negatively the forest sec- tor — one more failure on a long list of failures with this government.

Th e question for this minister is: how did this gov- ernment so bungle a project that was supposed to be an iconic wood structure but instead sits as a symbol of this government's failure and incompetence? Hon. P . Bell: Th e dialogue I just heard, the diatribe I just heard, from that member opposite is identical to what he used to say every time we went over to China to try and build the forest industry. And, Mr. Speaker, you know what? During that period of time that that mem- ber was complaining about the work that we were do- ing….

He said that it was taking too long, that we weren't getting suffi cient results, that we weren't able to achieve what we were hoping to achieve. Today we have a billion- dollar industry. [1415] Th e wood innovation design centre has been a very complex project. Th ere actually is no building code for this particular type of building. Th at takes a long time to make sure that the building code is in place, that you have the authority to actually build the building. It took longer than we anticipated to do that. But you know what?

As positive a result as we've had from wood going into the China market, the wood in- novation design centre will have…. Ten years from now people will look back at this as a turning point for the forest industry in British Columbia. J. Horgan: I can appreciate that the minister's line of

British Columbia Debates13094 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 defence there is that the building code is complicated. We had a minister of building codes, but we did away with that. I also understand that the Premier, two years ago, said that there would be progress on this initiative. I'm as- suming that when she made that comment, she had some understanding of the building code challenges. My question is to the Premier. What happened? Two years gone by, no progress. Hon. P .

Bell: The member opposite, obviously, is having trouble grappling with economic concepts and understanding that sometimes it takes time to make in- vestments in a way that will yield a long-term return. Th at's exactly what we did in the Chinese market. Th at's exactly what we've done in the mining industry to build new innovations and new opportunities. It's what we're doing in liquefi ed natural gas. It's what we're doing in international education. It's exactly what we're doing with the wood innovation and design centre. Originally, our objective was to get it under construc- tion in 2012.

We're expecting it to start construction in the next six to eight weeks. We missed our mark by four months, but ten years from now that four months isn't going to matter, because this is going to revolutionize B.C.'s forest products industry. HEALTH AUTHORITIES' ROLE IN PROCESS FOR LABOUR AGREEMENT WITH NURSES M. Farnworth: For the Minister of Education, it's stage 1. Health care authorities in this province deliver billions of dollars of health care around the province every year.

So when there's something impacting how those dollars are going to be spent or negotiations taking place, one would expect the health authorities to be kept in the loop. Well, judging from a letter sent by the six health au- thorities in the province of British Columbia to the Health Employers Association of British Columbia, they have clearly not been kept in the loop. I'd like to quote from the letter.

Th e health authorities cosigned a letter saying that they have primary respon- sibility for managing nursing care in the province, but they "do not have any direct knowledge of the content of any proposed agreement." And the proposed agreement, hon. Speaker, is a potential ten-year deal. Can the Minister of Health please explain to this House and the province why her government, or this government she's a part of, is engaged in negotiations behind the back of the health authorities who are deliv- ering the service? Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Th ank you to the member op- posite for the question.

Th e Ministry of Health, HEABC and PSAC have been holding some informal discussions with the BCNU. Th ere have been no negotiations. But what has been happening is looking to gauge interest, to think about whether there could be, possibly, a long-term collective agreement. I really don't understand why the member opposite would object to a long-term agreement, if there was one to be had, that would be benefi cial for the employer as well as the worker. Mr. Speaker: Th e member has a supplemental. M. Farnworth: Th e question isn't the length of an agreement. It's the process.

Informal discussions or for- mal discussions…. One would t hink that you would have all the parties involved in an informal discussion. Clearly, that's not been the case, because they felt so concerned about what they were hearing, what they had not been part of, that all six health authorities had to write a let- ter saying how concerned they were about what was tak- ing place. Again to the minister: if there are no formal discus- sions, then why weren't the health authorities involved in the informal discussions? Clearly, they felt they weren't. Hon. M.

MacDiarmid: Again to stress to the mem- ber opposite that there were some conversations that happened that were of an informal nature, looking to explore the possibilities. Could there be something that would be benefi cial for both sides that could turn into a longer-term agreement? [1420] Th ere has been no formal mandate. Th ere have been no formal negotiations happening at all. Very clearly, were there to be negotiations, there could not possibly be any kind of agreement that could be reached without the sup- port of the health employers. Th ey clearly would have to ratify it.

We're a long way away from that, and informal discussions do sometimes happen. S. Simpson: Labour negotiations require all parties to be at the table if they're going to be meaningful and if they're going to be successful. Th e minister can call them formal or informal. However, just like the failed ten-year eff ort with teachers that we know the government failed on…. Th at failed largely because neither the teachers nor the employers were part of that framework, and they heard about it at the end of the process.

In this case, we know in this deal the health authorities have been left out of this conversation entirely. Clearly, this is about politics. It has little to do with labour rela- tions. It is about a scramble before May 14. Will the minister kill this misguided exercise today and allow the existing agreement with nurses to be fulfi lled? Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have to make sure that I have this clearly. Here we are having a discussion with a very important group of workers in the health care system — one of many, but certainly very important. We are talking

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, February 26, 2013 13095 about something that could possibly lead to long-term labour peace with benefi ts on both sides, and those con- versations are happening in an informal way. It's really diffi cult for me to understand how that could possibly be a bad thing. How would it be a bad thing? In a health care system that the opposition continually com- plains about being under-resourced, here we are trying to do something that would be positive on both sides. Mr. Speaker, how can that be negative? Mr. Speaker: Th e member has a supplemental. S.

Simpson: No one is opposed to long-term agree- ments that make sense. But you don't write a ten-year deal in a couple of weeks on the eve of an election, par- ticularly when you are already a discredited government. Th is is especially true when you leave one of the critic- al parties — in this case, the health authority — out of the mix. And we know from comments today from the president of the B.C. Nurses Union that they say they have no interest in a ten-year deal. What we have is a health authority that's left out of the mix and a nurses union that isn't interested.

So what we have is a government grasping to try to fi nd some good news where none exists because of your failures and your position in the polls. Th at's the reality today. Will the minister admit this is another ill-conceived Liberal eff ort that has gone wrong, put this thing in the trash where it belongs and have some meaningful discus- sion aft er May 14 with a new government? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Take your seat, Minister. Minister. Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Th e really great thing about being the Minister of Health in this province is that there is good news every single day.

So while we do know the plan that the NDP has for health care in the province…. We heard this from the Leader of the Opposition back when he was the Health critic. Th eir plan would be to be among the highest in Canada in terms of per-capita sup- port for health care. "Th at would be a high priority for us." Th at's what he said. [1425] Here we are. We are the second-lowest spender on health care in Canada. We have the best mortality. We have the best cancer outcomes, the best cardiac outcomes. So there's good news every day.

If through some informal discussions we could reach a labour agreement that was a good agreement, that was good for British Columbians, that was good for patients, that was good for taxpayers, that was good for nurses and that was good for govern- ment, why would we not do that? GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF FERRY SERVICES M. Karagianis: B.C. Ferries released the results of the third quarter yesterday, and they're reporting a net loss of $17.2 million — this on top of continued downward spiraling of revenues. B.C. Ferries' debt has tripled since 2004. It was $437 million.

It's now $1.3 billion — tripled at the hands of this government. We're waiting for the release right now of a consulta- tion report with coastal communities. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. M. Karagianis: As fl awed as that process is, we're ex- pecting that, hopefully, sometime this month. In the meantime, ridership is down, fares are up, and commun- ities are facing cuts in services. My question is to the minister responsible. Does she have any plan, any plan whatsoever, to fi x this colossal mess that this B.C. Liberal government has made out of B.C. Ferries? Hon. M.

Polak: While no one is ever happy to see losses happening at B.C. Ferries, I am encouraged that we are seeing an increase in the net earnings and the total revenues. Th ere's something else I'm encouraged about. We're all familiar with the fact that back in the '90s, the govern- ment experienced successive downgrades in their credit rating. Th ere was another part of government specifi cally that experienced a downgrade, and that was B.C. Ferries. I am proud to report that as of this month Standard and Poor's has upgraded B.C.

Ferries from negative to stable, and they have affi rmed its A-plus, long-term and senior unsecured debt rating. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Th e member has a supplemental. M. Karagianis: Ridership is down. Tourism is down. Coastal communities' economies are suff ering as a result. And the minister is proud of that? Th at's what she's proud of? Th at's a record of this government? Th e Ferry Commission report sat on the minister's desk forever and ever and was fi nally released to the public. Since that time, many months have passed. Th e government has taken absolutely no steps on those recommendations.

Now we're waiting for the results of this propaganda exercise that they did with a full consul- tation with ferry communities. At the end of the day, British Columbians want to

British Columbia Debates13096 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 know: what is the plan? What, if any, plan does this gov- ernment have to fi x the B.C. Ferry Corporation that they have run into the rocks here in British Columbia? Hon. M. Polak: Indeed, I'm quite certain that the pub- lic would love to know what the opposition's plan would be for B.C. Ferries. Th e member opposite is quite proud of the work of the commissioner and seems to endorse what the com- missioner has recommended.

It may surprise the mem- ber opposite to know that it was the commissioner who recommended that we engage in the consultation with communities, and engage in that consultation on vision. [1430] It's the very actions of this government that have achieved this upgrading of the rating of B.C. Ferries. In fact, it is the actions we took with respect to the Coastal Ferry Act…. I can quote here from Standard and Poor's, saying that as a result of that, the outlook revision refl ects what we view as an improvement in the regulatory certainty. We're doing the work with B.C.

Ferries to make sure it stays sustainable for generations to come in British Columbia. SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS AND BRILLIANT DAM POWER SALES AGREEMENT K. Conroy: Y esterday I asked the minister if the Brilliant dam and the related power sales agreement were on the list of assets for sale. Th e minister referred to the dam, but not to the power sales agreement. So again to the minister: is the power sales agreement on the list of assets this government is selling off ? Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's not, hon. Member.

Th e only time anybody has looked at selling a major Hydro asset in British Columbia was at the very end of the NDP era. In desperation, they actually had a memo that said they might consider selling B.C. Hydro. [End of question period.] A. Dix: I seek leave to table a document. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Tabling Documents A. Dix: I'm tabling a document from Mr. McLaren of Commonwealth Campus Corp. addressed to the fairness adviser and copied to the Premier, to Ms. Dana Hayden and to the legal services branch of the government. Hon. R. Sultan: I would like to submit a petition. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Petitions Hon. R.

Sultan: I am pleased to submit a peti- tion signed by 31 students of Capilano Elementary School, grade 5, division 6, in my riding, requesting this Legislature to ban plastic bags. Th e individual letters ac- companying this petition are very eloquent. Motions Without Notice MEMBERSHIP AND POWERS OF PARLIAMENTARY REFORM COMMITTEE Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I propose to move a mo- tion that would create the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills. I think my friend the Opposition House Leader has a copy.

It would also charge the committee with examining, inquiring into and making recommen- dations on the matter of the Members' Confl ict of Interest Act. Th is is work that the committee has undertaken through the last session and would propose to continue with. Th e usual powers are included in the motion, and the obligation to report to the House. By leave, I move: [Th at the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Members' Confl ict of Interest Act (RSBC 1996 c.287).

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon the said Committee by the House, the Committee is empowered:

a) to appoint of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess aft er prorogation until the next follow- ing Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and

d) to retain such personnel as required to assist the Committee; and shall report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following Session, as the case may be; to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

Th e said Select Standing Committee is to be composed of Colin Hansen (Convener), Harry Lali, Donna Barnett, Jagrup Brar, Murray Coell, Mike Farnworth, Randy Hawes, Jenny Wai Ching Kwan, Mary McNeil, and Jane Th ornthwaite .] Leave granted. Motion approved. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: Continued committee stage debate on Bill 2. [1435]

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, February 26, 2013 13097 Committee of the Whole House BILL 2 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS ACT, 2013 (continued) Th e House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 2; D. Black in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:37 p.m. On

section 186 (continued). B. Ralston: Before we turn to that section, I just want- ed to raise an issue that was stood down yesterday aft er- noon and that I understood the minister was going to respond to. Th at was a question about

section 85 in the bill, which included some proposed amendments to sec- tions 9(2) through (6). Th ere was reference to a stationary internal combus- tion engine which used natural gas. I asked a question about how that might pertain to proposed LNG plants in the northwest. I understand that the minister may not have had time to fashion a response or get advice on an appropriate re- sponse, but I just wanted to have that noted for the re- cord. Before we conclude, I'd appreciate an answer on the record. Hon.

M. de Jong: What I've ascertained to this point — and I'm not certain this will change over the course of the next dozen hours or so — is that ultimately, the de- termination of that important point will depend upon the confi guration of the process and the actual process that is followed. At this point, in the absence of an example of what that looks like, it isn't possible to prejudge what that determination is. Th e best thing I can say, though, is that it is a pertinent and relevant question.

A determination will have to be made, but ultimately, the decision will revolve around the actual confi guration at the conversion facility. I'm not certain to what extent that may vary. I just don't have the technical background at this point to of- fer an informed opinion on the degree to which the con- version or confi guration process at one plant might diff er from another and whether or not a determination made with respect to one plant would automatically apply to others. [1440] B. Ralston: Just continuing on that point, would the minister then give an undertaking to advise the House…?

Obviously, the tax environment in which these proposed facilities might operate is of some interest and under- standably part of the calculation that those companies may be making. Given that this appears to be not determined, at least as far as this

section is concerned at this point, I think it might be advisable, at least, to advise publicly what the prospective ruling of the ministry might be.

Section 186 approved. On

section 187. B. Ralston: Th is is a proposed amendment to

section 69 of the Provincial Sales Tax Act. When we last debated

section 69 in the spring, on May 30 we spoke on, I think, all of the subsections but particularly subsection (3). I understand that in this amendment there's a proposed repeal of the ratio that's set out in subsection (2). Th ere was no suggestion back in May when we debated it that this formula or this calculation was in any way defective. Can the minister explain why, from May until now, there's been a proposed change in this formula, as there have been in many other aspects of the bill we debated in May? Hon.

M. de Jong: It relates to something we discussed this morning with respect to previous sections dealing with related issues, and it's simply this. What has been done is that instead of relying upon a complex partial re- fund formula, the act simply adds a reduced tax rate for multi-jurisdictional buses. Th e tax rate is lower, thus precluding the need to cal- culate the rebate, which was part of the previous meth- odology. Th e result is intended to be the same. B. Ralston: In

section 69 as it was debated in the spring, there was a formula set out in subsection (3). Th is now proposes to add a new (3.1), where the tax rate in respect of a bus is now amended. Can the minister explain why that was necessary, or is that rate diff erent from the rate for a vehicle? It appears that the numbers are slightly diff erent between

section 69(3) as debated in May and the proposed

section 69(3.1) being debated today. Hon. M. de Jong: Th e table in subsection (3) relates to vehicles other than a bus and in (3.1) to the lower rate for multi-jurisdictional buses. B. Ralston: Can the minister explain why the rate ap- pears to be lower for one as opposed to the other? Hon. M. de Jong: Th e short answer is that there was, under the previous regime, a lower tax payable for buses that was achieved through this more elaborate rebate sys- tem. Re-creating that model via the lower tax rate is how we achieve the same end result. [1445]

British Columbia Debates13098 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 B. Ralston: I understood from previous debate in the spring that this applied to what's called a prorating, which is a voluntary procedure entered into by an oper- ator. Can the minister confi rm that that remains the same and that the assurance provided by the minister then ap- plies to the same regime now? Hon. M. de Jong: I'm advised yes. Sections 187 and 188 approved. On

section 189. B. Ralston: It's proposed that

section 72 as it exists in the existing act be repealed and a new

section 72 be substituted. Th e reference here is to a tax if the "vehicle ceases to be multijurisdictional." Can the minister ex- plain why the

section which was passed in May is now being repealed and a new

section being substituted for it? Hon. M. de Jong: When the bill was originally con- sidered by the member and this House and the commit- tee in the spring, the intention was the same as it is today, which was to try to statutorily re-create the administra- tive practice that governed aff airs under the old PST re- gime. Th e assessment that was done in the intervening months concluded that the language contained in the new sub 72(1) and (2) better achieved the codifi cation of that previous administrative practice. B.

Ralston: In the act as it is now under sub 72(3) there's reference to a credit under subsection (2) must be calculated and provided in accordance with the regula- tions. Th e new proposed subsection 72(6) repeats those words but adds a subsection (

b) and (c): "(

b) must be ap- plied against the tax payable under subsection (3) by the person in respect of the vehicle, and (

c) must not be pro- vided to the person in any other manner." I take it that the previous subsection (3) was viewed as being potentially unclear and these amendments are required to make the intention of the Legislature clear? Hon. M. de Jong: Th at's correct.

Section 189 approved. On

section 190. B. Ralston: Th is proposed amendment adds an en- tirely new section,

section 72.1, which recites a number of sections relating to a vehicle that ceases to be licensed under an agreement to which a prorating agreement ap- plies. Given that there was no indication of any lack of clarity when we dealt with it in the spring, this appears to be a substantial addition to this

section by way of an intermediate section,

section 72.1. Can the minister ex- plain why this

section is deemed necessary? [1450] Hon. M. de Jong: Th e member is right with respect to characterizing it as an addition. Th ese provisions are being added to specifi cally legislate how the exit tax was administered under the previous taxation regime, spe- cifi cally where ICBC recognized a transfer for licensing purposes only. It is that unique circumstance that is pur- ported to be dealt with in this addition.

Section 190 approved. On

section 191. B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to sec- tion 74 of the legislation passed in the spring and adds some new subsections. I gather that the purpose of the…. Looking back at the transcript of what took place in the spring,

section 74 refers to a change in fl eet licensing. Th e minister who I think is responsible said: "Th is is a situa- tion where a person has more than one fl eet and vehicles may be moving back and forth between fl eets, but owner- ship itself does not change." It was viewed as suffi cient to capture that in the spring, so I'm wondering what lack of clarity might be being ad- dressed by these amendments. Hon.

M. de Jong: Th is fl ows from a similar realization of the need to clarify when the refund or credit applies and to actually codify or legislate it — make it consistent with how it was administered previously again. Th is is the unique circumstance where ICBC recognized a transfer for licensing purposes only, so that same circumstance triggers the need for these amendments.

Section 191 approved. On

section 192. B. Ralston: Th is proposed

section adds another sec- tion or another dimension to

section 74. It's referred to in the proposed amendment as

section 74.1. It's entitled "Refund if not entitled to credit under

section 72 or 72.1." Once again, this appears to be a further rethink of the clarity of the section. Can the minister then explain why this was necessary? Hon. M. de Jong: A rethink, to this extent — a belief that it is preferable to replace a refund that previously was provided in the regulations under the old PST and to codify it in the act itself.

Section 192 approved. On

section 193.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, February 26, 2013 13099 B. Ralston: Th is is a proposed amendment to

section 75, which is entitled in the legislation "Credit if tax pre- viously paid." Can the minister explain the relationship of this

section to the previous one and the necessity for these amendments — in particular, a new

section (c)(1.1), which appears to be fairly extensive? Hon. M. de Jong: I can advise the member and the committee that the breadth of the proposed amendments does not propose any substantive change. [1455] Th ey do include the addition of the refund for owner- operator situations and legislate how that partial credit was administered under the previous act — again, where ICBC recognized the transfer for licensing purposes only; again, an example of codifying in the act itself a previous administrative practice.

Section 193 approved. On

section 194. B. Ralston: Th is

section creates a proposed new sec- tion 75.1, again related to the previous section, pertaining to credit if tax previously paid. Can the minister explain why this is necessary? It makes reference to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, but so does the original

section 75(1) in the act passed in May of last year. Th e Chair: Th e member seeks leave. C. Hansen: Hon. Chair, I need to make an introduc- tion. Th e Chair: Please proceed. Introductions by Members C. Hansen: We are joined today by 40 grade 9 stu- dents from Magee Secondary School in my riding of Vancouver-Quilchena. Th ey are here with their teacher, Mr. Brian Latimer, and fi ve volunteer parents who have come along to enjoy the trip. We had a great conversation earlier, and I wish them a great trip back home later today. Th ank you for coming. Debate Continued Hon. M. de Jong: On

section 194 and the member's question. Th e inclusion of this

section is intended to ad- dress a situation where the partial credit that is provided under

section 75 may relate to a transaction — and be- cause there is a fi ve-year period within which an applica- tion can be made — that either predates July 1, 2010, or occurred thereaft er. Ensuring that the legal authority for addressing that entitlement exists is what gives rise to its inclusion in this bill.

Section 194 approved. On

section 195. B. Ralston: Th e

section in the Provincial Sales Tax Act is entitled "Refund or credit for trade-in vehicles." Th is repeals

section 5, which is relatively straightforward in the act now: "A credit under subsection (2) or a refund… must be calculated and provided in accordance with the regulations." Th is appears to add a little bit more nuance to it, but I'm not sure why it was felt necessary. Hon. M. de Jong: Th e intention here was to include language that renders the

section consistent with other similar provisions.

Section 195 approved. On

section 196. B. Ralston: This is a proposed amendment to sec- tion 78, which is entitled "Refund for short term rent- al vehicles." A phrase is struck out, "to another person," substituting "primarily to other persons." I'm wondering what the importance of that is in this legislative scheme. Hon. M. de Jong: Th e amendment to this

section is designed to ensure that the refund referred to in this sec- tion is available in precisely the same circumstances as was available under the old PST. Th e original provision which has been amended here, I am advised, inadver- tently narrowed the refund. [1500] Sections 196 and 197 approved. On

section 198. B. Ralston: Th e reference here is to amendments to

section 80, "Tax on tangible personal property used to improve real property." Th ese appear to be adding…. Th e explanatory note says that they're being added for con- sistency and, I think, clarity. [H. Bloy in the chair.] In

section (

b) can the minister explain what's being done here? Th ere's a striking out of a phrase, and the ex- planation off ered is a condition for the application of this section. Can the minister explain why that's necessary? Hon. M. de Jong: Th e re-examination of the legisla- tion that occurred over the past number of months de- termined that in sub (b), because of the manner in which

British Columbia Debates13100 Tuesday, February 26, 2013

section 37 operates, the reference to those words simply was not necessary to give eff ect to the provision in the way intended. I can further advise the member and the committee that, again, the amendments do not result in any substantive changes to the provisions.

Section 198 approved. On

section 199. B. Ralston: Y es. Th is

section initiates a series of addi- tions to

section 80, beginning with sections 80.1, 80.2. I think it goes all the way to 80.8, if I'm correct. Y es, that's right. Th at's a substantial addition to

section 80. It's entitled, in the fi rst one — perhaps we can deal with them indi- vidually —

section 80.1, "Contractor exempt from tax under

section 37 or 49 if other person would be exempt." Can the minister explain the reason for this particular amendment, 80.1? Hon. M. de Jong: Th e

section is included to ensure that there is an exemption provided to contractors who enter into written contracts with a person who would has been exempt from the PST if that person had purchased the tangible personal property themselves — for example, the government of Canada, a First Nations person ex- empt under the Indian Act or a person exempt under the Provincial Sales Tax Act. So the

section is there to con- tinue an exemption that was provided under the old PST. B. Ralston: Th en, dealing with

section 80.2. It's en- titled "Refund of tax paid by contractor under Division 5." Th is is yet another addition to the general proposition here, set out in

section 80. Can the minister explain the purpose of that? Hon. M. de Jong: In 80.2 we are codifying the ability to provide a refund to a contractor who has paid PST at the border on tangible personal property in circumstances where the contractor would have been exempt if the tan- gible personal property had been purchased in B.C. or brought into B.C. from within Canada — again, render- ing it consistent with pre–July 2010 practice. [1505] B. Ralston: I'm now moving to proposed

section 80.3. It's entitled "Tax on tangible personal property used to improve real property if contractor obtained refund." It's somewhat arcane, but perhaps the minister can explain it. Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, 80.3 is the companion provision to 80.2 and is similar to

section 80, imposing tax on the contractor's customer where there is a specif- ic agreement transferring liability for the PST from the contractor to the customer. B. Ralston: I'm moving now to

section 80.4. Perhaps we can deal with 80.5 at the same time, and 80.6. Th ey all involve improvements to real property in diff erent circumstances. Perhaps the minister can just explain the principle that's at play in these three proposed new sec- tions. Hon. M. de Jong: So 80.4 refers to circumstances in which there is a change in use. It is a change-in-use pro- vision similar to provisions in division 9,

part 3. What it does is creates the legal mechanism by which tax is im- posed on a person where they benefi ted from an exemp- tion based on their use of the tangible personal property for an exempt use and they subsequently used that tan- gible personal property for a taxable use. Then 80.5 imposes PST on tangible personal prop- erty acquired by a contractor before April 1, 2013, that is used for the purpose of fulfi lling a contract to improve real property on or aft er April 1, 2013, unless a specif- ic exemption applies.

Th e intention there is to provide consistent tax treatment for goods used to improve real property on or aft er April 1, regardless of who is doing the improvement. B. Ralston: I believe I intended to include 80.6 in the recitation, because it is directed to improve real prop- erty. Can the minister address that? Th en I'll move on to the other two. Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, 80.6, again a companion

section to 80.5, is similar to sections 80 and 80.3. It im- poses tax on the contractor's customer where there is a specifi c agreement transferring liability for the PST from the contractor to the customer. B. Ralston: Now, 80.7 refers to a transitional tax on tangible personal property incorporated into property subject to tax under the New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act. Th is would be a relatively time-limited application, but can the minister explain the necessity for adding this provision, particularly at this juncture? Hon.

M. de Jong: Th anks to the member for recogniz- ing the time-limited eff ect of this. In short, it's to ensure that there is no double taxation in circumstances where this tangible personal property is incorporated into real property. [1510] B. Ralston:

Section 80.8 refers to a transitional tax on mobile homes affi xed to land in British Columbia. Th is is, similarly, a new provision to

section 80 that is directed to mobile homes. Th ere's a reference in subsection (4) to tax payable under a variety of sections in the act. Subsection (3) re- fers to: "A person to whom this

section applies must pay

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, February 26, 2013 13101 to the government tax on the mobile home at the rate of 7% of the amount equal to 50% of the purchase price of the mobile home." Can the minister explain subsections (3) and (4)? Hon. M. de Jong: I want to clarify a remark I made a moment ago about 80.7. When I referred to the tax and rebate scheme, that is the tax and rebate scheme that is provided for under the New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act. So if I left any uncertainty around that, hope- fully I've clarifi ed it.

With respect to 80.8, this provision is being proposed for addition to the legislation to prevent a gap in taxa- tion, because mobile homes covered by this provision will not be subject to the New Housing Transition Tax and Rebate Act, unlike other mobile homes which are affi xed to land before April 1, 2013. Th e rate of tax will be the same reduced rate of tax of 7 percent of 50 percent of the purchase price, as are other mobile homes that will be subject to the PST.

Section 199 approved. On

section 200. B. Ralston: Th is is the time-limited nature of the two sections we just discussed — 80.7 and 80.8. Th ey're to be repealed, eff ective April 1, 2015. I think that's self-evident but probably worth noting on the record. Hon. M. de Jong: Th at's correct.

Section 200 approved. On

section 201. B. Ralston: Th is is an amendment to

section 81 of Provincial Sales Tax Act that we dealt with and debat- ed in May of last year. Th e proposal involves a number of amendments, but in particular, the most signifi cant seems to be adding a new subsection (1.1). Th e others appear to be minor language changes. Can the minis- ter explain the purpose of adding a new section (1.1) to

section 81? [1515] Hon. M. de Jong: Th is also relates to circumstances in which there is a change of use of tangible personal property. Th e diff erence here is…. What is sought to be achieved is to clarify that the relevant provision does not apply if the subsequent use of the tangible personal prop- erty would have been exempt when the tangible person- al property was purchased or entered British Columbia.

Section 201 approved. On

section 202. B. Ralston: As I recall the debate that took place on this proposed amendment to

section 82,

section 82 deals with the relatively limited circumstance where property is acquired for a new purpose and the company then may rent the property out for another purpose for a short per- iod of time, according to my Hansard reference that I have here and the comments of the minister at the time. Th at seemed to be straightforward then. I'm wonder- ing why these amendments are necessary now. Hon.

M. de Jong: With respect to (1), the change be- ing articulated here and, hopefully, made clear is that the relevant provisions do not apply if the subsequent use of the tangible personal property is, in fact, another exempt use. Th at would appear to be self-evident, but this will ensure that that is so. With respect to subsection (2), I'm advised that is sim- ply correcting a

section reference.

Section 202 approved. On

section 203. B. Ralston: Th is proposed

section initiates a series of, I suppose, qualifi cations or modifi cations to

section 82 that we've just discussed — 82.1, 82.2 and 82.3. Dealing fi rst with 82.1, "Tax on parts or material if property containing parts or material used for new pur- pose," can the minister explain the reason for this and how it might modify the general intent of

section 82? Hon. M. de Jong: What is being proposed here are additions to take account of circumstances that could arise that, in fairness, weren't contemplated at the time the initial discussion took place around this last spring. By way of example, a situation in which…. Th e general rule is that parts and materials are exempt if they are to be used with exempt tangible personal property. If the tangible personal property is exempt because it is to be used for an exempt use and subsequently that property is used for a taxable use, tax becomes payable on the parts and materials as well.

Th at's the kind of scenario that these specifi c provi- sions take account of, and that wasn't included in the in- itial spring version.

Section 203 approved. On

section 204. [1520] B. Ralston: Th is is an amendment to proposed

section

Section 83 in the act is entitled "Tax if change in use of property acquired for lease."

British Columbia Debates13102 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Again, the discussion in the spring was the situation where tangible personal property…. It's where what's taken out of the lease inventory is for a longer term than the short-term use that was referred to in

section 82. At least, that was the explanation agreed to in the spring. So I'm wondering why these changes were necessary if it was clear back then. Hon. M. de Jong: Th anks to the member for noticing the diff erence, which is designed not to alter in any sub- stantive way what is being provided for in

section 83 but rather to clarify that the provision applies to tangible per- sonal property purchased in British Columbia but also brought, sent or delivered into British Columbia — there- fore, that language that appears in other parts of the bill. Sections 204 and 205 approved. On

section 206. B. Ralston: Th is adds to

section 84, which in the act is entitled "Tax if change in use of resulting tangible person- al property." Th is proposed

section 84.1 is entitled "Tax if dealer or manufacturer changes use of motor vehicle." Th ere are a number of subsections here which are to be added to the general provisions of

section 84. Can the minister explain why this particular focus on the change of use of a motor vehicle is required? Hon. M. de Jong: Th e dealer-use formula that gives rise to certain calculations under the old PST regime relied exclusively on a regulatory authority. Th e inclusion of it in this bill and these sets of amendments is designed to codify and give that practice and that dealer-use for- mula the full force of the statutory provisions. Sections 206 to 209 inclusive approved. On

section 210. B. Ralston: Th is is a proposed amendment to…. No, pardon me. I was thinking of

section 211. I'm prepared to agree with

section

Section 210 approved. On

section 211. B. Ralston: Th is is a proposed amendment to

section

Section 89 is entitled "Tax on acquisition of eligible tangible personal property." Th is introduces the small seller that had been spoken of yesterday in some sections. Th at's a defi ned term. [1525] Th e explanation off ered in the spring was that the sec- tion required the small seller to pay the tax because some- one who purchased from a small seller wasn't required to pay PST. I'm wondering what the eff ect of these appar- ently minor changes is here. Hon. M. de Jong: Th e short answer that the belief is that in applying the legislation, "purchase" is a more pre- cise term than "acquisition." Th e member will see the changes refl ect that. And then in sub (2),

section refer- ences are corrected. Sections 211 and 212 approved. On

section 213. B. Ralston:

Section 213 proposes amendments to existing

section 90, which refers to eligible tangible per- sonal property brought into British Columbia. Th e refer- ence is to a small seller. Th ere's a new subsection (4) that's being added. Perhaps the minister can explain why that was added, as contrasted with the reading of the

section as it was in the spring. Hon. M. de Jong: Th e provision that appears in sec- tion 90, the member may recall, appeared in

section 89. For the sake of consistency and to ensure that small sell- ers have the same tax treatment whether they purchase eligible tangible personal property in B.C. or bring, send or receive delivery of same into British Columbia, it was thought wise to ensure consistency of language between sections 89 and 90. Sections 213 and 214 approved. On

section 215. B. Ralston: Th is amendment,

section 215, begins to deal with a new division in the act — division 11, "Energy Products,"

section 92. Th ere's a proposed amendment which renumbers a

section and then adds an additional subsection. Can the minister explain the reason for add- ing the proposed subsection (2) into

section 92? Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is that it was deemed appropriate and important to amend

section 92 to ensure that it read consistently with

section

Section 215 approved. On

section 216. [1530] B. Ralston: Th is proposed amendment is to

section 93, which is entitled "Tax if energy product brought into British Columbia for use." It adds a new subsection (4), which appears to mirror in some ways the amendment to

section 92 that we've just dealt with. Can the minister

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, February 26, 2013 13103 explain the reason for adding it at this time? Hon. M. de Jong: In this case the consistency be- ing sought is between

section 93 and

section 49. Th ese amendments clarify the documentation which must be provided to the seller and, as I say, are intended to be consistent with the earlier

section 49. Sections 216 and 217 approved. On

section 218. B. Ralston: Th is refers to liquor sold under a special occasion licence. Th e

section in the spring consisted of fi ve sections, and there's a proposed amendment substi- tuting, as the minister explained earlier, "purchased" for "acquired". I think no further explanation is necessary there. But there is a repeal of the subsection (5) as it exists, and this substitutes a new subsection (5). Can the minis- ter explain why that subsection (5) is being substituted? Hon. M. de Jong: In short, the amendment here is to ensure that the refund available, in the event where ac- tual sales are less than estimated at the time the licence is issued, doesn't result in an excess refund.

Th e previous language led to some concern that the calculation could result in the possibility of a refund in excess of what the entitlement would be.

Section 218 approved. On

section 219. B. Ralston: Th is is a wholesale repeal of

section 99 in the act and a substitution of an entirely new

section 99. Th e

section is described as "Tax on acquisition of exclu- sive product by independent sales contractor." As I re- call, the reference to exclusive product was a reference to what might be called multilevel marketing schemes, and I think the minister made reference to some of the well- known companies that operate in this fi eld. As I understood it, the purpose was to make the sell- er or the independent sales contractor liable for the tax. Individual sellers that might go door-to-door out in the community would not have to collect a tax on each sale. Is that the purpose of this? I'm wondering how the new proposed

section 99 might modify that purpose. [1535] Hon. M. de Jong: The member has correctly high- lighted the fact that we're talking about the multilevel marketing activities that he alluded to and that the pro- visions collectively allow for an alternative collection scheme with respect to applicable PST. What this is intended to do, and the reason or the need for the amendment, is to ensure that the alternative col- lection scheme applies to exclusive products brought, sent or delivered into British Columbia, as well as ex- clusive products purchased in B.C. Th at was the missing part of the piece.

Section 219 approved. On

section 220. B. Ralston:

Section 220 is the

section that we spoke of briefl y, earlier, in anticipation. Th is is the

section in the act which refers to the tax on the gift of a vehicle, boat or aircraft given in British Columbia. Th e minister previous to this one, in the debate in the spring, identifi ed what some might view as a public policy concern where the number of people using the exemptions provided under the gift exemption dramatic- ally increased. Th ere were, in fact, gift s by unrelated par- ties, one to the other, who may even have been unknown to each other. Certainly, that was the suggestion.

I think, frankly, there was a suggestion that this particular provi- sion might not be being used for the purpose for which it was intended. No one would, I think, want to bar the legitimate use of this section, but I'm wondering how these amendments might begin to change or restrict the objectionable use, if I can put it that way, of this section. Hon. M. de Jong: I suspect part of this conversa- tion was had…. Th e change here, of course, relates to the presumption in favour of tax.

It creates the obliga- tion in these gift circumstances that the tax is applicable and then lays out the specifi c circumstances in which an exemption is granted. I think the member's question is, in part: does that automatically translate into fewer circumstances of tax avoidance? I'm not sure I'm in a position to off er that as- surance. Th e construct is diff erent, and the presumption is in favour of tax being applicable.

But I think it would be unfair of me to try and assure the member that auto- matically, as a result of that, there will be fewer instan- ces of tax avoidance, though one lives in perpetual hope. B. Ralston: In the spring the minister said — and I'm going to quote here from Hansard: "Th e real issue here is that you know you've got a problem when over one-third of all private transfers of vehicles are being reported as gift s as opposed to sales, particularly when almost half of those are people that are unrelated to each other. [1540] "So that is obviously a problem.

Th e member is correct that this will ensure that we protect against legitimate cases of gift ing be- tween family members or to registered charities, etc., as set out but that we stop the abuse that is clearly taking place." Clearly, the minister identifi ed a problem and cited a rather surprising fact of one-third of all transfers be- ing categorized as gift s, even between unrelated parties.

British Columbia Debates13104 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 Can the minister explain, then, in detail…? He said there's a presumption in favour of tax. Can he explain how this repeal of subsection (5) and substituting…? I take it these are the relevant provisions, although they may be contained in

section 221. Can the minister explain how these provisions will reduce the opportunity to engage in this practice, which I think many people rightly suspect are circumstances where the gift is not genuine? It's simply a declaration made to avoid paying tax that would otherwise be due. Hon. M. de Jong: I want to be forthright, as always. I think a case can be made that the new construct em- ployed by the act, where it is no longer suffi cient mere- ly to claim the gift but that the gift must have occurred in specifi c circumstances, logically, it seems to me, over time should reduce the incidence of tax avoidance.

Th e member's question, I think, was to what extent the amendments proposed here will contribute to a more robust record of collection. I'm not sure they do and wouldn't want to suggest otherwise. Th ese are tech- nical in nature. I wouldn't want to try and leave the im- pression that somehow this represents an amplifi cation or an enhanced ability to collect, because I don't think that's the case. B. Ralston: I appreciate the minister's response. I sup- pose the question that arises, then….

Given that the act is open and we're dealing with it, a problem has been iden- tifi ed, spoken of in fairly strong terms by the previous minister. I don't sense this minister is resiling from that comment. Why wouldn't this opportunity be used here to create the legislative means to shut down that avenue of potential tax avoidance? If it's a third of the vehicles…. I'm not sure what the estimate might be, but given fi scal constraints and scarce revenue, this might be an opportunity to at least, even if it were only partially closed, generate additional legitim- ate revenue for the Crown. Hon.

M. de Jong: I don't think I'm quarrelling with the hypothesis. Where I might want to make this point to the member is the problem that I think he is referring to, and that was discussed previously, we believe is addressed — if not entirely, in part and in large measure — by the sig- nifi cant shift that this section, as originally passed in the spring, represents. [1545] It is no longer suffi cient simply to claim a gift as justi- fi cation for an exemption. Th e gift must occur in very specifi c circumstances.

It will be interesting to see going forward to what extent that reduces the number of times or the incidents where people are claiming the exemp- tion, given that they now must provide far more detailed information. B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that response. Th e new subsection (5)(

c) refers to "the donor who gave the gift acquired the vehicle, boat or aircraft in prescribed circumstances." Th en moving ahead, because similar language is repeated in proposed

section 221, "the donor who gave…." Is it intended that by prescribed circum- stances there would be regulation? Notwithstanding the very generous gift of the regu- lations yesterday by the minister, I haven't had an op- portunity to locate what regulations may pertain to this

section in the draft regulations. Perhaps the minister can explain. Is that the avenue by which he says that this legislative scheme will reduce the opportunity to take that particular liberty with the tax statute? Hon. M. de Jong: I'll do this in reverse order to how the questions were asked. Th e reason the hon. member didn't fi nd any regulations in the package I provided to them yesterday is because there are none, and at the mo- ment there are none contemplated as it relates to, in this case, the tax rates that might be applicable in diff erent circumstances.

With respect to the fi rst question, I fear I'm clumsily trying to make this point. Th e proposition that I would make to the member is that by the very construct of the new act whereby the tax is presumed applicable and the exemption is only available in specifi c circumstances — i.e., gift s between related individuals — and, therefore, the requirement by prospective payers of the tax to set out in more detail the nature of the gift , in my view, may not represent an entirely successful means of addressing the challenge that the member has described, but it will be of signifi cant assistance.

Is it a guarantee that every transaction for which tax is legally bound to be paid will be paid? No. I think that would be a stretch. But I do think the signifi cant change in construct should go some distance to reducing the number of transactions where tax avoidance has be- come an issue. B. Ralston: I thank the minister for his answer. I'm just looking to understand the specifi c subsection that the minister is referring to that would make this change.

Clearly, subsection (5)(a), a taxable supply by a registrant, is a fairly limited circumstance, and an exempt supply by a registrant that is a charity, again, is a fairly…. [1550] It would seem the weight of this change would fall upon subsection (c): "the donor who gave the gift ac- quired the vehicle, boat or aircraft in prescribed cir- cumstances." I believe in subsection 221 the proposed further amendment to

section 100 uses the same lan- guage. So is that the

section that the minister points to as likely changing the practice here? Am I understand- ing that correctly?

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, February 26, 2013 13105 Hon. M. de Jong: I guess the point I would want to make to the member…. I don't want to leave the impres- sion that sub (

c) represents some major point of depar- ture, because in fact, as has been pointed out to me, it existed in the previous subsection (5) under sub (b). But I think the key part of the member's question is: to what extent does the government — and I, as the Finance Minister — make the statement that the construct here is diff erent in a way that will enhance the collection of applicable taxes?

That actually exists not in any of the amendments that we are proposing here today, but in the original sub 100(1) that the member discussed in the spring, which is the major point of departure and which says the tax is payable as it relates to gift s. Th at is diff erent insofar as it creates that presumption of tax being payable. B. Ralston: Well, I appreciate the explanation and the shift in presumption. But is it not still possible to claim an exemption? It's fairly broadly written. Th at's why I re- ferred to….

In addition to the taxable supply by a regis- trant and a charity, there is a broad category there that would appear to be still open. So I guess my question is: if the minister is confi dent that this loophole — if I can call it that, this escape of potential revenue — is there, why is he confi dent? What leads him to have confi dence that if the language is the same as previously?

I did canvass with the minister in the spring, the pre- vious Finance Minister, the examples of enforcement and the diffi culties of enforcement under the present scheme, including even contacting separately both sides of the transaction. Short of, I suppose, an acknowledg- ment that it was not a genuine gift , there was really no way to enforce it. I guess I'm looking to the minister to explain why he has enhanced confi dence that a simple shift in the pre- sumption and

section 100.1 will lead to the result that he speaks of. Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. It was not my intention, nor do I wish to leave the impression, that the amend- ments being proposed in the

section we're dealing with today will lead to any more robust collection, or reliable collection, activity. In fact, I hope…. I think I said the op- posite — that specifi cally, these amendments do not seek to achieve that end. [1555] Why is it that I believe the general shift here may be productive from a reliability and enforcement point of view? Well, to begin with, I'm not in any way suggesting that the shift contained here in sub 100(1) will result in 100 percent eff ectiveness.

But I do think there is a diff er- ence for consumers when there is a provision that says, "If your transaction is a gift , you don't pay the tax," versus a provision that says: "Y ou are obliged to pay the tax, ex- cept in circumstances where a gift occurs in very limited circumstances." First and foremost, it requires providing additional information and specifi c information. I don't think I'm being naive in suggesting that the vast majority of citizens are law-abiding and do not wish to provide, and will not provide, false information, par- ticularly information that would be subject to audit.

So I don't want to wear rose-coloured glasses here. But I think at a practical level there is a diff erence between saying to a citizen, "If a transaction is a gift , the tax doesn't apply," and a situation where the law says: "Th e tax applies, un- less there is a gift in very limited circumstances." B. Ralston: I don't want to belabour this point much longer, but I do have one further, perhaps concluding question, then. Th e limited circumstance that the min- ister refers to — can he point in the legislation to where those limited circumstances exist?

Even if the presump- tion is reversed, and one can assert that there's an oppor- tunity here…. Th at's how I read, potentially,

section 5(c): "the donor who gave the gift acquired the vehicle in pre- scribed circumstances." If there's simply an opportunity, notwithstanding the presumption, to assert that it is a gift , I'm not sure that that really changes anything. So what way in the legislation or any proposed regula- tions does this reduce the possibility for this claim to be made, given that the view of the previous minister was that one-third of the transactions were gift s that were dubiously described that way? [1600] [L. Reid in the chair.] Hon.

M. de Jong: In fact — and forgive me if I stated this incorrectly some time ago in the exchange — in the material I gave the member yesterday, there is the gift exemption material, which actually sets out a

summary of gift s between family members and gift s to registered charities. So the authority for enumerating who qualifi es or which gift transfers qualify will be set out in the reg. I'm told there is a

summary of that somewhere in the ma- terial I provided to the member last day. B. Ralston: Given that, in my view, this is an import- ant enough point to be referred to the precise page of the regulations, could the minister ask the staff to refer to the page of the regulations that this is included on? Hon. M. de Jong:

Section 18 is the

section in the regs. It's on page 22. B. Ralston: Quickly looking at this regulation, I wasn't aware that it was set out in the regulations until the min- ister mentioned it. Th ere's a reference to gift s between family members. I appreciate that the regulations are not before us, but is that a fair

summary — that the ap-

British Columbia Debates13106 Tuesday, February 26, 2013 plication of this would be limited t

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0226pm-06
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0226pm 06
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7baf1b37e9d49a20a4d64344ab8efb2ffc0eb0e9

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