2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 5

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Sandy Korman

K. Conroy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Bombing of Air India flight and death of Tara Singh Hayer

D. Hayer

Remembrance Day ceremony in Newton

H. Bains

Bill Ross, Doug Embree and Ron Bannerman

D. McRae

Diabetes awareness

M. Elmore

Burnaby Local Hero Awards

R. Lee

Climate conference in Copenhagen

L. Popham

Oral Questions

Olympic Games costs

C. James

Hon. M. McNeil

K. Corrigan

M. Farnworth

B. Ralston

Gravel extraction from Fraser River

V. Huntington

Hon. B. Penner

Comments by David Hahn on comptroller general report

G. Coons

Hon. S. Bond

Access to B.C. Ferries information

H. Bains

Hon. S. Bond

B.C. Ferries and B.C. Rail executive salaries

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Bond

Petitions

J. Horgan

C. James

D. Donaldson

J. Kwan

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009

L. Krog

Hon. S. Thomson

Hon. M. de Jong

J. Horgan

Hon. B. Lekstrom

N. Macdonald

Hon. P. Bell

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Hon. R. Hawes

J. Horgan

D. Donaldson

M. Sather

G. Gentner

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General

Hon. K. Heed

M. Farnworth

R. Fleming

[ Page 2485 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Bennett: It's my pleasure to introduce some folks today from the Kootenays. First of all, the electoral area B director from Central Kootenay regional district, John Kettle. John wears a black cowboy hat, but he's still a good guy.

Welcome to the Legislature, John.

I'd also like to welcome today to the Legislature the mayor of Castlegar, Lawrence Chernoff, and his CAO, John Malcolm — both sitting up here. Please help me make them feel welcome today.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the gallery is my sister Joan Scott and her husband, Allen Scott, who are here from Nanoose Bay. They've come down with a group of folks to express their concerns regarding health care on the Island. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

[1335]

Hon. R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Dave Newnham and Bill Brooks. Dave is the vice-president and executive director and Bill is the special projects manager of the Tim Horton Children's Foundation. They are here today to talk to government about…. As many here know, Tim Hortons has children's camps across North America but none in British Columbia. They are here today to talk to members of government about establishing a children's camp in British Columbia.

I'd like the House to please wish them both Godspeed, good luck and to thank them for all the work they do for all kids all across Canada. Tim Hortons is great for what they do.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a long-time friend of mine. Diane Gillis is here in the audience today, in the gallery. Diane and I first met many years ago when we were both parents at the West Burnaby Parent Participation Preschool.

Diane has continued to give so much to our community. Right now, just as one example, she heads up the Kingsway-Imperial neighbourhood house and does wonderful things in our community. I'd like you to make her welcome.

L. Reid: On behalf of the Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated in the gallery. They are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. The workshop provides a first-hand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how that work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Trevena: In the precincts today are a number of constituents from North Island. They came down to show their concerns about public health care. They are Joanne Banks, Richard Hagensen, Lance Klaasen, Larry Widen, Betty Frost, Thora Hood, Anita Brochochka, Dave Kulyk, Steve Mooney and Lois Jarvis. I hope the House will make them all very welcome.

J. Rustad: It's a great pleasure to have some constituents travel down for a series of meetings here in Victoria today. With me in the Legislature are Linda Bush and her daughters Rene Bush and Andrea Patrick as well as Delores Young, from Vanderhoof, and their lawyer Howard Rubin. I'd ask that the House would please make them welcome.

S. Fraser: I'd like to join my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in welcoming Joan and Allen Scott. They are friends of mine from Nanoose. Accompanying them today, also concerned with protecting public health care, is Bernie Pearce. Would you please join me in making them all feel very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: A couple of introductions today. First of all, I'd like to welcome into the House Ethan Huberman and his father, Morry

Hubburmin, who are joining us today. Ethan has been and continues to be a strong supporter of the Asia-Pacific gateway strategy and the Gateway program in British Columbia. I want to welcome them.

In addition, I understand someone I attended high school with is with us today. Eric Polson and his partner Kim Berekely are here today. I'd ask the House to make all of them welcome.

M. Mungall: I'd like to add some words of welcome to those of the Minister of Community and Rural Development. He welcomed John Kettle from electoral area B of the RDCK. Well, John happens to be a very good friend of mine, despite our political differences, and I actually have one of his black hats in my office in Nelson.

Hon. I. Black: There's an organization in B.C. called MITACS. This is a group of individuals who are leading our province in the areas of science and mathematics. If

[ Page 2486 ]

you've ever wondered if you can be passionate about mathematics, this group can prove it with the best of them.

In the gallery today or in the precinct, we've got Daniel Fontaine, who's the vice-president of communications and public affairs, and Olga Stackova, who's the chief operating officer of that organization. I ask the House to join me in making our mathematicians feel most welcome.

[1340]

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome grades 4, 5 and 6 students from Park Avenue Community School in Nanaimo, from my constituency. We should feel very welcoming in greeting them in our House, in their House.

R. Chouhan: I would also like to join my friend from Burnaby–Deer Lake in welcoming Diane Gillis to the gallery. In addition, I want to welcome my dear friend Gordie Larkin, who's here — a community leader, a great trade unionist. Please join me to welcome him.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the precincts today are three very good friends of mine from Sooke, down Highway 14. I know that the Minister of Transportation is familiar with that arterial road. They are Lorna and Ron Barry and my friend Flo Tickner. Would the House make these Sookians very, very welcome.

K. Corrigan: I've just become aware that we also have in the House another friend of mine, Leslie Dickout. She's staff at the B.C. Health Coalition, does brilliant work for them and was here today with a number of other people expressing concern about our health care system. I hope you'll make her welcome.

Tributes

Sandy Korman

K. Conroy: On November 11 we lost an amazing woman when Sandy Korman passed away. Yesterday hundreds of friends and family gathered in Castlegar to say goodbye, share our stories and remember her infectious laughter and humorous stories.

Sandy was well known in these halls as a capable assistant to Corky Evans throughout his 15 years in politics. What isn't as well known is the influence she had on so many of our lives in the Kootenays. Her patience and excellent political sense helped to create and sustain the Columbia Basin Trust, the Kootenay School of the Arts, the Kootenay Gallery and the beautiful built-in-the-Kootenays Osprey ferry that sails across Kootenay Lake, just to name a few.

Sandy was also an artist, creating beautiful pottery, wonderful interior designs and of course her blings. You will see hundreds of these unique pieces of art hanging on many necks around the province. She was mom to Shaun and Jen, sister to Sheren and Brian, auntie to her nieces and nephews and a great friend to many of us who, although we will miss her, know her legacy will live on in the many memories we all cherish.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BOMBING OF AIR INDIA FLIGHT

AND DEATH OF TARA SINGH HAYER

D. Hayer: Almost 25 years have gone by since Canada's worst act of political terrorism, the bombing of Air India flight 182 and the related bombing at Tokyo's Narita airport. A total of 331 people, most of them Canadians, were murdered that day. Although it happened on June 23, 1985, in the minds of the families of those who were slain, the tragedy lives on as if it had only happened yesterday. Closure has not been achieved. Justice has not been served.

Several years after those 331 killings my father, a newspaper publisher who'd reported on the tragedy, was assassinated. He was a journalist who had the courage to write candidly about the tragedy and told what he knew to the police. For speaking out his mind, he was killed.

On November 18, 1998, my father, Tara Singh Hayer, was assassinated as he sat in his wheelchair at his home. I believe he was killed to prevent him from testifying in court as a witness.

My father was an outspoken advocate against terrorism and injustice, and he was for democracy and for freedom. Today is the 11th anniversary of his death. My mother and my sister are opening a community centre in memory of his life in our village of Paddi Jagir in Punjab, India, where he was born. Funded by the Tara Singh Hayer Memorial Foundation, this community centre will be expanded into a seniors centre and a library. It will remind us of his peaceful pursuit of justice and the importance of freedom of speech and democracy.

I ask all MLAs, all MPs and all Senators in Ottawa, on the anniversary of my father's death, to once again remember the victims and their families and to encourage efforts to bring the killers to justice and to prevent such tragedies from ever happening again in Canada. [Applause.]

REMEMBRANCE DAY CEREMONY IN NEWTON

H. Bains: I'm sure all members were able to participate in Remembrance Day ceremonies to pay respect to our fallen soldiers in their own way this year.

[1345]

I'd like to share with you the Remembrance Day ceremony I attended, which was very unique and special. It

[ Page 2487 ]

was special because it was organized and attended by the young people in our community. There were close to 500 people in attendance, most of them youth. There were Sparks, Brownies, Girl Guides, Pathfinders, Beavers,

Cubs, Scouts. All participated in this ceremony. These are the youth of Newton.

I believe it is important for our youth to learn of the sacrifices that were made and are being made by our service women and men in return for our freedom and liberty. The Pioneer District Girl Guides, along with all the organizations who participated in this service, are doing a great job in educating our young people about those sacrifices.

I was so proud to watch the youngsters bring their hand-made wreaths and poppies and lay them at the cenotaph. You could see in their eyes that they knew the importance of what they were doing and were trying to understand.

I have attended this ceremony at Newton cenotaph for the past four years. This year's event was the largest. I believe this is a growing trend that will force us to look for peaceful means to settle our differences. I say this because within a few years it's today's youth who will be sitting in these chairs and other chairs of the parliaments of our country. The more they know of our history, the better the position they will be in to make decisions to avoid wars and bring long-lasting peace.

I would like to thank Kirstie Goy, who was the original organizer of this event. Kirstie plans this event every year along with Heather Smith, Angela Roscoe, Janice Chisholm and Pioneer District Girl Guides. I would like all of you to join with me in thanking all of them for their time, effort, commitment and the tremendous job that they are doing in organizing this event every year.

BILL ROSS, DOUG EMBREE

AND RON BANNERMAN

D. McRae: It is with great sadness that I stand here today to recognize three long-serving teachers in the Comox Valley who have left their friends and family far too early. Within the past month Bill Ross, Doug Embree and Ron Bannerman, with a combined teaching experience of 106 years, have passed.

Bill Ross is survived by his wife, Joanna; his children, Andi and Rob; and his grandchildren, Charlotte and Oliver. For 36 years Bill was a great role model for both his students and his colleagues. He is described as firm but fair, a man who cared for his students, and they knew it. Young teachers also looked to him for advice and guidance, and he gladly gave it. Bill was best described as passionate about his family, his teaching, his barbecuing, his love for red wine and the Dallas Cowboys.

Doug Embree is survived by his wife, Marilyn; sons, Owen and Ben; and grandchildren, Rhiannon, Maia, Hamilton and Quinnton. Doug taught for 39 years, retiring last June. He was a giant of a man whose physical size was only exceeded by the size of his heart. He worked tirelessly with students needing both academic and sometimes parental guidance. The number of young students who achieved success in school because of Doug's efforts is immeasurable.

Ron Bannerman is survived by his wife, Cindy; his father, John; children, Kim and Mike; and granddaughter, Zoey. Ron was born and raised in Cumberland and began his teaching career in the Comox Valley in 1968. He worked for 31 years as an educator, and I'm proud to say that Ron was my grade 6 teacher and inspired in me a love of history and storytelling. He was also instrumental in the creation of the No. 6 Mine Park and its maintenance and a driving force behind the Cumberland Heritage Fair and the Comox Valley Heritage Tour.

The Comox Valley has lost three great individuals. While their absence saddens both myself and those who knew them, I can say with certainty that they touched so many people during the course of their lives, that their legacies will live on.

DIABETES AWARENESS

M. Elmore: November is when we commemorate World Diabetes Month, the primary global awareness campaign for diabetes. World Diabetes Day is celebrated every November 14 and was created in 1991 by the International Diabetes Federation and the World Health Organization in response to the growing and escalating health threat that diabetes now poses.

With the passage of the United Nations World Diabetes Day resolution in December 2006, diabetes became the first chronic disease to be granted global recognition. Presently 3 million Canadians live with diabetes, including over 283,000 people in British Columbia.

I'd like to take this time to congratulate and recognize the work of the Canadian Diabetes Association in working on this issue, raising awareness and working towards preventing and supporting people with diabetes, and also to recognize the leadership of the executive director, Connie Abrams, and congratulate the Canadian Diabetes Association on their eighth annual seasonal dinner.

It was sponsored by the B.C. Association of Podiatrists, and the focus this year was on providing practical gifts, such as walkers and socks, and support for people from low-income families in partnership with the Carnegie Centre.

[1350]

I had the opportunity of participating in an event, Diabetes and the Filipino Family, and learned a lot from Dr. Ranbir Mann and Noony Santos-Paletta, a dietitian. I and also participated in community fundraising events with my good friends Evelyn and Rey del Rosario.

Together with the support of Dr. Keith Dawson and Dr. John Hunt, I encourage everybody to become a diabetes

[ Page 2488 ]

champion and to sign on as a diabetes champion onto worlddiabetes.ca and to support the great work of the Canadian Diabetes Association on this important issue.

burnaby local hero awards

R. Lee: On November 2 Burnaby city hall honoured 13 remarkable individuals from Burnaby. The Burnaby Local Hero Awards are given to those who have made outstanding contributions to community well-being.

These awards have been granted since 1997, recognizing 187 people to date, from local business owners to retirees, teachers and parents. These awards recognize the efforts and contributions of a diverse group of individuals, all of whom have been nominated by the people in the community.

The Burnaby Local Hero Awards, therefore, not only acknowledge the hard work of active citizens but also encourage and enhance the sense of community living in Burnaby. This year's recipients of the award have unique stories to share.

Stella Castillo, who is originally from Colombia, arrived in Canada in 2000 after being held hostage by a guerrilla group for five months. In Canada she has been facilitating a Latin American women's group through the REACH Community Health Centre.

Other winners are Merrilyn Cook, Sidney Cumbers, Sharon Freeman, Fatehali Jetha, Jack Kuyer, Tammy Ozero, Wanley Poh, Deepak Prasad, Wendell Ratcliffe, Mohammad Shamsi, Millie Wylie and Keanna Driedger, who is the youngest member of this group, at only 16 years of age.

These remarkable individuals have donated numerous hours and have demonstrated the courage, commitment and dedication to the variety of different causes they champion and to a better quality of life for the residents of Burnaby.

I would like to ask the House to join me in congratulating all of Burnaby's local heroes.

climate conference in copenhagen

L. Popham: On December 6 world leaders will gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to negotiate a world climate deal. In order for this to succeed, this deal must include binding targets for steep and immediate reductions of CO 2 emissions.

Copenhagen presents a most crucial opportunity at a pivotal time. We have a chance to create a successor treaty to the Kyoto accord and move the planet towards a solution before irreversible global warming takes effect.

Climate change is the number one threat to our planet at this time. A rise in temperature will kill our forests, intensify storms, diminish our food supplies, threaten mass extinction and will ultimately lead to war. Many world leaders are already committed to negotiating an agreement at Copenhagen that is ambitious, fair and binding.

Unfortunately, Canada is falling behind. Our national targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been called ineffective, and our performance at a number of recent climate meetings has been labelled "obstructionist." Does inaction or paralysis come from fear, or does it come from greed, or does it come from the addiction to fossil fuels that has such a grasp on us that we would risk our entire planet?

Oral Questions

olympic games costs

C. James: Documents obtained through freedom of information show that the B.C. Liberal government continues to cover up Olympic costs.

[1355]

I have a letter here from VANOC's chief financial officer to Philip Steenkamp, CEO of the Olympic secretariat, in which he writes: "Dear Mr. Steenkamp, I am writing to request funding from British Columbia with respect to the 2010 opening ceremonies and other projects. This request totals…." That's where the document ends — blanked out.

My question is to the minister responsible for the Olympics. What possible reason does she have to withhold this information from the public?

Hon. M. McNeil: In just 86 days from now we will be hosting the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. Again, what we know is that these Olympic Games, if we take full advantage of them…. This is going to be even better for our province. If we don't, we will have a missed opportunity. VANOC is working incredibly hard to make sure the 2010 Olympic Winter Games are the best yet and, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: Mr. Speaker, it's about time that the members opposite get on board with the Olympics.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

[ Page 2489 ]

C. James: Unlike this minister and unlike this government, I believe that you can support the Olympics and look out for taxpayer dollars at the same time.

It's no surprise….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: It's no surprise to the public that the Olympics cost money, but this government appears to be dead set on hiding just how much. It appears to be nothing less than a cover-up by this minister, refusing to put the information out there. We've seen this before, when the minister refused to tell British Columbians just how much this government was spending on Olympic tickets. We see it again today.

Again to the minister: why does she continue to refuse to put the information in front of the public?

Hon. M. McNeil: It was interesting, and I'm thrilled to see that the Leader of the Opposition is now for the Olympics, because she's been on record as not being. So that's great news to hear.

What I can say today is that we are going to ensure that we do everything right when it comes to the Olympics, because this is an unparalleled opportunity for our economy. This will be the launching pad for the next decade, and this government is going to make sure we get it right.

Having said that, there will be a full accounting of every cost at the end of the Olympics.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: If this government wants to do something right, put out the information about the real costs of the Olympics. It's simple, straightforward. Words that this minister and this government don't seem to understand — openness, accountability, public oversight.

There is no reason why this information couldn't be made public. So again my question is to the minister. Stop the cover-up, be upfront with British Columbians, and tell us how much money VANOC received from the government.

Hon. M. McNeil: I think what's really important here is that these 2010 Olympic Games are a major stimulant for our economic growth. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, these games already have been a major job creator — 22,000 new jobs. Over 800 businesses have been created.

This is a very positive thing for this province, and we're going to make sure that we do it right. Again, there will be a full accounting, but I tell you that this government is going to make sure we are the host of the greatest Olympic Games ever.

[1400]

K. Corrigan: Well, you talk about the benefits of the games. But what's the point of figuring out whether the benefits are worthwhile if you don't know what the costs are? That's our problem.

Again, secrecy and cover-up — that's this government's legacy for the Olympics. Thanks to the government's ask, don't tell approach, there's no way to know how much money VANOC requested. Information about how they planned to spend it was also severed.

Again to the minister: will she for once commit to be open and transparent and release this information to the public today?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, our budget for hosting the games, living up to the IOC commitment, remains the same at $765 million. In addition to this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: What I will also point out, again…. For the first time in Olympic history all of the venues were finished ahead of time by one year. These venues will continue to support a lot of our future athletes for years and decades to come, and I think that is incredibly important.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: I can't quite believe my ears. Three weeks ago in estimates I went through a whole series of costs with this minister and asked specifically, one by one: is this part of the $765 million? This minister confirmed that cost after cost — tickets, Crown corporations, the Crown secretariat — and millions and millions of dollars were not part of that $765 million.

At the end of those estimates I asked the minister whether there were any other costs that we should know about. Sitting with that same official involved in this FOI, she said to us: "No. After consultation, there is nothing else that we're aware of."

The public wants to know the true cost of the Olympics. Does the minister think that the public will tolerate her government's continual whiting-out and hiding of Olympic costs?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, these Olympics are the largest economic stimulus that this province could ever ask for. Leaders around the world envy us this opportunity, especially at this time in history. These games are going

[ Page 2490 ]

to drive tourism, they're going to create jobs, and they're going to reinvigorate our economy at the very time we need it most so that we can continue to support education and health care in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: That's something that you'll never have a problem…. It will never happen with you.

This is taxpayers' money that's being spent on the Olympics. The public demands accountability and transparency. Under this government, under freedom of information, we've seen neither nothing free or informative about the information that this government makes available to the public.

[1405]

VANOC is asking the Olympic secretariat, which according to this government is not even an Olympic cost, for additional money. It's severed in a release. There can be no possible reason not to put that information out to the public, not to let this House know what that information is.

So will the Minister for the Olympics, who's supposed to know where these expenditures are going, supposed to know where this money is going…? Will she stand in this House and tell how much money was requested by VANOC from the Olympic secretariat?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, the funding has not changed. It is within the $765 million, and VANOC still has a contingency within that. VANOC has been reporting on their finances quarterly, and they show they're on track. In addition to that, our expenses are in our current budget.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, the request was to the Olympic secretariat, which this government says isn't even an Olympic cost. How absurd is that? My question to the minister is clear. If it's in the budget, tell us. What's she afraid of? What's she got to hide?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, I'll repeat for the other side that there will be a full accounting of the expenses on the Olympics.

What I would also like to say is that in 86 days from now there's going to be an opening ceremony that is going to be broadcast to over three billion people worldwide. I know that this side of the House is going to be glued to the television watching, and it's going to be an exciting time.

In addition to that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: In addition, I think it would actually be a good idea for the members opposite to actually go on line and see what's happening today in Nova Scotia. That Olympic torch is being carried throughout the small towns in Nova Scotia. Sidney Crosby has it today, and I tell you, the amount of people watching that is very exciting.

This is a good thing for our country. It is a good thing for our province, and this government is going to make sure that we do it right.

B. Ralston: The Premier, as Leader of the Opposition, once said: "Openness is better than hiddenness." Leaving aside the grammatical problems with that statement, I recommend that to the minister. Will the minister follow that advice of her leader and reveal the cost of the request from VANOC?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, without sounding repetitive, there will be a full accounting of the costs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, this government, in 86 days from now, is going to make sure we have the greatest Olympics in history, and we're going to make sure that this province does everything it can to benefit from every opportunity that will be happening.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: A couple of weeks ago the Premier, in this House, made a speech in which he appealed to our better natures and to set aside partisan differences on the occasion of the Olympics. Does the minister not understand that this attitude of stonewalling on the costs destroys public confidence in the Olympics?

[1410]

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, there will be a full accounting for the members opposite. But I just want to say that the public isn't looking at this. What the public is looking forward to, as is seen by the number of tickets that have gone out….

People are excited about these games; 1.6 million tickets have been sold for these games. People are excited about this. Athletes are coming here. They're excited. Over 80 countries will be represented, and I tell you this government is going to make sure that we do ourselves proud.

[ Page 2491 ]

GRAVEL EXTRACTION

FROM FRASER RIVER

V. Huntington: The Minister of Environment is charged with the public duty to protect wildlife in this province. His own conservation framework, which he described to me the other day personally, champions the use of preventative science and the conservation of habitats and ecosystems as his ministry's guide to decision-making.

Yet we know that engineering and scientific studies show that gravel removal does nothing to aid flood control. We know that in the last few years the government has removed two biologists from the technical gravel committee who are refusing to support gravel extraction as an aid to flood control.

The minister will also recall that in 2006 a gravel extraction operation on the lower Fraser killed over two million young pink right on the rearing area.

I'm not sure how the minister can continue to champion gravel removal and flood control in the same breath, and I ask him if he will stand by his conservation framework, do his duty and call a halt to the gravel removal on the Fraser.

Hon. B. Penner: I think it's important to protect both the environment and public safety. That is the priority of the Ministry of Environment when we participate in planning activities related to the permitting of gravel extraction projects that are designed to reduce the flood risk for the hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars of investment that exist in the Fraser Valley in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

Our key priorities are protecting the environment as well as public safety. Since 2007 our government has invested in 168 flood protection projects, at a cost of $85.5 million, in partnership with the federal and local governments.

The recent flood concerns we had just in the last few days underscore why it's prudent to protect both the environment and the public from the risk of flooding.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: I think if the minister really wanted to look at flood control on the Fraser, he would start to work with the communities on the lower Fraser that are in jeopardy of infill on the secondary channels, given that the federal government will no longer dredge them.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

V. Huntington: Well, nobody knows it, sir.

The Minister of Environment wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans calling for a review of the sockeye collapse on the Fraser River. On November 5 the Prime Minister ordered a judicial inquiry into the sockeye collapse, announcing the most comprehensive review ever undertaken into the administration of the Fraser fishery.

We know that gravel removal does not assist flood control, and we also know the Gateway has confirmed an enormous need for gravel through 2010, declaring it will source it through gravel removal on the Fraser River.

No commercial activity should threaten the survival of a species, and the minister's first obligation should be to do no harm. The minister has announced his support for the judicial inquiry into the collapse of the sockeye on the Fraser, and I would submit that a failure to halt the removal of gravel prior to that inquiry would be showing contempt for that very inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member pose the question, please.

V. Huntington: I would ask the minister again to declare that no further gravel removal will take place on our river until the judicial inquiry has reported on the reasons for the sockeye collapse.

Hon. B. Penner: As I noted, we do take the interests of protecting the environment and fish habitat into account in carefully planning any gravel extraction.

[1415]

Interesting to note that in the member's supplemental question she advocated for dredging in the part of the Fraser River near her community, but people living upstream in the Fraser Valley also feel it's important that they should benefit from flood protection activities as well.

I'd be pleased to welcome the member to our constituency, where she would learn that every year hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of gravel are deposited in the stretch of the Fraser River between Agassiz and Chilliwack and downstream. That sediment accumulates over time.

What we've reached is an agreement with the federal government. There's still federal permitting. DFO provides input. Federal approvals are required.

But we believe that doing nothing is not a responsible thing when it comes to protecting the environment or the people, and the hundreds of thousands of people that live in the Lower Mainland.

COMMENTS BY DAVID HAHN ON

COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT

G. Coons: The Finance Minister said on Monday in regards to the report on B.C. Ferries and TransLink that the comptroller has done a very competent and thor-

[ Page 2492 ]

ough job. The CEO of B.C. Ferries, David Hahn, said the report was biased, nonsense, craziness and dumb.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Who does she agree with: the Finance Minister or the CEO of B.C. Ferries?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the member opposite knows full well that in fact it was the government that requested the advice of the comptroller general. She is competent. She is capable. In fact, the Minister of Finance said exactly the same thing. We intend to consider every single one of her recommendations seriously.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: The minister seems to forget that the office of the comptroller general is responsible for the overall quality and integrity of this government's financial management and control systems, and she needs to support the comptroller general against outlandish and outrageous accusations.

The CEO of B.C. Ferries shoots off his mouth, insults B.C. taxpayers and ferry users, and at a million dollars per year, the entire province knows he makes too much. In regards to the size of Mr. Hahn's paycheque, the Finance Minister said on Monday: "The Minister of Transportation spoke, I think, for all of us when she said she was shocked when she found out the level of compensation the board of directors had agreed to."

Now, two issues are in front of us: the provocative and inflammatory statements from CEO Hahn and the total lack of accountability and scrutiny from B.C. Ferries. Will the Transportation Minister ask Mr. Hahn to retract his brazen, insulting statements and apologize to the comptroller general, and will she commit to putting B.C. Ferries under the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. S. Bond: We actually believe in the competence of the comptroller general so much that in fact we asked her to do the report and received it. At the risk of repeating not only what the Finance Minister said but what I will say for the second time: we take the report seriously. We asked for the advice. We're going to consider every single recommendation, including the recommendation concerning freedom of information.

ACCESS TO B.C. FERRIES INFORMATION

H. Bains: Let's be clear. The only reason British Columbians even know how much they're coughing up for Mr. Hahn's salary is because of the federal rules. The comptroller general has called for more accountability into B.C. Ferries, but this government continues to refuse to open B.C. Ferries to public scrutiny.

My question is to the minister. Why won't the minister agree to include B.C. Ferries under FOI?

Hon. S. Bond: As we've said continuously since the moment we received the report from the competent comptroller general, we will consider every single one of her recommendations, including that one.

[1420]

But we're not going to stand on this side of the House and listen to the member opposite talk about our legacy. Let's talk about the legacy of that government when it was in control. Let's face it. They bankrupted B.C. Ferries. It was shameful and embarrassing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member. We're not continuing until there's silence.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: Very interesting. The minister called the comptroller general competent, but the CEO called it craziness and dumb. Will she stand up and defend the CEO?

Now let me go into another area here. The Auditor General's report yesterday raised some really red flags. But that report didn't even touch the salaries of B.C. Ferries, because the government is shielding the corporation from public accountability. So my question again is to the minister. What are you afraid of? Why won't you agree to open B.C. Ferries to FOI?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we asked for advice. We asked about how we can ensure that the model that's in place is working as efficiently as possible. We have a series of recommendations, and we intend to consider every single one of them. But, you know, the member opposite's legacy with B.C. Ferries continues. In fact, very shortly now we're going to see their legacy floated on the back of a barge off to Abu Dhabi. That's what the member opposite did with B.C. Ferries.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B.C. FERRIES AND B.C. RAIL

EXECUTIVE SALARIES

J. Horgan: As staggering as it is that the members on that side of the House don't seem to think it's odd that we're paying a guy a million bucks to run a monopoly ferry system, I think they'll be even more surprised to learn that six years ago they privatized B.C. Rail, but they continue to pay the chief executive officer and the president $500,000 a year to run zero trains on 40 kilometres of track.

Now, they may have a miniature train set in the boardroom, but you've got four chief executive officers making $1.2 million — no trains. Is that acceptable — a million bucks for the ferries, $1.2 million for no train?

[ Page 2493 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, it shows how little the member opposite actually does his homework. In fact, B.C. Rail Properties has a number of important responsibilities, including…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: …the disposal of surplus properties for revenue. They also look after the completion of subdivisions to support economic development, and they monitor the very important B.C. investment railway partnership. So there is work being done.

In addition, like all of the Crowns in British Columbia, we in fact are going to review B.C. Rail Properties.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Well, I'll give the Minister of Transportation one more opportunity to do the right thing for the taxpayers of British Columbia. Will she, first of all, call in Mr. Hahn to her office and tell him to mind his manners and then tell him that she's going to roll back his salary and, the second thing, call in B.C. Rail executives and say that their services are no longer required?

Hon. S. Bond: We have said consistently that we believe the comptroller general did an outstanding job. We disagree with Mr. Hahn. Mr. Hahn can actually defend his own remarks.

[1425]

But I'll tell you what. What the member opposite should look back to is…. Let's just look at what happened with B.C. Ferries under their leadership. In fact….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sit down, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's just look at a fact. To the member opposite: between 1991 and 1991, B.C. Ferries' debt increased….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sit down, Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Want to wind it up, Minister?

Hon. S. Bond: I can hardly wait to wind it up.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Very quickly, between 1991 and 1991, B.C. Ferries' debt went up by 1,800 percent under that government.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Horgan: I have a petition signed by over 500 British Columbians calling on the government of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey to withdraw the HST.

Hon. M. Polak: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: Joining us in the House today is the Carrier Youth Drum Group and their chaperones. The Carrier Youth Drum Group is a group of teenage youth from the Carrier and Sekani territory.

The youth participate in cultural programming to increase and strengthen their cultural identity. The drum group has spent the last two years learning the traditional clan songs and stories of their territory and performing for various celebrations, events and forums. They will be performing at the aboriginal child care conference in Vancouver.

They are Ashley Lowely, Jenny Lowely, Kerri Palmer, Christine Batoche, Wyonna Batoche, Tammy Alexis, Shane Palmer, Sheldon Batoche, Kurtis Alec, Elijah George West and their chaperones — Vernaye Morgan, Sonya Sheppard and John Alec. Would the House please make them welcome.

Petitions

C. James: I rise to present a petition opposing the implementation of the HST signed by over a thousand people.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

D. Donaldson: I rise to present a petition of over 480 people from seven communities in Stikine and also five

[ Page 2494 ]

communities in Nechako Lakes, calling on the government to scrap plans to implement the HST.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Kwan: I rise to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Kwan: I have a petition from the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant calling on the government to reinstate the arts cuts funding in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General; and in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 20, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

section 1.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise and ask a few questions around this very interesting provision. I'm just wondering if the minister can explain the effect of

section 1 and why the change is being made.

Hon. S. Thomson: Before I respond to the question, I'd like to introduce the staff that are here with me: Grant Parnell, the assistant deputy minister of Crown land administration in the ministry; Linda Bates, our manager of legislation; and Judi Sigurdson, who is the manager of trade policy in the ministry.

The purpose of the amendment is to…. As the member opposite may know, currently ranchers and farmers are exempt from the Animal Disease Control Act. The purpose of this amendment is to apply that same exemption to Alberta farmers and ranchers, to be consistent with TILMA. This is for when they are purchasing livestock for their own farm operations only.

L. Krog: I want to assure the minister that I'm here to get an education this afternoon around this issue. I have a few questions that might be helpful to me and might explain this fully to the public.

There is a TILMA aspect to this, I gather, from the minister's response. We're now supposedly putting British Columbia ranchers and Alberta ranchers on the same footing. Is there an advantage to British Columbia ranchers arising out of this?

[1435]

Hon. S. Thomson: This is an advantage to B.C. farmers and ranchers. What it does is give them better access to ranchers and business opportunities in Alberta. It opens up those opportunities for them. It reduces the barriers to trade and reduces costs for them.

L. Krog: I just wonder if the minister could be a bit more specific. It opens up opportunities. Does this mean that a B.C. rancher, for instance, can now purchase an Alberta farm more easily and operate more easily in the province of Alberta? Or does it mean that he can simply purchase livestock in Alberta and transport them back to British Columbia more easily? In other words, what are the specifics to that advantage the minister is talking about?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to clarify one point to make sure the member opposite understands that we're dealing strictly with livestock in this case. This has nothing to do with in terms of purchasing farms or property. This is strictly related to livestock. What it does is that it makes it easier for B.C. farmers and ranchers by exempting the Alberta farmers and ranchers and putting them on the same footing as B.C. farmers and ranchers in terms of recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

L. Krog: If I can kind of crystallize this for my mind…. I'm a cattle rancher in the Cariboo, and I want to buy some stock in Alberta, but I'm not a livestock dealer. If I'm a livestock dealer, of course, then I'm stuck with certain regulatory requirements, I assume, that are fairly onerous because of all the concerns around mad cow and everything else. And if the minister nods that I'm on the right track, that'll give me a hint that I am.

But if I'm just your ordinary, run-of-the-range rancher and I want to buy ten head of Angus out of Edmonton and bring them back, what this provision does is cut down the regulatory framework so that I can bring those back more easily.

Whereas if I was a livestock dealer, then I'm stuck with, I presume, regulatory and reporting requirements in order to exclude the possibility of disease or whatever else may be an issue for the governments.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, these amendments allow the farmers in both jurisdictions to be exempt from the requirements for bonding and licensing. What

[ Page 2495 ]

we're dealing with here are individual ranchers with their own livestock that have been raised on their own farms dealing with an individual farmer and rancher in Alberta.

[1440]

The livestock dealers' requirements are, as the member opposite mentioned, much more strict because of the volumes they deal with, because of the fact they are moving cattle for other people and things like that. We're simply putting farmers and ranchers in B.C. and farmers and ranchers in Alberta on an even footing.

L. Krog: If I can understand it…. If I'm a rancher in the Cariboo and I go to a livestock dealer in Edmonton and purchase ten head, then the provisions around the Animal Disease Control Act, etc., will apply to me and I'll have to meet a rigorous regulatory arrangement, so to speak.

Whereas if I'm a rancher in the Cariboo and I go to see my friend George in Edson and buy ten head, then I can bring those back without any concerns.

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear, this change does not make any change to the animal health requirements, safety requirements, as far as that side of it. All it simply does is exempt Alberta ranchers and farmers, doing business with a B.C. farmer and rancher on their own cattle, from the reporting requirements. Right now B.C. farmers and ranchers are exempt from that requirement, so if they are selling into Alberta, they're currently excluded. They're not subject to those same reporting requirements that livestock dealers are.

What we're saying is that for an Alberta farmer and rancher, on his own livestock, dealing directly with a B.C. farmer and rancher…. When they are selling their own livestock, they are on the same footing in terms of not having to comply with the same reporting requirements, exactly the same as we currently have for our B.C. farmers and ranchers.

L. Krog: If I get this straight, essentially, the purpose of this is to give an advantage to Alberta farmers now in dealing with B.C. farmers, which presently B.C. farmers enjoy in dealing with Alberta farmers, which gives us, arguably, comparative advantage.

Hon. S. Thomson: The member opposite has essentially got it right. What it does is make it easier to sell and do business between farmers and ranchers in B.C. and Alberta on their own cattle — both ways. The advantage flows both ways. It opens up the opportunities and makes it easier or gives an advantage or business opportunities and reduces costs to B.C. farmers and ranchers.

L. Krog: I think the minister is perhaps missing my point. I understood from his previous answer that right now a B.C. rancher gets to sell his cattle into Alberta without restriction,

whereas an Alberta farmer presently would face some restriction or prohibition on selling his cattle to a B.C. rancher in British Columbia. Is that the present situation?

Hon. S. Thomson: There's not a prohibition. Those sales can currently occur, but under the current regulation, without this change and the reason the change is being proposed, that Alberta farmer, doing business with the B.C. rancher on his own cattle — selling them — would now be classified as a livestock dealer and have to go through those requirements of bonding and licensing and reporting.

What we're simply saying is that we're exempting the Alberta farmer and rancher from that requirement that the B.C. farmer and rancher currently has, in order to facilitate business between two farmers and ranchers. So as I said previously, the advantage goes both ways.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, my point is that right now, the way I interpreted the minister's previous answers, as a B.C. farmer, I can sell my cattle to an Alberta rancher without incurring the provisions of this act,

whereas the Alberta rancher presently can't do that. We'll do this one step at a time. Is that the situation now?

[1445]

Hon. S. Thomson: Yeah, the situation is that the current B.C. farmer and rancher is not classified as a livestock dealer if he's selling his own cows or his own livestock and dealing directly with another individual rancher in Alberta. What we're simply saying is that we're putting the Alberta rancher on the same footing, opening up the opportunities for that B.C. rancher.

If he is looking to do business with and to bring cattle breeding stock or cattle from Alberta that he'd like to purchase, it puts the Alberta farmer and rancher in the same category, reduces those requirements. So not considering that Alberta farmer and rancher a livestock dealer — that reduces the cost, generally reduces the cost of doing business for B.C. farmers and ranchers. It simply puts them on the same footing.

L. Krog: So if I get this straight, right now as a B.C. rancher I can sell my cattle to an Alberta farmer without prohibition,

whereas an Alberta farmer cannot sell his cattle to a B.C. farmer without, unless he…. If he did, he'd be a livestock dealer and have to register. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, that's correct. Under the current regulation, he would be considered a dealer and subject to those reporting requirements — licensing, bonding. What we're saying is that when you're dealing with your own cattle, B.C. rancher to Alberta rancher….

This applies to a limited number of sales. We're not talking about the livestock dealers where volumes of

[ Page 2496 ]

cattle are moving. We're simply talking about business between an individual rancher in British Columbia and an individual rancher in Alberta.

L. Krog: So we've talked about selling. Right now, I take it, a B.C. rancher can buy Alberta cattle from a rancher there and bring them back, again without prohibition,

whereas an Alberta rancher couldn't buy B.C. cattle and take them back without prohibition. Is that right?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'm not sure. I think the member is talking about prohibition. There is no prohibition either way in terms of individual ranchers in B.C. dealing with individual farmers in Alberta. There are health and safety requirements and biosecurity requirements and those kinds of things to meet.

This doesn't deal with that. What we're simply dealing with here is levelling the playing field as far as the reporting and bonding and licensing requirements so that an individual Alberta rancher is not considered a livestock dealer when he's dealing directly with an individual B.C. rancher.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, we've got to the point that I want the minister to acknowledge, and I think he has acknowledged it. The fact is that this provision puts Alberta ranchers on a level playing field with B.C., when in fact, we have enjoyed an advantage up until this, and this is to comply with TILMA. Is that correct?

[1450]

Hon. S. Thomson: The advantage to the B.C. producer here is the fact that a B.C. producer — I'll just use an example — may want to buy a good breeding cow out of Alberta. Right now — because of the additional requirements they have, where that Alberta rancher would be considered a livestock dealer — that affects the transaction costs.

What we're doing is simply putting the B.C. rancher and the Alberta rancher on the same footing. That reduces the cost and reduces barriers to B.C. farmers and ranchers doing business with Alberta farmers and ranchers when we're dealing strictly between a B.C. rancher and an Alberta rancher and strictly with cattle and livestock that are from their own operations.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

L. Krog: I understand this change will allow for lay members to the board of management, the Association of Land Surveyors, much like the Law Society and other governing bodies of various professionals in the province.

What I want to know is: is this a government-driven initiative, or is this a request from the B.C. Land Surveyors? Is this a public request? In other words, where does the impetus for this change come from?

Hon. S. Thomson: This change was supported by the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors. This is simply about broadening the perspective and making sure that the decisions that that association makes are well informed. Consultation occurred with the land surveyors, and it is supported by that association.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Krog: What is the point of this particular change? The explanatory note indicates it changes the eligibility requirements for land surveying companies to whom a permit may be issued. I guess my first question is: what kind of permit are we contemplating, and why is the change necessary?

Hon. S. Thomson: The permit process that currently exists — that isn't changing. That's the permit that the association provides to the company. What is changing by this are the provisions around the makeup of the companies, but the permitting process doesn't change.

[1455]

L. Krog: I'd like concrete, simple examples that I can understand. So we've got two surveyors or three surveyors now who operate a surveying company. It's Letnick Bros. Ltd. or something — B.C. land surveyors.

The effect of this legislation is that if those three B.C. land surveyors are now the only shareholders of that company, then they could perhaps sell 25 percent of their shares to a lawyer who could hold shares, and they'd still be entitled to get a permit to act as B.C. land surveyors. Is that sort of the essence of this?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes. Right now you can't do that. With this change, the suggestion or the approach that the member opposite suggested could take place now under the change.

L. Krog: As I understand it, then, the minister is confirming that right now if you're a land surveyor operating through a limited company — and the proprietorship example is too obvious, but a limited company — in order to get a permit to operate as a licensed land surveyor facing all the professional obligations of the association, etc., that company can only belong to the land surveyors — not their spouses, not their cousins, aunts or uncles. It has to belong to the land surveyors, and this change will have the effect of allowing others to

[ Page 2497 ]

own shares in a company that operates a land surveying company.

Hon. S. Thomson: The provisions that are being proposed with this change will still require the majority voting shares to be held by surveyors.

L. Krog: The next question that flows from that is: is this a request from the land surveyors themselves? And if so, is the point of it simply to allow them to get other sources of capital, to spread income with spouses? What's the point of this, and is this in the public interest?

You know, the hybridization of professions in terms of ownership may or may not be in the public interest, so I want to hear the minister's comments on that aspect of it as well.

[1500]

Hon. S. Thomson: The proposed changes will provide relief to land-surveying companies regarding what I think are unnecessary restrictions in place on the ownership of the business currently. This will allow greater opportunity in terms of raising capital and could provide additional expertise.

It's expected that B.C. companies will now be more competitive in the land surveying business. These are currently the provisions that exist in Alberta, so it makes our companies more competitive. I think that's what is in the public interest. We want to make sure that our land-surveying companies are on a level playing field and have that opportunity to be more competitive.

L. Krog: Just to confirm. This was, in fact, a request for this change from the board of management of the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors?

Hon. S. Thomson: Consultation occurred. This change is supported by the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Krog: Just to confirm. This change is simply consequential on

section 1, I take it, in terms of including the definition. So if you reside in British Columbia or Alberta…. Again, it's to try and comply with TILMA. We're putting livestock dealers on an equal footing. Is that the effect of it?

Hon. S. Thomson: That's correct.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

L. Krog: This section, I take it, is simply doing what probably most British Columbians assumed it is, and that is that all the provisions of the Elections Act governing spending limits and all the regulation that goes with the general election will now apply in by-elections as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: With one qualification to what the member said. These are the provisions that deal with candidate expenditures. As the member knows, there are other parts of the act dealing with third party that are presently being litigated, and we purposely didn't touch any of those sections. The member is correct with respect to candidate expenditures.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

J. Horgan: As I foreshadowed in my second reading debates, I'm anxious to hear from the Minister of Energy the rationale for removing transparency from the Hydro and Power Authority Act. I'm wondering if the minister could perhaps introduce the staff that are accompanying him here and then answer that question.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will start by introducing the people and staff I have with me. We have, to my right, Les MacLaren and, to Les's right, Jennifer Champion joining us here today.

Thank you to the member for the question. The sections are really a product of the 1960s in this piece of legislation. What we're attempting to do here today in

section 6 of Bill 20 is to bring them up to date to reflect what the actual fact is today on what we do. As of April 1, 2009, for example, all Crown corporations, including B.C. Hydro, have been subject to open and non-discriminatory procurement requirements — under TILMA, for example.

[1505]

We believe that this is, from my perspective, an update. It will bring us in line with the modern-day procurement, whether it would be the different issues of power plants, as we're talking about. I know the member will get into that here in his future questions.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his answer, and I'm delighted to see both the capable staff joining him in here today looking dapper.

I appreciate the member's response. We had talked off line about why we were using a miscellaneous amendment act to remove directly from the Hydro and Power Authority Act provisions around tenders and, more importantly, the opening of tenders. So that covers

section 6.

[ Page 2498 ]

I'm wondering if the minister could direct me to or table documents at a later time or provide them to me at a later time — those references to B.C. Bid and TILMA where we can determine how it is that contractors seeking opportunities from B.C. Hydro would be assured that the open tendering process would continue under these other provisions.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I certainly will endeavour to get you that information, Member, as far as what you've asked under the TILMA and the B.C. Bid requirements for tendering.

J. Horgan: I just want to touch briefly…. The minister talked about modernizing the procurement process. Certainly, we look at statutes here every day. There's often archaic language, and that's a challenge for contemporary contractors.

I certainly find a value in having these provisions contained directly in the Hydro and Power Authority Act, and I'm wondering if the minister could just, beyond the explanation he gave in his preliminary answer, explain how it is an improvement for those who are accessing statutes.

Were I seeking to bid on a construction project, I would first go to the B.C. Hydro act. Again, with modern technology and the Internet and so on, B.C. Bid is a simpler way for modern procurement to take place, but I think there is some value in leaving these statutes or these clauses in place. Could the minister suggest to me why the removal of these is important when these other processes exist?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The update really is necessary, and the question is a good one. The scope is very narrow under 14 of the existing Hydro and Power Authority Act. It refers to power plants — what we're doing — and the reference is also to tenders. There are many other ways now, whether it be requests for proposals, requests for expressions of interest and so on. So this will bring it up.

It also is broader. It will cover goods, services and construction, as well, under TILMA. That's the information that we have said we would forward to the member as well. It broadens it out. It brings it into today's era.

I understand the member's question. As he said, people would go to B.C. Hydro. Also, B.C. Bid, for quite some time, has been utilized. I think most people are aware of it, but if there is an issue, such as a link from B.C. Hydro's website, we would endeavour to do that. If it's not there already, I believe it would be.

J. Horgan: I firstly want to commend the minister for not using acronyms. That's the trap that ministers of all political stripes fall into. Rather than saying "request for proposal," they say "RFP." Those that are reading the debate or watching the debate may not know what the heck we're talking about, so good on the minister for that.

[1510]

I just want to touch, then, on

section 15 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act. That, again, is the

section which is being repealed with respect to the prices then being made known. I want to just get an assurance from the minister that existing provisions within TILMA or B.C. Bid ensure that all bidders have access to not only the successful bid but to all bids that were submitted. My understanding is that that's guaranteed under

section 15 of the act. Will that guarantee be continued with these new provisions?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I can definitely give the member that guarantee. As a matter of fact, it will be as of November 3, 2009. B.C. Hydro has been making this information available on B.C. Bid's website, as well, for both tenders and requests for proposals.

This actually opens it up — greater transparency and the fact that you don't have to be there at the opening per se with the new technology that we have and the advancements. I think the public of British Columbia should be very happy with what they'll be able to access and see formally.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

J. Horgan: For those that are trying to follow without the aid of the documents that the minister and I and other members have in front of them,

section 7 is called the transitional provision of this repealing of sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act.

I'm wondering if the minister could just walk us through sections 7(

a) and 7(

b) so there's clarity on the dates. Of course, it would come into force at royal assent, but you did make reference to November 3, 2009, in your previous answer in terms of the transparency and access to tenders under the former

section 15. How will the transition process work?

Hon. B. Lekstrom:

Section 7, the transition, is really going to ensure that, rather than during this transition period — and as the member said, until this bill receives royal assent, it doesn't come into play — we can actually do the opening as it is today, which isn't just at their office. As I said, going back to November 3 was the date. It just bridges that so there isn't an inequity that people would fall back and say, "Oh, those had to be opened at the office of B.C. Hydro," when in fact they're actually posted now on B.C. Bid on line.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that answer. I'm just curious. This November 3 date — I don't believe Bill

[ Page 2499 ]

20 had been introduced at that point in time. Is there any magical reason for that? I assume that Hydro put forward their request for legislation through the leg. counsel. The papers were processed. Were they jumping the gun a bit on the November 3 date, or was it just convenient to do so in anticipation of the repealing of these sections?

[1515]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: November 3, to the member, for information, was actually…. That day was chosen…. That was the day after this bill was introduced. That was, I guess, the requirement under that for that date.

The other. These changes were actually drafted in February for the spring session, which would allow us to work in conjunction with the requirements under TILMA for Crown procurement practices on that.

J. Horgan: Is this the only amendment that the minister anticipates with respect to B.C. Hydro to be compliant with TILMA, or will there be other amendments in future miscellaneous amendments?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We're not aware of any other changes that would be needed.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

N. Macdonald: These are all pretty straightforward.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members.

N. Macdonald: Basically, the provisions we're going to look at here that relate to amendments under this look pretty straightforward. The people I've talked to seem to feel that they're fairly benign.

Just a couple of questions. The first one is on

section 8, which is an amendment to

section 8 of the Forest Act. It changes the maximum time for the determination of the AACs from five to ten years and gives greater power to the chief forester in determining the annual allowable cut by extending the maximum time that she or he must make an order. Just the question: an explanation of why that change was made?

Hon. P. Bell: The chief forester still determines in his or her own assessment when the appropriate time to do a TSR is. However, it will allow the chief forester to focus the resources in areas where there are changed circumstances. In areas that the chief forester, in their determination, believes are remaining consistent in terms of the circumstances — the health of the forest, the conditions of the forest in a given area — it simply won't require them to do an assessment when in their judgment it is not necessary. It just creates flexibility for the chief forester.

N. Macdonald: The changed circumstances, I presume, would have to do with infestations, perhaps, or a beetle kill. Just maybe related to that is one of the concerns that has been expressed, which is just about the lack of inventory information that we have right now. With this change, is there any concern that that would be problematic, or does the minister not see that as a concern?

Hon. P. Bell: The member asked initially what sorts of circumstances might trigger the chief forester's decision to do a TSR earlier than a ten-year period or a five-year period. He pointed out beetle infestations. That would be an example of one.

There may be other reasons why the chief forester would want to initiate a TSR — as an example, if one were to enter into an extensive fertilization program and wanted to monitor the results and determine whether that would create a potential uplift for the area; or land use decisions, where components of the land are preserved for one reason or another; perhaps a species-at-risk initiative, treaty measures and those sorts of things.

[1520]

The chief forester would look at all of the various circumstances that would impact the annual allowable cut in a given TSR and then make his determination on whether it was appropriate to engage in a timber supply review at that point in time.

There could be a variety of reasons. Some of the ones the member pointed out already. Other reasons could include land use decisions, species-at-risk initiatives, monitoring the incremental growth of the forest.

The member mentioned inventory as a concern. Would inventory information become depleted as a result of this? The chief forester is simply looking for the flexibility to not have to do a TSR in an area where he believes the conditions remain the same as they did on his previous timber supply review. The current rules don't allow that to happen. The current rules require the chief forester to do a timber supply review after five years.

This creates the flexibility for him to make the decision of his determination, and it is a statutory decision, not a political decision. So the chief forester is the one, ultimately, who has the responsibility to make that determination.

N. Macdonald: Just the last question, then. Presumably, this was driven by a request from the chief forester in terms of trying to create a framework that would work more efficiently.

[ Page 2500 ]

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

N. Macdonald: This provides for stumpage amounts to be calculated with the approval of the minister, based on a cruise of the timber rather than the volume reported in the scale of the timber. Really, just one question on that around: what are the circumstances that this sort of a change is intended for?

Hon. P. Bell: We already have the ability to sell wood this way through the B.C. Timber Sales program, through the ITSLs, or innovative timber sale licences. We want to be able to use those same principles for pricing timber in tenured volume as well, and particularly as it relates to homogenous stands of pine beetle–damaged timber.

So the intent is to be able to sell stands where the stand is very homogenous, where it's a relatively simple stand structure, to licensees who hold tenures, rather than using a scale-based system, cruising the stand and selling it and charging for the stand in that way.

N. Macdonald: Just quickly to build on that, then. This is seen as a tool that would be used in an exceptional way rather than a general way. It's just a tool that would be used in very few circumstances, or is it something that the minister would see using more regularly?

Hon. P. Bell: Initially, I think we believe this is a tool we would use in the pine beetle stands in specific circumstances where it's a relatively homogenous stand. But I think it has broader applications, and I think that it offers some very real advantages to the way we currently sell timber.

When the stand is purchased as a whole and it is 100 percent sunk cost on the part of the licensee, I believe that creates a stronger incentive to recover maximum value from that stand. The member knows that that's a personal priority of mine — that I want to see us capturing more value from the stands.

It eliminates a lot of the questions in a stand about tops, about grade 4 issues, about all of those sorts of challenges that come to bear. I like the model. I think it's a better way of charging for wood. At this point the intent is to use it primarily for pine beetle–infested stands, but I would not want the member to think that we aren't considering this as a broader tool if we find that it is successful in achieving our objectives.

N. Macdonald: Maybe just to spend a bit more time with it, because it sounds like it's one of the tools that you're going to use, as you say, to make sure that you get better utilization out of the wood that's there.

So the intention is, as I hear the minister say, to use it as a trial for a certain period of time. What sort of thinking is the minister doing about how you evaluate the effectiveness of the trial? Is there a plan in place to go for a specific period of time and have a specific evaluation to see if it's an accurate way of moving and it achieves the results that the minister wants?

[1525]

Maybe the minister could take some time and just explain the thinking around that.

Hon. P. Bell: We'll be monitoring the stands that are being influenced by this sort of a pricing system to see if we are attaining the objectives, particularly as it relates to maximizing value from the stand and decreasing waste volumes that are left behind in the stand.

I'm interested in seeing us piloting this, primarily in mountain pine beetle areas for now, but I'm interested to see how it would be received in other areas. So it is, I think, something that will take several years to move across the province.

I don't want to suggest that there's a preconceived conclusion here that it will be successful. I think we have to monitor it closely and make sure that it is achieving the intended result, but we want to have it as a tool so that we can extend it beyond where we're at right now.

I think, also, that this is a very helpful tool from the perspective of bioenergy. We've chatted on a number of occasions about bioenergy initiatives and capturing all of the stem as opposed to just the merchantable component of the stem. How do you do that, and how do you allocate that timber out to different licensees for use in bioenergy facilities — whether it's pellets, electrical energy or combined heat and power, or whatever it happens to be? This is, we think, another tool that can help achieve that objective.

A number of different reasons. It creates a new tool in the tool box. Initial use will be primarily in the pine beetle stands. We'll be monitoring it very closely to see if we're getting the results that are expected. We can still use either tool. It doesn't mean that we can only sell volume using this model. We can still use our scale-based systems that we've always used in the past. Then we'll make decisions going forward on whether we think this has greater applicability across stands that have a variety of species as well as homogenous stands.

N. Macdonald: So that's one piece in terms of putting a price on the forest, but you still have tools that you'll need to force the full removal of that. Even having paid for it, perhaps there still wouldn't be the economics for a company to remove all of the wood.

You're thinking of starting this in the pine beetle areas. Then, if it is something that proves successful, the minister sees expanding this to other parts of the province over a period of time. But the initial area will be in the

[ Page 2501 ]

pine beetle area around Quesnel, Prince George. Is that the thinking?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct — and down into the Williams Lake area, as well; perhaps into the Okanagan. Now we're starting to see stands there that have been hit. The Merritt area is another area that we could consider. It'll be a tool that's in the tool box.

The initial focus, as the member points out, will be in the pine-dominated stands. As we go forward, if we find success, we'll consider using it in other areas as well.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

N. Macdonald: This changes the Forest Act,

section 128, and it provides the minister the ability to use orders-in-council to allow log exports to include residual wood products up to 5,000 bone-dry units. Here, again, maybe just an explanation to begin with by the minister of the reason for the change.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: In the past, in order to allow for export of either hog or chips, the permitting process was by order-in-council. This gives the Minister of Forests the authority to make that decision as a statutory decision, as opposed to taking it to order-in-council.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

[1530]

N. Macdonald: Again, this is a change to the Forest Act. It allows the cabinet, essentially, to repeal by regulation this

section respecting the area-based allowable annual cut trial program. It doesn't seem to be particularly problematic. How is the area-based AAC trial proceeding now? How is that going?

Hon. P. Bell: We believe that we're having good success on this pilot. It was due to terminate shortly, so the initial thought was that we would extend it by legislation to a new timeline. I reconsidered that option and decided to create the flexibility to do it by regulation rather than bringing it to the House.

I think the question the member asked is: how is the pilot going? We think we're seeing some good success in this area and would like to continue it for a period of time. That's why this particular

section is here.

N. Macdonald: I think the final question is: is there any sense as to how long a period this will extend to? Clearly, February was too short a time. But are we looking at years from now? Or is it a pilot that will simply have a few more months to go on? Just a sense of how long the minister is looking at studying this.

Hon. P. Bell: Initially, we were thinking it might be just another year. We wanted to create the flexibility by putting in the date by regulation. Realistically, we're thinking probably two years.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

N. Macdonald: This seems to go back to the…. Well, it does go back to the revitalization plan, which was six years ago. Just a question as to why these changes would be made under the auspices now, six years later. Just an explanation of, I guess, why this is being done now.

Hon. P. Bell: We've not yet completed the deletions from the area-based tenures, so we need additional time to complete those deletions.

N. Macdonald: Does the minister have a sense of the time frame?

Hon. P. Bell: Depending on whether I turn to my right or my left, I got answers ranging from one to three years. This is primarily the wood that's being allocated to both first nations and woodlots. That's why it's taking a bit more time to identify the specific areas in area-based tenures that are appropriate for a first nations tenure or for a woodlot tenure.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

N. Macdonald: Just along the same lines. With this change here, as I understand it, the holders of tree farm licences are now going to be compensated for the reduction in their cut. Just an explanation there of why this change, and then we'll go from there.

Hon. P. Bell: This applies specifically to TFLs and areas that were deleted as part of the revitalization act in TFLs for woodlots, first nations, BCTS, community forests — that sort of thing.

[1535]

The Forest Act didn't contemplate compensation for TFLs and did contemplate compensation for volume-based tenures. So this is necessary in order to complete the compensation requirements under the revitalization act specific to TFL holders.

[ Page 2502 ]

N. Macdonald: Just to understand with the TFLs. When private land was removed, there was no compensation to the Crown. Maybe I just don't understand how the TFLs work.

Is it now the case that the TFLs are going to be treated the same as…? Or was it always the case they were going to be treated the same as the other tenures that were held in the province in terms of compensation? Was that always the intent, and it simply wasn't laid out in the language, or is this something that has changed from what was intended when this first took place six years ago?

Hon. P. Bell: That's correct. I should just highlight for the member opposite that we've always had the ability to compensate for improvements in the TFLs — so roads, bridges, planning, that sort of thing. This was for AAC reduction specific to the TFL. Because of the nature of TFLs, in the past you wouldn't have contemplated that. But because this is an extraction from the TFL, it's believed to be fair to compensate for that purpose.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

section 15.

S. Simpson:

Section 15,

part 6, the housing and social development amendments section, deals with the Community Living Authority Act.

Section 15 of the bill repeals a number of sections about the composition of the board under the Community Living Authority Act.

First of all, it says: "All directors, other than a director referred to in subsection (4), must have the necessary skills, qualifications and experience to direct the authority." That now is being removed as a requirement under this section.

Could the minister tell us: why would he remove a

section of the bill that talks about and obligates that directors should have skills, qualifications and experience to direct the authority?

Hon. R. Coleman:

Section 5 establishes a board of 11 directors comprised of a majority of directors who fit the definition of "community living support," who are significantly connected to those individuals. Two members must have a developmental disability. That's the current provision.

[1540]

The proposed amendment repeals the requirement that the board consist of a majority of directors who fit the definition and thereby doesn't require also the subsection (2) of the same section. Basically, what this amendment is going to do is enable us to make a selection to the board of members from a wider pool of individuals, bringing the board in line with provincial Crown corporation operations.

S. Simpson: What it says to me is that the board, which…. Under

section 5, the "Composition of board," "The board consists of up to 11 directors appointed by the minister," which is all good and fine. But the sections (2), (3) and (4) that this Bill 20 will repeal removes some significant components in terms of some of the people and the interests that are made up on that board and provides no guarantees of those interests, which are certainly legitimate to the community living authority and to families who are involved in these activities.

Again, I guess it comes back to the question I have. Why has the minister chosen to remove a reference in the current legislation that says "…members of the board have to have the skills, qualifications and experience to direct the authority," and stay silent on that question in terms of this legislation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member's assistance here, that

section that was in there before says: "All directors, other than a director referred to in subsection (4), must have the necessary skills…." The two sections — the sections go together.

We have Crown corporation board guidelines that basically say people have to have the skill sets to be directors, and they're selected through a board selection process through the board resourcing office of government. What we're doing is repealing that and bringing it back into line with the amendment so that it's for the wider pool of individuals to also match up to how we do every other Crown corporation in government with regards to selection of board members.

They are selected based on their skills and what the board skill set needs. It doesn't matter which Crown it is. Sometimes you need one person that's good on legal, somebody good on financial, someone good on certain things. You actually build that board around that. There are guidelines within government for how that takes place, so it doesn't need to be in here because this was an exception clause versus a directive clause.

S. Simpson: It's interesting that you would remove something that explicitly refers to the requirement for that skill set in the authority. But moving on to

section 5(3), which is also dealt with by this and repealed under this legislation. What 5(3) says is: "Subject to subsection (2) and

section 6 (2) (c), a majority of directors must be (

a) individuals referred to in the definition of 'community living support', or (

b) individuals who have a significant connection to the individuals referred to in paragraph (a), including family members."

It seems to me, and the minister can correct me, that this is the

section that ensures that a number of people who will be on the board will actually be people who have a direct relationship to the services of the authority, and they will have that relationship by being family members of people who have a developmental disabil-

[ Page 2503 ]

ity or fit the definition of members of community living support.

Could the minister tell us: why would the ministry make the decision to remove stakeholders — and this will be true in section (4), clearly, which requires that two of the directors must be individuals with a developmental disability?

So sections (3) and (4) are removing the people who have the most direct interest as stakeholders in this and providing no requirement at all — not a single requirement here — that those groups who have the vested interest, because of family members or because they have disabilities themselves, are going to have any representation on this board. Why would the minister do that?

Hon. R. Coleman: They're not precluded from continuing. Those that are there will continue to serve. If the member looks at subsection (6) of the same act, it also says: "The board must establish an advisory committee to the board composed of individuals referred to in the definition of 'community living support'."

[1545]

This is a $700 million operation. We were finding that, as far as the understanding and the development of long-term business plans dealing with the issues around wait-lists and that sort of thing, it was important to add some additional expertise on the board, and the makeup of the legislation actually restricted the ability to do that. We've made that decision based on that, and we will have the advisory committee to the board as defined in the legislation.

S. Simpson: The minister is saying "it doesn't preclude." That's not the problem here. The problem is that this

section quite rightly, in my view, in fact obligates that those folks have some representation, that they have a role on the board of Community Living B.C.

Now, I understand that Community Living B.C. has its problems, and I understand that there are challenges in Community Living B.C. But the reality is that this requires people to be on the board.

The minister may talk about an advisory committee, but there is a distinct difference between sitting on an advisory committee and sitting on a board of directors. They're not the same thing, and I'm sure the minister knows that.

Since the minister intends to remove all obligation of representation from families or people with developmental disabilities from this board — which will guarantee that not one single person who has a connection to developmental disabilities is obliged to be on this board — nowhere will that be a requirement. It is today; it won't be when this legislation passes.

Why would the minister do that? Can the minister tell that community what assurances they have that they're going to have any representation at that board table at all?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is correct. We're making the change. That is the change in the legislation. There will be an advisory committee to the board as set out in legislation, and that advisory committee will be fully struck. We may choose to disagree that this would come out, but that's what this

section does. I don't think there's any further explanation I can give the member than, actually, that's what we're doing.

S. Simpson: Just for those people who are involved with Community Living B.C…. I know that those people who face, sometimes, the challenges related to the work at Community Living B.C. can now know that they will have additional challenges, because this government has just said that the people who have disabilities, the families of people who have disabilities, are not worthy of playing a role in the leadership of this organization.

We are going to rip up the sections of this act that ensure that they have a role in the leadership of this organization. It's gone now.

That is sad, and it's unfortunate, and the minister may say that this is what we're going to do, and he truly, I'm sure, is going to do exactly that. But the loss will be to the families and people with developmental disabilities, and it will be a loss to the quality of work that this organization provides because they've removed those people from the board. It is a sad day that those people no longer have a role to play as legitimate stakeholders in this, because the government has chosen to close the door on them and turn their back on them.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am prepared to accept the criticism as to what the structure of the board will be, but I won't sit here and have somebody demean the people that work hard at Community Living B.C. every day and say that their quality of performance is going to go down because we're bringing in a professional board to help the organization build long-term plans.

I won't accept the fact that he makes comments about the corporation being in trouble because, quite frankly, the member knows very well that the funding for wait-lists has gone up. He knows very well they've just finished the whole process of dealing with IQ 70. I can accept the fact that there's a difference of opinion on whether this should or should not be in the act. I think that's fine.

But I can't accept just taking what I thought, at the end there, was a shot at the people that I think work very hard for developmentally disabled people in this province every single day at this Crown corporation, who I think have come a very long way in a short period of time building the programs and stuff as a management team and as the people who deliver on the ground on behalf of those folks.

[ Page 2504 ]

I'm okay with the disagreement on how that board should be structured. Of course we're going to have the advisory board, but I do think that we should make sure that we don't leave the impression that there's something wrong with the people that run this corporation.

[1550]

Sections 15 and 16 approved.

section 17.

S. Simpson: Just to confirm.

Section 17 repeals the aspect of the Homeowner Protection Act that actually provides for what is commonly known as the leaky-condo program and removes that program as an obligation under the Homeowner Protection Act for the agency. That would be correct?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, that isn't correct. What this does do is it basically repeals the current purpose of the act with regards to administrating a reconstruction loan program.

S. Simpson: The reconstruction loan program would be the program commonly known as the leaky-condo program, and it removes the administration. By that, are we to assume that once you remove that, the program, in effect, does not exist any longer other than having to meet the obligations that are referred to in

section 20 — those that are in play now but will presumably be completed at some point? It does end the program, essentially, in terms of any new applications or new initiatives around that program?

Hon. R. Coleman: What it does is it basically ends the program as of an effective date. There would be no more applications taken after that date, which was July 31, 2009.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: has there been any analysis done by the Homeowner Protection Office or by the ministry to determine whether, in fact, there are outstanding strata units out there that would, had the program continued, be eligible to avail themselves of the program? Has there been any assessment done of whether there are units out there, and if so, how many?

Hon. R. Coleman: This program was available to eligible homeowners of strata units constructed prior to July 1999. As of July 2009, these homes would be at least ten years old, and many of them are much older. At this stage, water damage would have been identified as a result of construction, but not necessarily because of poor maintenance. This is what we were finding on most of our applications. It wasn't actually relative to a construction flaw, which the program was initiated for.

Homes built after July 1, 1999, have been protected by a mandatory 2-5-10 home warranty insurance. Homeowners are not eligible for assistance under that on the reconstruction program for those.

This insurance today, which they have since 1999, provides coverage for the building envelope for five years. Water damage caused by building envelope failure is expected to show itself within five years. This has been going for ten.

Just so the member knows, the program was started…. It actually went for 11 years. It was supposed to be a $250 million program and deal with about 6,000 to 8,000 units. It has actually been a $700 million program and dealt with 16,000 units over an 11-year period.

It's gone the course of what it was intended to do by those who put it together. It has served the purpose of what it was supposed to do when it was put together. Today it's time to sunset that particular piece of the program.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the program has done what it was supposed to do for 16,000 units in the province.

The question I had for the minister: has the Homeowner Protection Office, B.C. Housing or any other area in government done an assessment of how many other homes, how many potential strata units there are out there, that may face the problems that this legislation, this program, was originally intended to deal with?

Is there an assessment anywhere of how many units may be outstanding and still face those problems and now not be eligible for a program?

[1555]

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, what we were finding is that the applications we were getting were not being approved. A lot of them that were coming through, quite frankly, were for a building envelope that had nothing to do with the reconstruction program.

The second thing is that we noticed our applications were way, way down, significantly, over the years, and we were not getting the applications in any sense. We also knew that water egress issues with regards to faulty construction should have been identified within the first five years of the unit.

There's been new warranty on all of the units since 1999. It's 11 years since the new warranties were put in place, and we've actually gone five to six years beyond when any water ingress or egress took place.

We were finding that we were getting applications on projects that were not eligible and that should not have been at the cost of the taxpayer to take care of because there were issues in and around owner responsibility, whether it was because somebody wasn't cleaning their gutters on a regular basis or taking care of their patios and construction or whether their maintenance wasn't

[ Page 2505 ]

there. That's what this was not intended to be for. It was actually intended to do with water egress issues in and around construction that created the problem with regards to leaky condos.

We have transitioned through what should be the time frame for those types of applications. But the definitive answer to the member's question is: is there a building out there today that may qualify? If it was under the actual rules that this was established on, I would say probably not likely because there will be other contributing factors to the fact that it has a water egress problem.

S. Simpson: Just getting back to the question. I fully accept that if there are applications out there that weren't eligible under the intention of the program, presumably those applications get rejected. Presumably that would have happened under the program. If people apply for the money and they're not eligible because the damage doesn't apply to what the program was intended for, then those applications get set aside.

The minister said he presumed that there might not be any buildings out there and explained some of the history here. Am I, then, to assume that the decision to cancel this program was made without an assessment, without the ministry or the Homeowner Protection Office having done any assessment of whether there are units out there or reasonably expected to be units out there that would have been eligible and now will not be able to apply? Was there no analysis done of that before the decision was made to cancel the program?

Hon. R. Coleman: We knew that the program had run its course. We knew that the applications were down. We knew that the ones that were qualifying were down. But more importantly, Member, this program was set up for a ten-year period. It was set up to meet a need because everyone knew that within five years you should know your water ingress or egress issues.

A building which would have been in the last year of construction before the new warranty would have been built in 1998 to 1999. So any water issues with that building relative to the construction should have been known by 2004. We gave it another five years after that, which I think is actually prudent. That's what the whole intent of the program was when it was designed in the first place.

Then the other thing that changed, quite frankly, is that at the time the leaky-condo issue was there, one of the biggest challenges and reasons that the reconstruction loan program was put in place was because property values were lower than the value of the mortgages, so people were unable to actually finance their reconstruction loan under traditional financing. The real estate market has changed since that particular period of time and has gone up substantially, and the equity has grown into the units.

The other thing we were facing, and the member will remember this, is the level of interest rates that we had at that particular time versus today. Today money is actually a lot cheaper and can be financed more directly with regards to this, including things like reverse mortgages and the things that have changed with regards to the ability to use equity. So all of that changed over that ten-year period.

[1600]

What the program was intended to do is done. We made the decision that we would sunset it because that was the entire intention of the program to begin with. We followed through on the intention with the exception that it was certainly a lot larger than it was intended to be when it was first put together in 1999.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that it was sunsetted. As the minister says, significantly more money was lent out with loans that were guaranteed, among other things, by government for this program. What that tells us, more than anything, is that there was an underestimation of just how big this problem was.

When the determination was made that this problem was much, much larger than was originally anticipated, I presume that the government would then have assessed whether that ten years in fact made sense — as the minister says, 11 years; there was an extra year of time on the program — or whether some additional time was required.

I've asked the minister three times whether there was any research or analysis done to determine whether there is reason to believe, with evidence, there are buildings or units out there that would have qualified for this program and are not going to be funded because the program has ended. The minister has not answered that question or been able to answer that question at this point, so I will assume for the moment that the answer is no, there was no analysis done and that, as the minister says: "The ten years was up. We killed the program."

The question that I have is: did the minister or the Homeowner Protection Office, in making the decision on killing the program, consult with organizations like the Condominium Home Owners Association of B.C.? Their executive director sits on the board of the HPO, I believe — or did.

Was there consultation directly with that organization to get some assessment from the people who are stakeholders in condos as to whether they had any information that might inform whether there were in fact units or buildings out there that would still need support?

Hon. R. Coleman: I can tell the member that this was a unanimous decision by the board of directors to do this. They made this decision. The member mentioned who was on the board. They made a unanimous decision to do this.

[ Page 2506 ]

Our research, which would not have been a big, broad consultation…. I mean, we can't go to every single building in B.C. and say, "What has your maintenance

schedule been like? How have you been doing with cleaning your gutters? Are you actually checking whether the grout around your windows is strong?" — or whatever the case may be.

The reality is that any building that had issues with regard to the leaky-condo issue should have known at year 5, and they got five more years to identify it. If they didn't identify it, it's because they weren't doing their maintenance. Or a strata corporation, for some reason, decided that they were going to turn another eye to it and not get around to dealing with their reconstruction loan application, or not actually going and getting the engineering reported because they preferred not to admit the fact that they may have a difficulty. That's not the responsibility of the taxpayer. That's the proper ownership responsibility of the people who own the units.

Frankly, all this

section does is sunset the program. The Homeowner Protection Office is still intact. It is now in a management operation with B.C. Housing. The board is still intact. We will look at the future of the Homeowner Protection Office, but the services that it provided — which aren't subject to this section; just the loan program — are continuing. But this is done.

The program ran its course. It wasn't this government that made the estimate of $250 million, hon. Member. It was the previous government. We agreed that we would have a program that would work over that period of time. We continued to do it for that particular issue that faced us in that particular envelope.

Today the warranties are stronger. Today the construction, things like rain screening, is stronger. We know there was an era of construction. There were some mistakes made early on in the program by the previous government in allowing to go back way more years than the actual construction flaws existed, as regards some of the people who could come into the program.

[1605]

They were buildings that weren't built under a building code or under the situations that actually created this. They were buildings that were just getting older.

In a wet climate you're going to have some issues with roofing, gutters, siding, trim and flashing and that sort of thing, which are ongoing maintenance. But the reality is that it went the 11 years. It has run its course. We made the decision that it was the right time to do it. The decision was made, and all this does is put the change in the law to implement the decision that's already done.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. That's what the program does, and this is the one opportunity we get to have a discussion about this program here in this place.

I appreciate that new buildings…. We know the work of the Barrett commission, which led to the establishment of this program. Hopefully, the warranty programs that were subsequent to that…. The minister, hopefully, is correct. We're not going to see, in buildings that were built post–that period, these kinds of problems. That doesn't take away from the fact that these problems may still exist in some cases.

The minister, though, in his answer, said that the decision of the board of the Homeowner Protection Office wasn't unanimous. Maybe the minister could clarify the process for this decision. Was it a directive or strong advice from the minister to the board of the Homeowner Protection Office that this should occur, or was it the Homeowner Protection board of directors that came to the minister and said: "We should kill this program"?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it was the board's decision to do this. They did it without the minister being there. However, I did meet with the board and explained to them that we thought this program had run its course. That was through discussions with both the CEO and the people with regard to the Homeowner Protection Office, with the board and the people who were advising us on other issues in and around housing, that this was something that needed to be looked at.

They agreed with that discussion. They made their own resolution, and the board made their decision unanimously to do this. Quite frankly, I was supportive of the decision. I also thought, when I'd had the discussion with the board, that it was the right thing to do, and so did other officials within government.

If you look at it, it's a program that was supposed to be $250 million for ten years. I remember doing debates back in the '90s during the Barrett commission. Actually, one of the members was then the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, I think it's called — whatever the riding is now. They keep changing the names of ridings.

At that time we actually had conversations where we thought it might be bigger than $250 million. We also recognized at the time — all of us involved in this discussion, both informally and formally — that this was probably a ten-year thing. Buildings would be reaching the point within five years of knowing what their issues were, and they should all be done within ten years. At that point in time the program should sunset.

If this is anything, it's an example of some work being done by one government, identifying an issue, identifying a timeline and the timeline working out, with the exception of the dollar amount, to what the timeline should have been to actually sunset this particular program. That's what this amendment does.

S. Simpson: Just one last question on this, and then I'll move on — hopefully, one last question.

[ Page 2507 ]

I just want to be clear. The minister, in a previous answer, said this decision was not unanimous. Then I believe he just said that it was unanimous — the decision of the board, in this recent answer. Was there unanimity on the board to do this? I might have misheard the minister. Just to get a clarification.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think that if you check Hansard …. You misheard the first answer. I said it was unanimous in both situations when I described the decision of the board.

Section 17 approved.

[1610]

section 18.

S. Simpson:

Section 18. I'll use this. This is the discussion. As we know, part of this program — the renovation program, the reconstruction program — was financed by a fee of, I believe, $750 a unit on new construction. Those are the dollars that were used to underwrite this program.

Could the minister confirm that that's where the dollars came from? And could the minister tell us whether those fees will continue to be collected by the Homeowner Protection Office?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is actually a housekeeping amendment. I'll just read the description for you: "This amendment is meant to clarify that the assessment under the Homeowner Protection Act,

section 26, is one of the fees that must be collected by the registrar. The assessment in the per-unit levy paid by residential buildings for new construction of multi-unit buildings in the coastal climate zone is where these are collected."

This is actually a housekeeping amendment, as it was always the intent of the Homeowner Protection Act to do that but that the registrar collect the assessment. Basically, it really clarifies that the registrar must collect the assessment that is imposed. It was just, I guess, an old drafting error that needed to be clarified with regards to this particular section.

S. Simpson: Maybe the minister could give me direction as to which of these two sections would be the appropriate place to have some discussion on the question of the fees — either under 18 or 19. I'd be happy to do it under either one. The minister can tell me which one would be the best place to discuss it.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think you could do it under either. They're both housekeeping amendments. Both of them are housekeeping amendments to the legislation. They are not germane to the operations of how things are today. The levy will continue to be collected, because there's a $700 million liability out there, or some loan liabilities that have to be taken care of. As those are extinguished, then the levy would be reviewed as we go through how the homeowner protection operation — and where it rests with government in the future — is managed, etc.

Basically, the levy will continue to fund the reconstruction program, including the payment of interest subsidies. It's expected that the majority of loans will be retired by 2020 on a ten-year loan repayment estimate.

S. Simpson: Well, maybe I'll just continue to get the couple of questions I have in relation to this done under 18, and then we'll be able to move through 18 and 19 pretty quickly.

The fee, the $750, continues to be collected. Could the minister tell us: what was the value of those fees — the collection, say, for last year and what we know — and what's the projection for the dollars that the office will collect this year?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's forecast that in 2009-10, the levy will bring in about $3.75 million.

S. Simpson: The minister spoke about the projection being that the loans…. I'm assuming that what we're talking about here is the interest that the government is paying on the loans on behalf of the people who are participating in the program, because we're paying the interest on this. That's where the $700 million comes from, largely — or the $50 million or whatever the loan is. I'm sure the minister has the number there. I don't have it. But the cost of the interest charges on that $700 million is what we're talking about — these fees being paid.

Could the minister tell us: how much of that are we actually paying in terms of interest? What's the outstanding interest or projected interest from now to 2020 that we're going to owe on this? Is the minister saying that the $750 fee will disappear after these loans have been retired?

[1615]

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't want to go into a lengthy estimates debate here with regards to this section, but I'm going to try and give the member the answer. If he wants more technical information, we're happy to provide it. I'll try and contextualize it.

There's an active loan program. The program has given out loans of $700 million or so over a number of years. I just want to try this for the members opposite. If we could just have a moment, because this is technical in nature, and I want the member to be able to hear it.

The active loan program is made up of 4,200 loans today worth $210 million, with an additional 38 co-op projects representing another estimated total of $32 mil-

[ Page 2508 ]

lion in interest subsidies due to CMHC between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2020. That's because we have a loan relationship on those, the ones with CMHC.

The interest paid to financial institutions is $1.722 million forecast for 2009-10. CMHC is $3.411 forecast for '09-10. Financial institutions — the present value of the loan and of those in the long-term liability, I guess you'd call it, on the financial institution side is $13.1 million as of September 30. CMHC issued $22.1 million as of September 30.

When our interest liability is extinguished, that's when we would extinguish the loan. That could happen quicker, depending on market. That's one thing we can't control. In actual fact, if these sold, the loans would be paid out, or our interest liability would extinguish by loan.

This is actually a pretty technical financial piece of this thing. If the member wants, we could give him a

summary of that, but we obviously weren't prepared to go into that much detail today.

S. Simpson: Maybe a

summary on that would be good. I don't want to dwell on this. I'm just trying to determine…. The Homeowner Protection Office is collecting $750 a unit. How much money is coming in? Where's the money going in terms of paying off those interest charges — interest that the government is picking up on behalf of people who are participants in the program?

I just want to figure out the basic math on how that works. I'm happy to just have that in a

summary from the minister. That would be fine.

In terms of that, I think that exhausts my questions in relation to 18 and 19. I think my colleague might have questions on another section.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

L. Krog: I would call this the meat of these sections, and I think the minister would agree with me. This is the provision that actually — how shall I say? — destroys the program. Is that a fair comment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah. Basically, this amendment gives effect to the government announcement that no new applications for financial assistance under the program would be accepted after July 31, 2009, and ensures that applications received after July 31 are not eligible for financial assistance under the reconstruction program.

This is the

section that puts…. The first

section was basically what was being cancelled. This actually finishes it up. We discussed what the major policy change was probably in

section 16 or…. I guess it was 17. But in actual fact, this is the

section that gives power to the major policy change that we discussed in the earlier section.

[1620]

L. Krog: I know that the minister has received numerous pieces of correspondence from across the province. In particular, in my own constituency the folks at the Creekside development, the folks who are in the condo tower at the corner of Vancouver Avenue and…. It will come to me in a minute. Those people have faced enormous costs.

Many of them, like many condo owners in British Columbia, are senior citizens, people on fixed income — people who, in the larger centres, certainly can't afford a single-family dwelling to the same extent that someone in perhaps Dawson Creek or Prince George could. These are people who are restricted, by income, to buying condominiums. It's not always a first choice.

For others, it is very much a first choice in terms of accommodation. They are too elderly to care for yards. They can't afford yard upkeep, so they've moved into condominiums.

As the minister is well aware, literally thousands and thousands of units across this province are affected by the leaky-condo syndrome, as it's called. It is very clear on the evidence that the buildings that have been discovered now to be leaky-condo units are certainly not the only ones. Indeed, builders have suggested to me — and people who work for builders — that they believe there are significantly more in my own community that will be discovered. The penny will drop shortly for strata councils, as they will in strata councils across the province, that they are in leaky-condo buildings.

The costs of repair now are becoming even more extraordinary, taking into account the initial survey to determine there's an issue, the engineering cost, the rehabilitation costs. It's not uncommon now to see something in the order of $100,000 or $150,000 easily. In my own community these may represent the costs of repair to a unit, which if in tip-top shape might be worth $250,000 or $300,000 in the market if it was certified by an engineer not to be a leaky condo. In other words, literally half of the value of these units is swallowed up in repair costs.

Now, for some of these people, particularly newer owners, if they have entered into a mortgage, as most people do when they make a first purchase, the cost of the repair added to the cost of the mortgage means there is absolutely no equity whatsoever. Indeed, there is what's referred to as negative equity — $50,000 or $100,000 or more, quite commonly.

If those people, those owners who are the victims…. They are almost invariably innocent purchasers who may have bought from innocent vendors, for that matter — ignorant vendors, not in the pejorative sense, but vendors who thought they had a marketable product to sell. Those people will face bankruptcy.

[ Page 2509 ]

You can argue that the ultimate responsibility will fall on the banks, the institutions that will loan them the moneys. Perhaps the Canadian banking system, being as strong as it is, is in a better position to swallow the loss. But in the meantime, those individual owners will literally lose everything.

For those individual owners, for instance…. The example I used and some of the buildings I used are dead accurate. If you're looking at $150,000 in repairs and your unit is worth $300,000 and you're living on a fixed income, without an interest-free loan, you will not be able to maintain ownership. So it will fall into foreclosure. As sure as the sun comes up in the morning, you will fall into foreclosure.

The human tragedy that flows from this is enormous. It affects thousands and thousands of British Columbians. It creates incredible concern in the real estate industry. It restricts economic activity. It discourages people from purchasing, because they're concerned about being stuck with this problem. It creates enormous uncertainty in the marketplace.

The cost to government, I would suggest to the minister, is minimal in terms of the economic impact across the real estate industry in general and amongst homeowners in particular. So my question to the minister is: what is the actual cost potentially to government to maintain this program, based on the current numbers, for another year?

[1625]

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank