British Columbia Hansard — Monday, March 10, 2014 (40th Parliament, 2nd Session) (20140310pm-Hansard-v7n9) (20140310pm Hansard v7n9)

20140310pm-Hansard-v7n9

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Monday, March 10, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 7, Number 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Monday, March 10, 2014 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 2013 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ................................................................................................................................ 2014 Bill 17 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014 Hon. S.

Anton Statements (Standing Order 25B) ......................................................................................................................................... 2015 Social workers G. Hogg Volunteerism and Saanich Peninsula volunteers G. Holman Accomplishments of Surrey-Tynehead MLA as RCMP offi cer M. Morris Best Buddies program G. Heyman Ann Kitching L. Reimer Farmworker deaths and safety R.

Chouhan Oral Questions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2017 Job creation and government job strategy M. Farnworth Hon. S. Bond M. Elmore Core review and hiring of persons associated with B.C. Liberal Party S. Simpson Hon. B. Bennett L. Krog Government action on poverty of single-parent families M. Mungall Hon. D.

McRae Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 2021 Bill 16 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2014 Hon. M. de Jong M. Farnworth Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 2022 Bill 3 — Missing Persons Act (continued) K. Corrigan Hon. S. Anton D. Eby N. Simons G. Heyman J. Kwan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2048 Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (continued) N. Macdonald Hon. S. Th omson A. Weaver B. Routley

MONDAY , MARCH 10, 2014 Th e House met at 1:34 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Hon. S. Bond: I t is my pleasure to welcome a very special group of British Columbians to the House today. Th ey are individuals in our community, both men and women, who do an exceptional job every day of ensuring that all of us feel safer in our communities. [1335] Th ey do much more than that. One of the things I re- member in terms of characterizing their work: they are the people in our community who run into buildings when most people are running out.

I think that speaks volumes of their courage and their competence. Th ey also support burn victims, and they teach our children how to be safe in their schools and in their homes. Today we are delighted to have over 100 fi refi ghters join us here in the Legislature as they begin their annual conference here in Victoria. Th e B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association is an organization which is com- prised of 53 locals that represent the professional men and women fi refi ghters of this province.

Th e profession- al fi refi ghters in many of our communities are trained to provide services other than the traditional form of fi re suppression, including heavy rescue, fi re safety and pre- vention. Today I take the risk of highlighting just two of the many members that are in the House, but I think it would be important to recognize President Michael Hurley, who is here, Secretary-Treasurer Gord Ditchburn and their entire executive. Th ey have worked tirelessly in order to improve working conditions for their members.

I know that every member of the House would want to say a profound and heartfelt thank-you and welcome each of them to the precinct today. S. Simpson: It's a pleasure for me to join with the Jobs Minister in welcoming fi refi ghters from across British Columbia here for their annual visit to the Legislature to speak with members of the Legislature on both sides. Clearly, the fi refi ghters, as a body across this province, really are just part of such an integral part of the fabric of British Columbia, about what makes our commun- ities strong and what makes our community successful.

We know, as the minister said, that these are the people who every day put their own safety and lives at risk to en- sure that we're safe. I want to express certainly the offi cial opposition's strong welcome to President Hurley and to all of the members who are here with us today. We look forward to the opportunities to meet over today and to- morrow, to have some important discussion and to hear again from the fi refi ghters about those issues that are critical to the success of fi refi ghting in British Columbia and to the safety and security of their members.

Certainly, on our behalf, a welcome to all of the fi re- fi ghters here, and all of the fi refi ghters across this prov- ince who aren't here in the chamber with us today. Michelle Stilwell: Today I would like to introduce Steve Arnett from the Nanaimo Y outh Services. Joining him today are three inspirational young ladies who have been supported by Nanaimo Y outh Services. It's a pleasure for me to introduce Sarah-Anne Jim, who has gone through the BladeRunners program along the side of Stones Boatyard owner, Nick Webster, who has given her employment. She has done such a great job there.

She has been employed for three years. Lindsey Lillian is a grade 12 graduate and currently looking into some future education at VIU in hairstyling. Ashley Frerich is the 2012 recipient of the Representative for Children and Y outh Awards of Excellence for Y outh Leadership. I would like the House to help make them feel welcome. M. Mungall: I'd like to introduce the House to Peggy Wilmot. She's with Faith in Action. Th ey do amazing work. Recently they've been doing work throughout the province to raise awareness about food bank usage in our communities. May the House please make her welcome. Hon. M.

Polak: I have two introductions. First, joining us in the gallery today is Alex Denis. Alex is Métis, ori- ginally from Port Alberni and is working in the Ministry of Environment as part of the province's aboriginal youth internship program. [1340] She has been working with the environmental emer- gency program on the development of a world-leading spill preparedness and response system for B.C., and will be working with the ministry until May. Alex will then spend three months working with an aboriginal organiz- ation as part of the internship program. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Th en secondly, my father, Peter Inkman, is not only a proud veteran of the Korean War; he's also a very regular watcher of question period. Today is his 85th birthday, so happy birthday, Dad. Would the House please join me in wishing him well. J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure today intro- duce three members of the B.C. Nurse Practitioners Association who are in the gallery today: Stan Marchuk, Donna Nicholson and Andrea Burton. Nurse practition- ers, as we know, are playing a wonderful role in our health care system and the future of our health care system — a 2013

British Columbia Debates2014 Monday, March 10, 2014 public, sustainable health care system. Nurse practition- ers play an absolutely vital role in a multidisciplinary team. Please make them feel welcome in this House. Hon. T. Lake: I, too, would like to add a warm wel- come to the Nurse Practitioners Association of B.C. As the member opposite mentioned, these are critical pro- fessionals to health care in our province.

We look forward to working with them to expand their role in the health care system in British Columbia and look forward to their team joining the rest of the health care team to provide excellent service to the residents of British Columbia. Will the House please, again, make them very welcome. V . Huntington: Joining Delta firefighters Shawn Cropley and Mike McMillan today is Jamie McGarva, who is a member of this year's award-winning cham- pionship team at the world fi refi ghters combat challenge. Jamie and his team make not only Delta but all of British Columbia proud. Please welcome him. G.

Heyman: A number of constituency assistants for myself and colleagues on our side of the House are here for a conference this week. Joining us in the gallery to- day is one of my constituency assistants, Jarrett Hagglund. He, along with Ashley Fehr and Reamick Lo, welcome my constituents into the offi ce warmly, whether they come with problems or they just come for a talk. It's an honour to have him in the House observing us today. I look for- ward to seeing him later tonight, because among his side skills, he's a great stand-up comedian. Please join me in welcoming Jarrett Hagglund to the House. D.

Routley: I'd like to make an introduction, but I'd also like to express that with the gallery so full of fi refi ght- ers, to a capacity I don't think we've ever seen, we may have exceeded fi re code. I'd like to add my introduction to the member for Parksville-Qualicum: Steve Arnett from Nanaimo Y outh Services, who is a real asset to the Nanaimo community, to young people and to families alike. Steve has a gracious way of bringing together the community and people who are struggling. He is very realistic about expectations so people don't enter into plans with false expectations.

He always delivers above those, so he has gained a credibility that is his own making and has served so many people. Th ere are so many young people in Nanaimo who have better lives because of the service that Steve Arnett has given to them and our community, so with great thanks I would welcome Steve to the House. C. James: As you noted this morning, hon. Speaker, today marks Commonwealth Day. For over 40 years the Monarchist League of Canada has been at the forefront of the promotion, education and non-partisan represen- tation of the Canadian Crown.

We have guests in the gallery today who are active members of the Victoria branch of the Monarchist League. I'd like to introduce Monique Goffi net Miller, Ken Lane, Daphne Massey, Lynda Witham, Val Holden, Diane Taylor and Rosalind Jordan. Would the House please make them all very welcome. A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a fellow climate scientist, Trevor Murdock, visiting here from the Pacifi c Climate Impacts Consortium. [1345] I might say, based on that vote two weeks ago, that we could use more climate scientists down here in the Legislature. Madame Speaker: Hon.

Members, it is my pleasure to advise that we have a Clerk visiting from another juris- diction to our House this week: Ms. Audrey O'Brien, Clerk of the Canadian House of Commons. Ms. O'Brien has held a distinguished career at the House of Commons and has served as Clerk of the House since 2005. She has served seven Speakers and ten par- liaments during her more than 30 years of service to the institution. She is also the fi rst woman to hold this of- fi ce. Please join me in welcoming Ms. O'Brien to British Columbia and to our House.

Introduction and First Reading of Bills BILL 17 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2014 Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014. Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be introduced and read a fi rst time now. Motion approved. Hon. S. Anton: I am pleased to introduce Bill 17, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014.

Th is bill amends the following statutes: Accountants (Chartered) Act; Accountants (Certifi ed General) Act; Accountants (Management) Act; the Adoption Act; the BC OnLine Act; the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Belt Tax Act; the Local Government Act, Community Charter and Vancouver Charter; the Mines Act; the Real Estate Development Marketing Act; Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act; Taxation (Rural Area) Act; Vital Statistics Act; Workers Compensation Act and various statutes related to nurse practitioners.

I'll just add a statement about the Workers Compensation Act, given the fi refi ghters in the cham-

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 10, 2014 2015 ber today. Th is proposed amendment to the Workers Compensation Act fulfi ls government's election commit- ment to restore heart disease in fi refi ghters to the list of presumptive diseases recognized by WorkSafe B.C. Th e bill also makes validating provisions and a number of consequential amendments. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a fi rst time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Statements (Standing Order 25B) SOCIAL WORKERS G. Hogg: Th is is Social Work Week in British Columbia, and March is Social Work Month in Canada. While we recognize them this week, we appreciate their work each day of the year. Social workers travel with police offi cers to save abused and neglected children. Th ey support individuals and families in all stages of life, and they console families aft er deaths.

Social workers recently drove through a snowstorm in northern B.C. to save abandoned children. Th ey are oft en faced with the most diffi cult of deci- sions — decisions that will have a lifelong impact on the individuals and the families they serve. Th ey make the best decisions possible with the information available, and they can do everything according to the very best of practices and still have a negative outcome. We cannot accurately predict human behaviour. Social workers are guided by purpose and are driven by a calling to improve the health and well-being of those they work with.

Th ey respect and honour their judgment in making life-altering decisions on behalf of all of us. Social workers and clinicians are dedicated advocates for human rights, for an inclusive society and for social justice. Every day they fi ght discrimination, open doors of access and create opportunities for those in need. Th ey strengthen our communities, build relationships and enrich lives. Th ey believe in the dignity and worth of people.

Th ey nurture diversity and help to build bright- er futures by helping us all to understand the benefi ts of looking aft er each other. [1350] Please join me in thanking our social workers for their dedication and service for improving the lives of all British Columbians. VOLUNTEERISM AND SAANICH PENINSULA VOLUNTEERS G. Holman: I want to recognize today the value of volunteerism in British Columbia and some of the in- credible volunteers in my constituency.

According to Volunteer B.C., 1.5 million B.C. volunteers contribute 114 million hours a year to make our communities better, which is equivalent to about 60,000 full-time jobs. Sorry, I can't help but translate this into monetary terms. I'm an economist. At an average wage of $30,000, the equivalent wage value would be about $1.8 billion per year, although the benefi ts of the services volunteers provide extend well beyond their monetary value. Every community and region in British Columbia has reason to celebrate its volunteers, and the Saanich Peninsula is no exception.

Some of these volunteers were recently recognized at the Hearts of the Community Awards in Sidney at the Mary Winspear Centre. Of the 20 award nominations, seven were youth who now have a head start in shaping the hearts and minds of their peers and their community. I want to take a moment to briefl y recognize the win- ners of some of the awards and their specifi c contribu- tions.

Sheila Bell is a volunteer at the Saanich Peninsula Hospital whose philosophy is to help doctors, nurses and other staff at the hospital to be as eff ective as pos- sible and to make sure they understand how highly they are valued in the community. Melissa Rickson is a grade 12 student who volunteers at numerous organizations in our community, particularly with residents at long-term care homes. Graham Debling is a passionate history en- thusiast who has put years of work into improving and expanding the Sidney Museum.

Crystal Underwood is a Tsawout First Nation high school student from Stelly's Secondary who pioneered the inclusion of the traditional Sencoten language into her school's curriculum for grade 9 to 12 students and who gave a speech in her language at the Strength of a Woman conference at the University of Victoria. Sage Broomfi eld is a Claremont Secondary student who…. Madame Speaker: Th ank you, Member. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SURREY-TYNEHEAD MLA AS RCMP OFFICER M.

Morris: In July of 2012 an off -duty RCMP offi cer was enjoying a walk along the wharf in White Rock when he was alerted to a person struggling to stay afl oat in the water. One bystander jumped in to assist but was having diffi culties due to the state of panic the individual was exhibiting. Th e RCMP offi cer quickly jumped into the ocean waters and was able to calm the individual down and assisted him in getting to safety. Th e individual who was saved was very intoxicated and would have surely

British Columbia Debates2016 Monday, March 10, 2014 drowned had it not been for the quick actions of this off - duty RCMP offi cer. Last week that offi cer was formally recognized by the RCMP for saving the life of that very intoxicated person. Th is was not the fi rst time this particular RCMP mem- ber was formally recognized by the RCMP . In 1991, four years aft er he joined the RCMP , he received the RCMP Commissioner's Commendation for Bravery when he rescued an unconscious woman from certain peril. I fi rst met this RCMP member in 1993 when I was the RCMP human resources offi cer for southern Alberta.

He struck me then as a person who would make signifi cant contributions to Canadians as he developed his career. In 2001 he received his commission in the RCMP and was transferred to British Columbia. During his service in the RCMP he has been the recipient of the RCMP Long Service Medal, the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. It gives me great pleasure to recognize the accom- plishments of this retired member of the RCMP and his continued dedication to serving the people of British Columbia, now as the Minister of Advanced Education and member for Surrey-Tynehead.

BEST BUDDIES PROGRAM G. Heyman: March is Best Buddies Month, and no, that doesn't mean we're going to take a kinder, gentler approach to question period. Best Buddies is a volunteer movement that partners students with and without intel- lectual disabilities for one school year. Every March Best Buddies Canada and chapters across the country try to spread the word about their program. It fosters friendships. It fosters leadership development.

It supports integrated employment for people with in- tellectual and developmental disabilities such as Down syndrome or Williams syndrome. [1355] Buddies get together twice a month — once in a one- on-one activity and once in a group activity. Th ey grow and build amazing friendships amongst each other. Th is gives children and adults with intellectual disabilities an opportunity to develop their personal interests, to build self-confi dence for emotional growth and to build social networks and independence. Th e goal of Best Buddies Canada is simple. It's to raise awareness and create inclusivity.

Th e benefi ts are not just for the people with intellectual disabilities. Other stu- dents, faculty and staff get to experience and grow from the diversity and potential that they see fi rsthand and that these students with disabilities possess. A little over a week ago I had an opportunity to attend one of the Best Buddies Month events in Vancouver- Fairview. It was held in a bookstore. Th ere was great enthusiasm, joy, warmth and camaraderie among the people who were there. Best Buddies is providing support and the networks ne- cessary to develop inclusive communities.

Best Buddies Month helps to spread the word to the community and to potential future volunteers. It's a life-enriching and life-changing experience for all. I'm happy to have this opportunity to help spread the word. ANN KITCHING L. Reimer: Last week I had the great honour to speak to the House about International Women's Day. Today I rise to recognize a remarkable woman from my con- stituency, Ann Kitching, who exemplifi es outstanding leadership and a passion for community-building.

Ann was presented with the keys to the city of Port Moody this past December, when she was awarded the Freedom of the City, the highest honour that the city can bestow on an individual. Ann moved to Port Moody in 1978, working for Douglas and Kwantlen colleges, becoming principal of Fraser Pacifi c College in Richmond and then serving as a senior administrator for the board of Douglas College. Aft er retiring in 1997 she turned her talents toward the creative fi eld, becoming a renowned fi bre artist and play- ing an integral role in establishing Port Moody as a City of the Arts.

Ann contributed to the arts and cultural strategic plan for Port Moody, and in 2013 Ann was a member of the Port Moody centennial committee, working with a team of local fi bre artists to stitch a large commemorative piece for the 100th birthday celebrations. Ann is currently president of the Port Moody Arts Centre and chairs the wearable art committee, a committee that puts on a fabu- lous yearly wearable art fashion show. Over the years Ann has sat on several dozen civic committees. Ann is a true gem in Port Moody. Her incredible com- mitment, passion and dedication to the community is appreciated by us all.

I rise in the House today to recog- nize Ann Kitching, an inspirational, creative and exem- plary woman. FARMWORKER DEATHS AND SAFETY R. Chouhan: Two days ago, on Saturday, I was able to attend a candlelight vigil in memory of three farmwork- ers who were killed in a roadside accident seven years ago. I was joined by my colleagues from Surrey-Newton and Surrey-Whalley. Th is candlelight vigil was organized by the B.C. Federation of Labour and the families of three women who were killed in the roadside accident on their way to work seven years ago.

Th e three women, Sarabjit Kaur Sidhu, Amarjit Kaur Bal and Sukhwinder Kaur Punia, were the ones who died in that accident, and 14 others were also seriously injured. It was the fi rst day for Sarabjit to work and her last day on earth. She was a young mom of three young children

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 10, 2014 2017 — Avneet, Avnoor and Sukhman. Sukhman was only 15 months old at the time of the accident. For seven years these families have lived in grief — with grief from a needless tragedy. Th ey're still seeking answers to so many questions. A coroner's inquest was held aft er the accident. Many of the recommendations made by the coroner were accepted. Some are still to be implemented. Th e harvesting season is about to start.

I hope the thou- sands of farmworkers — who will be again travelling with these labour contractors in their vehicles — will be trav- elling in safe vehicles. We must have the collective cour- age to make sure that no other farmworkers will ever be put in a tragedy like this. [1400] Oral Questions JOB CREATION AND GOVERNMENT JOB STRATEGY M. Farnworth: In September 2011 the Premier said creating employment was her "primary mission." She spent $17 million of taxpayers' money to run partisan ads claiming success about the so-called plan.

On Friday the latest job numbers came out: 10,400 jobs lost in the last month alone. Clearly, not mission accomplished. My question to the Premier is this. Why is the Premier failing so badly at the one thing she said was her primary mission? Hon. S. Bond: We're very pleased and proud that we have a strategy for job creation in British Columbia. If we look at the data, in fact, the net number of new jobs since the jobs plan was created is in excess of 36,000 jobs. Now, we're not going to rely on monthly numbers that fl uctuate. In fact, last month in British Columbia the job numbers went up in the province.

What I can tell the members opposite: we are committed to a long-term, ag- gressive strategic plan that will see the increase of family- supporting jobs in British Columbia. Madame Speaker: Th e member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental. M. Farnworth: Temporary foreign workers isn't a job strategy. Slogans B.C. isn't a job strategy. Putting people to work — that's a job strategy. For the last 30 months, since the Premier announced her job strategy, this province has had the worst pri- vate sector job creation record in the country.

Th ere are 150,000 British Columbians looking for work, and that doesn't include the hundreds in Quesnel and Houston who will be out of jobs this spring when their mills shut down for good. Hon. Speaker, 30 months with the worst private sector job creation record in the country. Perhaps the Premier can tell us: why is every other province in the country doing a better job than British Columbia when it comes to job creation? Hon. S. Bond: We've been clear on this side of the House. As we look at job creation, it is a long-term pro- cess.

Th e kinds of increases that we want to see in British Columbia — we're going to work harder. We've been clear. Of course we're disappointed by the slow economy, the slowing economy, the chance to see those numbers increase, but we have done all of the things that are ne- cessary to put the fi nancial foundation in place. We are one of two jurisdictions in Canada who have actually managed to control spending and bring our- selves to a balanced budget in British Columbia. We have concentrated on ensuring that British Columbia has a competitive tax regime.

When we needed to look to ex- pand markets, we've seen incredible increases in exports, allowing mills to stay open, for example, in the forest sec- tor that simply would not have if we had not made the eff ort to reach out to Asian partners. We have a plan, we're going to work harder and we're redoubling our eff orts, because we know that we have put the fi scal foundation in place to create jobs in British Columbia. M. Farnworth: Well, it's nice to hear the minister say she has a plan. I guess that's what the Premier meant when she said: "I think we're beginning to see results." [1405] Well, guess what.

Aft er 30 months, we are seeing re- sults: the worst record of private sector job creation in the country. Th at's a fact — the worst record. Th at may not mean anything to the minister, but for 150,000 people looking for work in this province, 30 months of the worst job creation in the country is thin gruel. And 12,000 people have left this province, seeing opportun- ities elsewhere, because they've given up on the Premier's jobs plan. My question to the Premier is this: what are other provinces doing right that this province is doing wrong?

Is it the fact that they're not relying on slogans and plati- tudes, that they have a real jobs plan? Hon. S. Bond: I would fi nd it hard to believe how having one of two balanced budgets in the country is a slogan. I fi nd it hard to believe that a slogan actually rep- resents the fact that we are one of very few jurisdictions that have a triple-A credit rating in our country. Let's talk about thin gruel. Let's look at a headline in the Times Colonist on April 25, 2013.

Here's what it said about the Leader of the Opposition: "Th e Leader of the Opposition Lays Out the NDP's Election Platform and Comes Up Empty on Jobs."

British Columbia Debates2018 Monday, March 10, 2014 M. Elmore: I'd like to draw the attention of the min- ister to the issue and the reality that we have the worst job loss in the private sector in Canada. Th at's the reality in British Columbia. It's British Columbians out of work, looking for jobs that this Liberal government has not delivered on. Last month B.C. lost another 10,400 jobs. Since September of 2011, when the Premier said her "re- cipe is that we grow a thriving private sector," B.C. has the worst private sector job growth. Not second-worst. Not third-worst. Worst.

Last place in private sector job creation. Will the Liberals admit the Premier has failed to cre- ate jobs and bring in a real plan to get British Columbia working? Hon. S. Bond: Well, perhaps we should actually get the fact around unemployment rates in the country on the table as well, rather than just the selective facts being suggested on the other side. British Columbia currently has single-digit unemployment in every area of British Columbia. In addition to that, unemployment rates are signifi cantly below the national average, and, in fact, we are fourth-lowest in the country. I know this.

It's very interesting that suddenly today the members opposite have decided that, potentially, they might just want to talk about job creation in our province. First of all, I look forward to hearing from the members opposite about liquefi ed natural gas in British Columbia. Are they supportive of it, or do they oppose it? I'll wait to hear in the next answer whether or not they actually sup- port projects in British Columbia that will create thou- sands of new jobs. [1410] Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver- Kensington on a supplemental. M.

Elmore: Well, this is a fact: B.C. has the worst em- ployment rate west of the Maritimes. Th at's a fact. Th irty months ago the Premier said job creation was her pri- mary mission. A year later she said her plan was success- ful, even as B.C. was shedding private sector jobs. Two years later the Liberals say they're achieving great things in employment growth. Last week the Premier said that we're seeing the results of her plan. Now, 30 months aft er she made these big promises, all we're left with is her empty words. B.C. has the worst record in private sector job creation.

Th e words British Columbians deserve to hear are the Premier admitting her so-called plan has been a com- plete failure. Will she tell us what changes she's made to her plan to ensure that we stop having the worst record for job creation in Canada? Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite thinks if she just repeats it enough, British Columbians might be- lieve it. We laid out a plan, and I think it's clear, looking across the aisle, whose plan British Columbians believed in. It was this side of the House. So we should be clear….

Just to correct the record for the members oppos- ite, when you look at private sector job creation from February of 2013 to February of 2014, British Columbia ranked third. What I'm looking forward to over the next number of months is whether or not every single member of the opposition is going to stand up and support an industry which is going to create thousands of new jobs. Is it yes, or is it no? I want to point this out to the members opposite.

If they can't even agree on what it takes to get the product out of the ground, I can assure you, they're not in favour of seeing exports and brand-new jobs in an industry in British Columbia. CORE REVIEW AND HIRING OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH B.C. LIBERAL PARTY S. Simpson: We know there's been some job creation going on in this province. We know that while average British Columbians are still struggling to fi nd work, the B.C. Liberals are making sure their partisan friends are fi nding soft landing spots.

While B.C. remains in last place in private sector job creation, the Premier has found more than $1 million a year to pay perks and pa- tronage appointments — $1 million to hire 20 failed can- didates and Liberal insiders. No jobs created for British Columbians, but good-paying jobs for their friends. On July 18 the minister said to the media: "We will look at everything. We're going to look at absolutely everything. Th ere is nothing sacred in this." Will the Minister for Core Review tell us if the Liberal pork-barrel program will be looked at as part of his mandate? Hon. B.

Bennett: It reminds me of the question about beating one's spouse. No, I don't. Th e answer to the ques- tion is that we're actually proud on this side of the House of the way we do appointments in this province. [1415] When we were fi rst elected in 2001, what we found was that we had NDP constituency assistants, NDP campaign managers, NDP friends on all of our boards and agencies in this province. Th at was the state of aff airs at that time. Th e then government of the day…. Interjections. Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, it's diffi cult to an- swer…. Madame Speaker: Hon. Members. Hon. B.

Bennett: We created an agency within gov-

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 10, 2014 2019 ernment that we call a board resourcing offi ce, and we created a skills-based appointments process that we're actually quite proud of on this side of the House. Instead of having, for example, in my region…. Th at's a good place for me to talk about as an example. For example, the Columbia Basin Trust today has people who are ap- pointed to that board who have the skills to contribute to the operations of that agency.

When I was fi rst elected in 2001, there were constitu- ency assistants, there were campaign managers, and there were close personal friends of the NDP who were on that board. So we have actually cleaned up that side of gov- ernment, and we're quite proud of that. S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, 15 failed Liberal candi- dates getting jobs valued, some of them, at over $100,000 a year. Th at's what you call integrity on the Liberal side of the bench. Th e minister told British Columbians that the core re- view would think of the single mom earning $35,000 a year who pays the government a few thousand annually in taxes.

Th e minister said: "We want to make sure that every single dollar that's being spent by a ministry or a Crown corporation is treated respectfully." How respectful is it when a government says one thing to the single mom and then fi nds more than $1 million to pay off defeated candidates and friends? And this doesn't even include the 300-plus people that this government employs, which the Liberals employ, in communications staff to prop up the Premier and the cabinet. If this government was really committed to making tough choices, it would start by looking in the mirror.

Will the core review look at the full cost of Liberal pork- barrel programs, and will he tell British Columbians what value they get for the millions they'll be spending over the next four years for spin doctors and defeated candidates? Hon. B. Bennett: One thing we're not going to do is siphon off constituency funds from MLA accounts — money that is supposed to go into constituencies to help constituents, whether they are rural or urban.

We're not going to make a secret compact with our MLAs to take money from them, which is supposed to be going to help their constituents where they live, and use it to ad- vertise. Th at's what the other side of the House did just prior to the election. Very proud of what we're doing in core review. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Th e minister will conclude his re- marks. Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Speaker, they clearly don't like hearing about this. Th ey didn't like hearing about it at the time, and they don't like hearing about it now.

It is the most egregious use of constituency funds of anything that I have ever seen in my 13 years. It was disrespectful to the people that they are accountable…. Which one of them over there, I wonder, went to their constituents and actually apologized for taking money from their constituency so they could advertise down here in the Lower Mainland? [1420] L. Krog: Well, we're all very glad that minister is in charge of the core review. If you want to talk about the trough, if you want to talk about how governments oper- ate, the best thing to be in British Columbia is a losing Liberal.

If you're Nick Facey, the unsuccessful candidate in North Island, you get a newly created chief-of-staff position with perks and benefi ts closing in on $110,000 per annum. Th ere are 20 B.C. Liberals — including failed candi- dates Gabby Kalaw, Hector Bremner and Fatima Siddiqui — and they're all there making money at the public trough at the very time the B.C. Liberals say that we can't do anything for people in public education or people on so- cial assistance. My question is to this minister over there in charge of the core review.

Is he going to actually look into the pork- barrel program to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to hire failed Liberal candidates? Hon. B. Bennett: It's important that we put this in context, I think. I was just handed some information on what the NDP government spent on advertising just be- fore they were unceremoniously dumped by the elector- ate. Th ey spent $21.38 million on advertising. Th is year, this government, the blue book amount is $8.5 million. Staff budget. There have been questions directed around the cost of staff . Interjections. Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Please continue. Hon. B. Bennett: Th ere have been questions around comments in terms of staff . Th e staff budget for the out- going NDP government was $39.29 million. It's cur- rently $2 million less than that, and that's with 14 years of infl ation. I'm actually very proud of what the core review pro- cess is accomplishing. Th ere's lots more to be done. We have found a couple of agencies that the taxpayer can do without.

I know that the opposition didn't support that, but we're trying to fi nd ways so we can do things for less taxpayer dollars so that we can take those dollars and apply them elsewhere in government. We think that is part of the reason why we were chosen

British Columbia Debates2020 Monday, March 10, 2014 as a political party over the NDP . Madame Speaker: Recognizing the member for Nanaimo on a supplemental. L. Krog: I know that the minister doesn't want to an- swer the question. But I just want to talk about a couple more Liberal friends. Let's talk about Kenneth Fung, who got onto the UBC board of governors, the biggest pub- lic institution in the province. Let's talk about Gordon Wilson, who just managed to get an extension for his $150,000 patronage appointment. Now, what is it that Gordon Wilson and Kenneth Fung have in common? What is it?

What is it they have in com- mon? Th ey're both…. Interjections. Madame Speaker: Member. Member, just wait. Please continue. L. Krog: What is it that Gordon Wilson and Kenneth Fung both have in common? Well, they both like to phone in to radio shows, and being modest, they don't use their own names when they do it.

Now that we're rewarding people who phone in to radio shows using fake names with $150,000 jobs and putting them on the board of governors of UBC, I just want to again ask the minister: with the core review, are they actually going to look into this pork-barrel program for failed Liberals and their Liberal friends? [1425] Hon. B. Bennett: Th e opposition has opened an in- teresting but — I fi nd, personally — somewhat revolting area of inquiry. We ran in the 2013 election as a party that was going to work hard to try and do what government can do to turn the economy around.

We promised that we would balance the budget. We have done that. We promised that we would do everything we could to retain our triple-A credit rating so we weren't spending $2 billion more on interest than we had to. And we promised the people of the province that our leader and everyone else in this caucus would act in an ethical manner. Th e people of the province chose us. Th ey chose this side of the House. Th ey chose to elect us not only because of our profi ciency at dealing with economic issues but also because of that other piece — the ethics.

Th ey chose this side of the House because they knew they could trust us and they knew they couldn't trust them. GOVERNMENT ACTION ON POVERTY OF SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES M. Mungall: In 2010, 20 percent of B.C.'s single moms and their children lived in poverty. A year later, in 2011, median incomes for single mothers dropped by more than $10,000 to just $21,500 per year. Th e massive de- crease in income left half of all single mothers and their children living in poverty. My question is to the Minister of Social Development.

Now that the Liberals have found jobs for their friends and failed Liberal candidates, are there any resources left to truly tackle child poverty in this province? Hon. D. McRae: It's really important that we make sure we treat all British Columbians with dignity and re- spect, and there are things that we can do in this govern- ment to make their lives a little easier. I'm very pleased to say that there are 800,000 persons in British Columbia who pay no MSP premiums. I'm pleased to say there are over a quarter of a million individuals in British Columbia who do not pay PharmaCare.

And if you make under $19,000, you do not pay personal income tax in British Columbia. Th at being said, there's more we can do. One of the things, sometimes, single mothers could use, when it's the right stage of their life, is to have a job. Th ere are 128,000 people we've served through Employment B.C. Now, in that time, we've been able to fi nd jobs in that sector for 40 to 50 percent of those individuals. Why? Because they are a sector that struggles to fi nd work, and this government is there to assist those individuals. M.

Mungall: Just telling people to go get a job without proper child care, with cuts to employment programs, is not going to help the single moms living in poverty and their kids. Th at's why B.C. has had the worst rate of child poverty in this country for ten long years. B.C. has the worst rate right now for private sector job creation. Th at's a reality. Now we see that poverty rates for families headed by single mothers have more than doubled under this government's watch.

Again, when will the Liberals start off ering more than rhetoric, more than slogans and start taking real action to reduce poverty in this province? Today, Minister. Hon. D. McRae: One of the reasons that I ran for this party — and I think many people support this party — is because we want to make sure we serve all British Columbians. [1430] I'm very proud to say that one of the programs that aff ects all British Columbians in a positive way, if they have children, is StrongStart. Th is government started it. We've grown it in British Columbia. It provides great benefi t to individuals across this province.

Not just my daughter next year will start all-day K, but all children in kindergarten next year will have the op- portunity to take kindergarten all day. It's a benefi t to my daughter and to daughters and sons across the province

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 10, 2014 2021 of British Columbia. I'm also very pleased to see in the budget this year that not only do we balance the budget but we're also going to be introducing, in the future, a $650 early childhood tax credit, which will benefi t families who are bringing up young children across the province of British Columbia. Lastly, I just can't rise in this chamber and not bring up the disability white paper consultation process, where we're asking families across British Columbia, whether they have a disability or not, what we can do to do more.

I'm pleased to say that the response has been so positive and suggestions have been so meaningful. I'm looking forward to this process ending tomorrow. [End of question period.] D. Horne: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members D. Horne: On behalf of you, Madame Speaker, I would like to introduce two guests who are visiting us from Richmond East, from McKesson Canada, a major employer of over 700 high-tech jobs. In the Richmond headquarters are Anthony Leong and Ron Dunn. May the House make them welcome. Orders of the Day Hon.

M. de Jong: In this chamber, second reading on Bill 16, the interim supply bill, and in Committee A, the Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Second Reading of Bills BILL 16 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2014 Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), be read a second time now. Th e existing voted appropriations for the Crown will expire on March 31 of 2014, later this month.

Bill 16 will provide interim supply for the fi rst nine weeks of 2014- 2015 fi scal year while members debate the appropriations presented in the 2014-2015 estimates. Th e interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is required, of course, to ensure continu- ation of government services until the end of this legis- lative session, when it is hoped that fi nal supply will be determined. Bill 16 provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the 2014-15 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other fi nancing requirements.

Th ese disbursements are not evenly distributed throughout the year; therefore, the higher level of interim supply is re- quired to accommodate the uneven timing of payments made under these schedules. Madame Speaker, 100 percent of the 2014-2015 re- quirements for

schedule E, fi nancing transactions, is be- ing sought in this supply bill.

Schedule E of the '14-15 estimates outlines the revenue collected for and trans- ferred to other entities. Th ese distributions are statutory, and there is no impact on the defi cit, borrowing or debt resulting from the collection and transfer of the revenue. Th ese interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2014-15 estimates.

Th e fi nal supply bill for 2014-2015 will incor- porate these amounts to ensure that it refl ects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in that fi scal year. [1435] In closing, I understand that there are diff erences of opinion with respect to the budget itself. I expect, how- ever, that members understand and will agree with the need to ensure — on an interim basis, at least, while those diff erences are considered and debated — that an interim appropriation to allow government operations to continue is appropriate. M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 16.

Interjection. M. Farnworth: My colleague the House Leader wants comprehensive remarks, and I will endeavour to pro- vide comprehensive remarks, because Bill 16 is extremely important. We have bills that are tabled in this chamber which may run to many hundreds of sections and may have 45 or 60 pages to them. Some might think that that is a piece of legislation that is of extreme importance, and, in fact, they might well be right. But don't let size be an indication…. Interjection. M. Farnworth: My colleague across the way says to be careful, and I'm mindful of those words.

Don't let size be an indication of power. When it comes to Bill 16, this is anything but. Th is bill is literally a page. It is three sections — three sections only. But it is called a supply act for a reason. What it does, as my colleague the Finance Minister has outlined, is it allows the gov- ernment to function. It allows government to spend the money that keeps the province running. [D. Horne in the chair.]

British Columbia Debates2022 Monday, March 10, 2014 It allows the salaries of teachers to be paid, of health care professionals to be paid, of the public service to be paid — the people who keep this place running, the people who keep the province running in terms of the delivery of services that 4½ million British Columbians rely on. Th e Supply Act does that. Now we are in the start, if you like…. We've debated the budget at second reading. We're now into what is known as Committee of Supply. In Committee of Supply each of the ministry's spending estimates undergoes de- tailed examination.

One of the chief jobs of the opposition is to ask ques- tions, as can government members, of the diff erent min- isters and their departments and how they are spending taxpayers' dollars: what the programs are, whether those programs have changed, whether they have been im- proved, whether they have been cut back. Increases in spending in some areas, decreases in others, the size of the budget in the minister's offi ce, the number of staff — all kinds of conceivable questions you can ask — policy questions, you name it.

In fact, there have been those who have watched the process of estimates and think that that really should be question period, unlike our real question period, where we get to ask the questions and we don't necessar- ily — quite oft en — get an answer. We only get a limited opportunity, time, to do that — 30 minutes. Each indi- vidual MLA, apart from…. Th e lead questioner, usually the Leader of the Opposition, can ask three questions. Everybody else gets to ask two questions, and you may well not get an answer to your question. In the estimates debate you do get to ask questions.

Y ou can ask as many questions as you want, and you can keep asking a question of a minister until you get, hope- fully, a satisfactory answer, or at least an acknowledge- ment that your question will be answered in writing at some point in time. What it does allow: it allows for a thorough examination and discussion of key policy areas that matter to members on this side of the House. I look forward to my time in estimates with the Minister of Finance. Th ere'll be lots of questions we'll ask there.

I know that other colleagues will be wanting to ask questions of the Attorney General during her esti- mates process. It's a very thorough process. Th e problem is that while that is going on, that means that the whole budget has not been passed. If that budget has not been passed, then people don't get paid, so in or- der to make sure that that is not a problem, we have the supply bill. Th e supply bill — as my colleague has pointed out, the Minister of Finance — is for nine weeks of the 52 weeks that make up the calendar year, and that will allow government operations to continue.

Th en at such point as when the budget is passed…. Even though we disagree with the budget itself, the fact is that once the debates and then the supply bill are voted on and money can fl ow…. In the meantime, that's what Bill 16 is allowing: the government to continue its operations while we debate the budget and its estimates. [1440] With those short comments — as I said, because it is only three sections long — I will take my place. I know that the minister will have some closing comments, and then we will be moving on to other just-as-important business.

I guess the fi nal point that I would make is that the initial sum we will be approving with this supply bill is some $6,185,265,000 — a not inconsiderable sum. With that, I take my place and listen. I look forward to the min- ister's closing remarks. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the Minister of Finance to close debate. Hon. M. de Jong: Th anks to the hon. opposition critic. I will simply say this. I appreciated his description of the estimates process that is now underway and will follow.

His description and, dare I say, profession of faith in that process lead me to maintain some obscure level of hope that by the end of the exercise there may yet be universal support for the budget that the government has tabled. But I'm not holding my breath. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 16. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting aft er today.

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 2014, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued committee stage de- bate on Bill 3, the Missing Persons Act. Committee of the Whole House BILL 3 — MISSING PERSONS ACT (continued) Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 3; D. Horne in the chair. Th e committee met at 2:43 p.m. On

section 1 (continued). K. Corrigan: When we fi nished on Th ursday, I was asking some questions about

section 1, the defi nitions section, and specifically about the definition of "mis- sing person."

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 10, 2014 2023 I raised a concern that it wouldn't necessarily have to be a relative or a service provider, but that hypothetical- ly under this act the police could be the ones to start the process to demand records. I gave the hypothetical that if police were seeking a suspect in a case and they went to the relatives of that person they were seeking and those relatives said that person — perhaps a son, a loved one — wasn't around and that person was missing, that would satisfy the requirements under the act, under "missing person" defi nition subsection (a).

I suggested that was the case and asked the minister about the response to that. Th e minister said that's not the purpose of the act, that the purpose of this act is for civil remedies, and then said: "Th e hypothetical situation being raised by the member opposite, I think, would be an issue of conduct. We have high expectations of our police offi cers." [1445] I've gone back and looked at what the minister said. I'm not sure why, actually, the minister would suggest that it would be bad conduct, if in fact that would be within the parameters of the act.

I'm going to go back to that and ask the minister again: would it be lawful under this act for a police offi cer to try to make contact or have somebody make contact with an individual and fi nd out there has not been contact with that individual and then be the agent themselves, saying: "Th is test has now been satisfi ed" — if they're, say, a sus- pect — "and we're going to go and get an order"? Is that plausible or possible under this act? And if it isn't, could the minister tell me why it isn't? Hon. S.

Anton: Th e purpose of this act is to fi nd an individual who is missing, not for the police to fi nd a suspect in a case. K. Corrigan: I know the minister has said repeatedly that is the purpose of the act. Th at is not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is: is it possible, under the defi nition of "missing person" as it is written in the act that the minister has brought into this House…? A police offi cer could be the one, as this act is written, that says: "Th ere have been eff orts to locate the individual. We've made eff orts to lo- cate the individual. We can't fi nd them"?

It seems to me that would fi t the fi rst part of that defi nition, and that the person "has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual." If a police offi cer was to go to a family and say, "Have you seen this individual?" and they say no, what I'm ask- ing is: would the provisions of the act have been com- pleted? And if not, why not? I just don't see it. I'm not saying it's an issue of mis- conduct. I'm saying if it's legal, then police shouldn't have to feel like it's misconduct at all, because this is what the act says.

I really hope the minister is not going to get up again and say: "Th at's not the purpose." I'm not concerned at this point about what the purpose is. I'm concerned about the

interpretation of that phrase and whether or not the minister agrees that it could conceivably be used that way. [1450] Hon. S. Anton: Th e act in its entirety defi nes a mis- sing person, and then it defi nes the ways that the police department may go out and look for the missing person. Th e conduct of the police is under judicial oversight be- cause they need to go to the judge to make the order. Th e purpose of the act is to fi nd missing persons. Th e member opposite keeps coming back to using it for a diff erent purpose. Th at is not the reason for the act.

Th e reason for the act is to fi nd missing persons — persons missing to their friends, to their family. K. Corrigan: Th e minister can say it over and over that that is not the purpose of the act. What I've asked is…. I have asked leading members of the criminal bar the very question that I'm asking the minister.

I've had lead- ing members of the criminal bar — more than one — say to me that they believe that under this act the police could fi le an affi davit saying they couldn't contact the individual through their wives or their brothers or their mothers and that it could be used that way if they are simply a person who was missing, as many criminals are, and if their whereabouts are unknown and they've made eff orts to locate the individual. It's not just me that is suggesting it could be used that way. I guess I'm going to ask just one more time. Not what the purpose is.

Under the minister's reading of this sec- tion, is that a possible use of the act? Is it possible? Not whether it's the purpose. Is it possible? Y es or no? Hon. S. Anton: The other day I did mention that British Columbia's act is consistent with acts in other jurisdictions. Th e purpose of these acts in other jurisdic- tions and in British Columbia is not to conduct criminal investigations, as suggested by the member opposite, but to fi nd missing persons. D. Eby: My question is similar to my colleague's question.

Under the defi nition of "missing person," why would the ministry not have the "or" be an "and" under subsection (a)? By changing the "or" to an "and," you im- port the requirement that there's a reason to believe that the person who is being searched for — that their safety and welfare are somehow at risk. It would seem to me that that very simple change would address the concern. Y ou could also get rid of it entirely.

But that simple change would require that in order to be accessing people's records, accessing third- party records, going to court and so on, you have to ac- tually believe that the person's in danger somehow, that their welfare is at risk.

British Columbia Debates2024 Monday, March 10, 2014 With the "or," that doesn't have to be the case. All it has to be is someone who hasn't been in touch with people who would ordinarily be in touch, and it imports all kinds of risks in terms of privacy to people who may not want to be in touch with their relatives, for example. All of a sudden the police are tracking them down on behalf of family members they don't want to talk to. Th e question is quite straightforward. Why is that not an "and"?

Why is it not a requirement that the person's health or welfare be at risk before all the powers of this act come into force? [1455] Hon. S. Anton: As I described the other day, it is con- sistent with the legislation in other jurisdictions, and it is believed to be appropriate to have that broader

section (

a) because there are some circumstances where

section (

b) may not be called into play but

section (

a) is. It gives friends, family and parents, for example, the ability to go out and look for the individual who is missing. N. Simons: As a matter of fact, other jurisdictions that the minister references make specifi c reference to when a criminal matter is under investigation. In Manitoba the act gives the police the ability to obtain information when criminal activity is not suspected. Has that been clearly delineated in this act? Hon. S. Anton: Th e investigation being conducted under this act is a civil investigation for a missing person. It is not

an act to be used for fi nding a criminal suspect, as keeps being raised by the members opposite. N. Simons: Y ou just blew

section 20 out of the water. I mean, it's clear what the question is. When does a mis- sing person become someone we can't fi nd? I think it's essential that, as legislators, we determine whether it's possible under a less benevolent authority that this act will be used in less positive ways. Th at's why legislation is important. It's not about the motivation, as this minister knows. Th e Civil Forfeiture Act is being used in ways that we were assured in this House it wouldn't be used. Th e Safety Standards Amendment Act we were assured wouldn't be used.

It's about how the act is interpreted not by you, through the Chair, but by the people enforcing this act. I think it's es- sential that we have answers to these questions. [1500] Hon. S. Anton:

Section 20 talks about related crim- inal investigation, and that's an evidentiary issue. Th at is when the police go to look for somebody, they get infor- mation. So far they are in a civil investigation. Sometimes it turns out that the person they're looking for in a civil investigation may in fact, for example, have become the victim of foul play. Th at is where, on an evidentiary issue before a court, that phrase "related criminal investigation" would come into play. It would be for the court at that time to determine whether or not it was a related crim- inal investigation. N.

Simons: While the minister is giving examples, could the minister provide an example where…? If one part of "missing person" is present, like

section (a), why would you need both? Hon. S. Anton: As I have replied to this question several times now, the answer is that that more general provision may be needed from time to time for persons where they are missing. Th ey are missing by a friend or family. Th ey have not been in contact with their friend or family, and the friend or family wants to know where they are. So it's a more general provision which is, as I said, consistent with legislation in other jurisdictions and is a valuable part of this act. K. Corrigan: I'm not going to ask too many more questions on that section. We have talked about it.

I did say last time, when I asked a similar question to my col- league, that every time the minister responded it sound- ed like a set of circumstances where there was concern. Again, the minister just said that family wants to know where they are. It sounds a little bit diff erent than it did last time, because when we were talking on Th ursday, it was more of a focus on…. Th ey're concerned about that individual. To me, that would fall squarely under subsec- tion (b), and if you're not worried about it, I'm not sure why we want to be looking for them. Maybe I'll ask this in a slightly diff erent way.

If, hypo- thetically, a police offi cer was to swear an affi davit or whatever the process is and go to a justice for an order saying that this person has been missing, at what point in the process would it be stopped? Would it be before the justice that the justice would say this is not what this act is intended for? Hon. S. Anton: In order for a police offi cer under this act to get an order, they must go in front of a justice and satisfy the justice that there are proper reasons to go and look for the missing person.

Th ey're not going to get that order unless they can present those circumstances to the justice. K. Corrigan: Th e minister is saying, then, that a jus- tice would take a look at the provisions of the act, and he or she would satisfy themselves that they could not al- low an order under this act on the basis of that scenario — that the police are looking for somebody. Th ey say that they are missing. Th eir whereabouts are unknown, and they've not been in contact with people that they would normally be in contact with. [1505]

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 10, 2014 2025 The minister is saying, under that scenario, that it would be stopped, that the judge would not…. Would the judge or justice not simply take a look at the act and say: "Are the criteria met or not"? And if so, what is it about these criteria that would not be met in that circumstance? Hon. S. Anton: When the offi cer appears in front of a justice with the affi davit in order to get the order, they must satisfy that justice that the order is an appropriate one to be granted.

Now, the member opposite said: "What will the judge or the justice consider?" I think a justice will consider what a justice considers, which could be many factors. Th eir role, of course, in this kind of thing is to make the order in the appropriate circumstances, and the justice or judge would have to be satisfi ed that the circumstances were appropriate to grant the order. K. Corrigan: Well, we're going to be talking in a few minutes about emergency orders, wherein police offi cers in an emergency situation don't have to go to a judge.

I guess, from the comments that were made last Th ursday and the comments being made today, what the minister is saying is that somebody could not be a missing person and the police offi cer could not, in an emergency situa- tion, use that defi nition — even though they don't have to go before a judge. Hon. S. Anton: In an emergency demand, the police offi cer must fi le a written report and is responsible to their offi cer in charge. K. Corrigan: Y es, I appreciate that. Th at is true. Th ere would have to be a report, and there are concerns about that.

But maybe I'll leave that for now, because we will deal with this

section later. But I was thinking of it in terms of the context of the defi nition and how that could play out in various scenarios. Subsection (b). Th is would be the second set of criteria that have to be met to have somebody declared a missing person, and therefore it would be appropriate to get re- cords related to them. Subsection (

b) is that there have been reasonable eff orts to locate the individual — they're missing — whose safety and welfare are feared for, given the individual's age, the individual's physical or mental capabilities, or the circumstances surrounding the indi- vidual's absence. I'm wondering why the individual's age was made so general as opposed to something specifi c like a minor or a senior. [1510] Hon. S. Anton: Th e descriptor "the individual's age" captures both minors and seniors who are missing and who are feared for in that section. K.

Corrigan: If it was a senior or maybe somebody with Alzheimer's — you know, these are the kinds of cases, the wandering-away cases; we've had some real tragedies in this province — would that not be covered? Let's say it's a senior who has Alzheimer's and has gone missing. Would that not be satisfi ed by subsection (iii) — in other words, that you would be concerned about the safety and welfare of that individual given the circum- stances surrounding the individual's absence? Would not age and the fact that they had Alzheimer's be enough circumstances that it would satisfy subsection (iii) rather than…?

In fact, it would satisfy all of the requirements. Hon. S. Anton: It is useful in this case to allow for a senior who may not necessarily fall into subsection (ii) but whose safety and welfare are feared for. So to confi ne it to minors, you lose the opportunity of that broader de- scriptor, which is contained right now in subsection (i). K. Corrigan: Th e minister is, I think, talking about the fact that we are going to have an amendment that I've provided.

I've provided a number of amendments that we're going to bring forward shortly, and we will be proposing that it be "a minor" instead of "the individual's age," which just seems quite loose to me. It gives me some concern, and I think it could be improved just to say "a minor" so we have something concrete. Particularly because we have concerns…. Th ere can be concerns when — we talked earlier about it — some- times people want to be able to just leave, disappear and not be followed. Th e minister has agreed that that is legitimate and lawful, even though it might be painful to family.

And if it's nebulous like this, then it could be a 20-year-old or a 21-year-old. So I'm a little concerned about leaving it open. Because whose concern are we talking about? Th e safety and welfare are feared for by the parents. I think that when somebody is a minor, it gives a little more clarity and puts that boundary there a little bit better. Th at's why I'm concerned about that.

When I was talking about the sub-subsection that would address the concern about the older individual or somebody else who has physical or mental challenges, subsection (iii) — "the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence" — might address whether it's some- body who is older and perhaps has Alzheimer's. Would that not be covered — that situation where you're talking about the older person? Subsection (iii). Hon. S. Anton: As the member opposite has pointed out, people are entitled to be missing from their families, and that can certainly happen within the parameters of this act.

It can certainly happen that the police search for a missing person, they fi nd that person and the person says: "No, sorry. I'm just not interested in being found." [1515] Th at happens today. Th at happens right now when po-

British Columbia Debates2026 Monday, March 10, 2014 lice go and look for people when they don't need these civil remedies, but they fi nd people, and the person says: "I don't need to be found." And that's that. Th at happens from time to time, and it will continue to happen from time to time under this act. Nothing in that

section will change that. K. Corrigan: But what's diff erent about this act is that in searching for that individual, the police are being given broader powers to go to a justice and ask for information that up to date has not been available. Th at includes cell- phone records, records containing contact information, identifi cation, text messaging records, Internet brows- ing history, GPS — all sorts of diff erent things. So that's where it's diff erent. We're giving very broad powers on a civil basis, not on a criminal basis. Hon. S. Anton: Indeed it does, because the purpose of this act is to fi nd people.

Th e purpose of this act is to save lives. We have faith in the police. We have faith in the judicial system, and in particular, we have faith in the police. I have faith in the police, and this legislation as- sumes faith in the police that they will do the right thing. Again, if the person doesn't wish to be reported back to their family or the people who are missing them, they will not be. Th ey have not been in the past. Nothing in this act will make that happen again. Th ey may be found now.

As a result of this act, there are more tools to fi nd that person, but there are no more tools to report back where that person is than there ever were before. Th at is a matter of police judgment and practice, and it's some- thing that police do now and will continue to do. G. Heyman: Chair, I will confess to being a bit mysti- fi ed by the answers provided to some of these questions by the Justice Minister. It seems to me that we're all in agreement that if somebody is missing and in danger in some form, the police should have the tools to fi nd them.

Y et every time we ask a question about whether there's an unintended consequence to provisions in this act, such as the use of the word "or" between (

a) and (

b) in "missing person" instead of "and" when it seems clear to me and to my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey that if you take (

a) on its own, it's virtually a blank cheque…. When we ask questions in this regard, we simply get brought back to: "Th e purpose of this act is." We know what the purpose of the act is. What we're trying to ask is questions about unintended consequence. To defi ne a missing person on its own as someone who has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual is, in fact, grant- ing to the police quite broad powers. It seems to me that it's simply not good enough for the Justice Minister to say she has complete faith in the activities of the police.

We all do, and we also all know that laws need to be precise and specifi c to protect people's individual rights. If they're not, they will be subject to abuse. So I would simply repeat the questions that have been asked earlier. Why is there an "or" instead of an "and"? Hon. Chair, I'm not much interested in hearing for the umpteenth time what the purpose of the act is. I'm in- terested in hearing how the Justice Minister thinks that the wording of the defi nition of "missing person" as it's currently stated in the draft legislation in front of us sim- ply cannot be abused. It seems to me that it's wide open.

Hon. S. Anton: Chair, there have been two problems hypothetically put forward by the members opposite. One is that the act may be used to fi nd somebody who doesn't wish to be found, and somehow there's some- thing wrong with that. [1520] Well, people, as I mentioned already, may be found who don't wish to be found. Th at's normal police prac- tice to not report that person back. Th e second proposition put forward is that the police may abuse the act. Well, police are expected to conduct themselves properly. We don't expect, in

an act, that a po- lice offi cer is going to use

an act, which is a civil remedy for a missing person, in order to further their criminal investigation on something else altogether. G. Heyman: If the police never abused some of the powers they had or never undertook an investigation in an inappropriate manner, we wouldn't have a Police Complaint Commissioner, and that Police Complaint Commissioner would never be considering complaints against the police.

I would ask that the Justice Minister simply apply the logic of her offi ce that bills brought forward to this Legislature that grant extraordinary powers should be carefully craft ed and should be very focused on their in- tent — in fact, the exact intent that the Justice Minister has attempted to drum into members of this side of the House. If there is a clear intent, there is no reason for the act to extend beyond the clear intent. My second point is that the Justice Minister has said that if somebody doesn't wish to be found, no harm done. Th e police simply let them go ahead being invis- ible.

Th at's not the point of the question. Surely, the Justice Minister understands that what we are saying and what the Privacy Commissioner has said is that extraordinary powers to go deeply into some- body's private information are being granted for the sole purpose of fi nding somebody who is missing and may be at some sort of risk of harm or may, in fact, have been harmed.

So, yes, harm will, in fact, be done to people's right to privacy if a loophole that has no purpose for the provi- sions of and the express purpose of this act — that is, to fi nd missing persons — is used, in fact, to reveal their private personal information when no demonstrated

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 10, 2014 2027 real need was there. If the minister would like a question, then my ques- tion is simply…. Please tell us how her theoretical faith in the absolute proper behaviour at all times of every single police offi cer in every instance — which is admir- able, but as past experience will oft en point out, perhaps cannot always be relied upon…. How can she guarantee that this defi nition, as currently put forward, will not ever be subject to abuse? Hon. S.

Anton: Th e information accessed under this act can only be used for the purpose of locating a mis- sing person or in a related criminal investigation, as I described earlier. Police conduct themselves appropriately. If they do not…. On the rare occasions when they do not, then there are procedures in place to deal with that. But there are police standards, there is police training, and police in British Columbia really are of the very highest standard in terms of the way they conduct themselves. A police offi cer using this legislation is using this legis- lation to fi nd a missing person. G.

Heyman: Let me try and reframe the question in a simpler format, because the minister has admitted that there are rare occasions where powers may be abused and that there are remedies in that case. [1525] I would put forward that if there is an opportunity to close the door, at least more tightly, to prevent abuses, then we should do it, rather than simply rely on rem- edies aft er the fact. So let me simply ask the minister what harm will be done by changing the word "or" between (

a) and (

b) in the defi nition of "missing person" to "and." How will that possibly interfere with the purposes of this bill? Th e Chair: Member, it appears that we're currently debating an amendment that's not currently on the fl oor. So unless that amendment is put forward, I think that we should move to…. K. Corrigan: I'm certainly happy to, at this point, introduce an amendment to

section 1. [To amend

section 1 of the Act by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined: "missing person" means an individual whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable eff orts to locate the individual and (

a) who has not been in contact with these persons who would likely be in contact with the individual, or (b) (

a) whose safety and welfare are feared for given (

i) the indivi dual's age that the individual is a minor, (ii) the individual's physical or mental capabilities, or (iii) the circumstan ces surrounding the individual's absence;] On the amendment. K. Corrigan: I'm moving that amendment because we on this side of the House have repeatedly expressed concerns about the inclusion of subsection (

a) as the sec- tion is presently written. We believe — I believe — that it would be an improvement to the bill to limit the circum- stances in which an order could be brought under this act, an order for production of records, to a case where there are safety and welfare concerns. It concerns me greatly, as many of us have said repeat- edly, that simply not being in contact with individuals should not be enough to trigger an order that would al- low the police to access records.

I also believe the fact that it would have the circumstances that safety and welfare are feared for given "the circumstances surrounding the individual's absence" would include the situation where an individual had not been in contact with people that they were likely to be in contact with, with that individual. It makes it imperative, a pre-condition that you have to have safety and welfare being concerned about. I think that's the proper use. Every time we talk about a person being missing and we talk about scenarios and what circumstances would there be….

Every single time we talk about it, we and the minister have all talked about circumstances where there is a concern for their health and safety. So I think it should be explicit. Th e reason that I have, in addition, said that the individual…. Rather than we say that there's concern for the safety and welfare "given the individual's age," I think we should be more specifi c. [1530] I think if you say that individual is a minor, it takes it out of that kind of fuzzy area. What do you mean by "given the individual's age"? Could they be 23 or 24?

I think that it's more clean if you say that the individual is a minor, and the senior that we're concerned about would be covered under subsection (iii). So for that reason, I'm moving this amendment. G. Heyman: Speaking to the amendment, I think we have stated some of our concerns, on this side of the House, in the context of being generally supportive — certainly very supportive of the stated purposes of the bill. We want to see it succeed. We want to see the police have the tools they need.

We simply want to ensure that we don't have to look at possible misuse of the bill and of information gained through the bill aft er the fact, and take available remedies. We just want to be sure that everybody, police included, is clear about what the stated purposes of the bill are, as clearly stated in the bill.

My question to the minister is: if you believe that this proposed amendment somehow makes it more diffi cult for police to get the information they need in a timely way, as quickly as currently stated in the bill, to get the information needed to fi nd a missing person, please ex- plicitly tell us what the problem with the amendment is, how the amendment does not allow the police the tools

British Columbia Debates2028 Monday, March 10, 2014 they need to locate a missing person, or any other rea- son that she thinks that the amendment is inappropriate. Hon. S. Anton: I'm speaking against the amendment. The

section as originally written has the broader ca- pability of fi nding a person in the specifi c circumstances which are not described in

section (b). Th e two fears that are mentioned by the members op- posite are these. One is that someone will be found who doesn't want to be found. I have addressed that, Chair. Th e second is that police will abuse that. I fi nd that of- fensive. Th is act is brought in, in direct response to the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. It is done by carefully considering other acts across the country of a similar na- ture. It is here to fi nd missing persons. It's here to look for people who are at risk. Neither of the counter-examples that have been mentioned by the members opposite has any legitimacy.

If the person doesn't want to be found, they will say so. Th at happens now; that will continue to happen. If the person…. If the act…. I don't even like to repeat what the members opposite are saying about possible police abuses. Th at simply is not something that this act is de- signed for. Th is act is designed to give police offi cers a civil remedy to go out and look for somebody. I'm speaking against the amendment and in support of the original language. N. Simons: Wow, that was very interesting.

First of all, I don't think the minister has any right to be off ended by legitimate questions about legislation, especially with the track record of the government across the fl oor. Quite frankly, it's just an insult to most British Columbians that the minister is getting insulted. Th ese are import- ant questions. Interjections. Th e Chair: Members. N. Simons: If you understood the issue, you'd probably be concerned as well. If this minister continually says… Interjection. Th e Chair: Member. N.

Simons: …that this legislation was brought in as a specifi c response to the inquiry, I have to take issue with that. She admitted that it's copied from Alberta and Manitoba. If it's copied from Alberta and Manitoba, why did the minister change the wording with respect to the defi nition of a missing person? Why is it that these other jurisdictions have a more accurate defi nition? Probably defi nitions that can be accepted by this side. Let me read into the record — Alberta. Under

section 1, defi nitions: "(b) 'missing person' means (

i) an individ- ual who has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual, or (ii) an individual (

A) whose whereabouts are unknown despite reasonable eff orts to locate the individual, and (

B) whose safety and welfare are feared for given the individual’s physical or mental capabilities or the circumstances sur- rounding the individual’s absence." Okay, that's Alberta. [1535] Let me bring in Manitoba. A "missing person" means "(

a) a person whose whereabouts are unknown and who has not been in contact with those persons who would… normally be" with the person — whatever that wording is — "and (

b) a person (

i) whose whereabouts are un- known despite reasonable eff orts to locate the person, and (ii) whose safety and welfare are feared for given the person's age…." I would say, fi rst of all, if they're making copies from other legislation it surprises me, because I think in British Columbia we should have the ability to design legislation for British Columbians, especially when that's touted as the main reason for this legislation. It's just a little bit weak, especially when you consider the other legislation was brought in, in 2011. Interjection. N. Simons: I'm sorry if it makes the minister uncom- fortable.

Y ou know? Considering his cabinet position, he should be able to do something about that. I think that the questions being asked are legitimate. Perhaps the minister can consider that maybe the amend- ment can happen now, and maybe it'll have to happen later. But I don't think it's fair to characterize the ques- tions by the opposition as an insult. I think that there are loopholes in law that go unnoticed, and that's why we have debates in this Legislature. Th at's why, when we're talking about legislation, it's important to get it on the record.

Simply, I support the amendment as proposed by my colleague, who does so in the best interest of the people of the province. I think when you look at the Civil Forfeiture Act and you claim that there's never an abuse of the way the law was intended…. We had the Solicitor General telling us what the intent was, and then we see the events later. I don't think that the minister has to look further than the Vancouver Sun today to fi nd evi- dence of that. Quite frankly, I think it's….

I take issue with the min- ister characterizing these questions in any other way than it's important as legislators to be able to do that. I think that the minister should consider that. We're all legisla- tors in this building, and that's why I'm going to support that amendment.

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 10, 2014 2029 K. Corrigan: I also wanted to express concerns about the characterization of us as doing something that is in- appropriate or slagging the police. We're just trying to understand this legislation. We do have many, many examples in the past where we have dealt with legislation in this House. I have dealt with many pieces of legislation that we've been told one thing about in this House. We've been told that a piece of legislation is constitutional. We've been told that a piece of legislation will not be used in a certain way.

Civil for- feiture — it's going to be to get gangs and drug dealers. We found that there are real concerns about the applica- tion of the act. I think we're doing our due diligence to ask these ques- tions about how it potentially could be used. I've heard nothing from this minister to do with this defi nition that in any way persuades me that it could not be used…. I would actually have a diff erent characterization than a couple of my colleagues here.

I don't think it would be an abuse of the act — if it is interpreted as being legal, if there is a challenge, and if it is interpreted as being a legal use of the act — for a police offi cer to use this defi nition of missing person in order to fi nd a suspect. Th en I would say to the police, "Go ahead and use it that way," because I don't see anything in here that would disallow that. Just because of the fact that there's a criminal element to it…? It is a civil regime, but so is civil forfeiture, and we have a blending of the line between criminal and civil with regard to civil forfeiture.

We have a blurring of the line when it comes to roadside suspensions. Th is would not be the fi rst time if there was a use, in terms of crim- inal law, that a piece of civil legislation was used for. [1540] I think that they're perfectly legitimate questions. Th at's why I submitted this resolution. I think it cured something. I don't see what situation…. I can't think of any situation that could not be covered under the defi n- ition as I've moved to have an amendment on.

I think it would provide comfort to know that it's only when you're concerned about the safety and welfare of an individual that you could then go looking at people's cell phone bills and possibly anything, any number of records. I think it's reasonable to say that you should be con- cerned about this individual, not just the fact that they are not presently there. Y ou have to have had concern about the safety of the individual, I think, in order for it to be an appropriate use of power to get records that are, in many cases, very private. I'm not going to speak any more on that.

I think we've defi nitely made our point. I think this would be an improvement to the piece of legislation. I've talked to some lawyers who think this would be an improvement. Th at is not what the minister believes. I know it's simi- lar in other jurisdictions. But I'm very concerned about the defi nition as it now exists, and I think this would be an improvement. G. Heyman: I won't speak long. I think the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has summed up the view of this side of the House.

It's unfortunate, in my view, when the people of British Columbia look to us to come together, review legislation, suggest improvements or amendments that will make a piece of legislation more focused on its stated purpose and more airtight, that we're treated to an example of legislation by stubbornness.

For the Justice Minister to accuse us of an approach to the police or an attitude to the police that is somehow disrespectful or so out of place that she won't even repeat it in the House, let me simply say to her that there are examples currently today of police offi cers who are be- fore the courts because they are charged with improper behaviour. Th at's not a common occurrence. Th ey are exceptions.

But to pretend that this doesn't happen is simply at odds with all of our experience and certainly is not a reason not to entertain a motion to make a piece of legislation more focused and not open to any kind of abuse. Finally, the minister can, if she wants, say that we are somehow blocking a piece of legislation that is crucial and at the heart of the recommendations of the Missing Women Inquiry. We are not attempting to block the legislation. We are in support of the legislation. We're attempting to make it better.

We're attempting to make it focused on not only its stated purpose but to ensure that it complies with people's privacy rights as stated by Privacy Commissioners across Canada and, particular- ly in British Columbia, to protect the rights of British Columbians' privacy — except in extreme circumstances. Our amendment attempts to do that. To say that our amendment somehow interferes with the ability of the police to fi nd a missing person or somehow our amendment would interfere with

an act that would have prevented the unfortunate death of somebody on the Highway of Tears is simply inaccurate. It's not worthy. I'd ask the minister to take a step back and consider the amendment in light of: does the amendment in any way, shape or form interfere with the stated purpose of the act? If it does not, and if it in fact enhances the pri- vacy rights of British Columbians, then there is, in our view, no reason not to say yes. Th e Chair: Proceed, Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. J. Kwan: I was wondering if the minister was actually going to get up to respond, but I guess not.

I was listening to this debate, and I came rushing up here to enter into this debate because I actually take the minister's comments quite seriously. When she actually said on the public record, as though there are no issues with the police system across British Columbia…. It is hugely fl awed.

British Columbia Debates2030 Monday, March 10, 2014 [1545] The whole reason why the missing and murdered women situation occurred and was escalated to the point that it had been was because there were systemic failures in the policing system. In the bill that's before us and in the amendment that my good colleague brought before this House….

When the minister responds to say that her defence in not sup- porting this amendment is because she has faith in the police system and that she would not validate questions in this very House that put questions to the police system, I can't help but wonder: what, then, was the purpose of the entire Missing Women Inquiry? What is the purpose of the 63 recommendations that came forward?

When the minister says that this bill before us is at the heart of the Missing Women Inquiry, then she will know the failures of the policing system across British Columbia that brought us here today, and she will know that the issue that is central to the missing and murdered women was because of the police culture and the lack of action in even following up with reports to the police of people who were missing.

Th at was the central rea- son that brought us to where we are today, in that his- toric, tragic case of the missing and murdered women in British Columbia, the worst homicide that's ever hap- pened in this country. On this question around the amendment, what does it simply say? Th e amendment actually says to amend the defi nition of "missing person" by deleting "(

a) who has not been in contact with those persons who would likely be in contact with the individual" and "(b)(

i) the individ- ual's age." Th at's all that it says. It does not compromise at all the people who went missing and were murdered in the Missing Women Inquiry case. It does not, and why I say that is because of the problems that arose as they were found by the minister's predecessor around that case, centred around the police culture.

To pretend that there were no issues with the policing culture and how sometimes they do fall down in their job in failing to do what they're supposed to do, and to pretend that those problems don't exist, the minister is being willfully blind to the very problems that led us to where we are today, with so much tragedy and so much sadness that could have been prevented. What are we talking about here as legislators in this House? What are we talking about? We're talking about making sure that legislation is brought forward that is thoughtful in its application and in anticipation of what might come forward.

Th at's exactly what my colleague, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, brought forward in anticipation of some of the problems that could exist in our system. Instead of taking these issues serious- ly, the minister chooses to close her eyes, to pretend as though somehow those problems will simply not exist. How faulty we are to go down that road as though we never learned a lesson from the missing and murdered women's inquiry? Why is the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake advancing this motion? Simply to ensure, as best as we can, that in bringing forward legislation, there would be no abuses of the system.

Th ere are no guarantees, but simply to do the best job that we can. Th at's all that this is. To pretend the problems won't exist and to close your eyes entirely, in the manner in which the minister has done, I fi nd off en- sive. Maybe the former Solicitor General — the top cop, supposedly, in this House — will fi nd that "oh well, that's too bad." But I'll tell you this: it is too bad. Do you know why? Because we're talking about the lives of people here. [1550] It is an extremely serious matter. Interjections. J. Kwan: Y ou know what, Mr. Chair? For all the min- isters who are heckling….

I would love for them to en- ter into this debate. I'd like to hear, on the record, what they have to say around this — on the very public record. Absolutely, I am on the record. Th at's why I came running up here into this House to enter into this debate. Aft er all, it is through these debates that the govern- ment could be held accountable and all of us will be held accountable, unlike the government's side. Unlike the Premier, who likes to just make slogans and pretend that she doesn't need to be held accountable with her state- ments, I want to be on the public record about this — ab- solutely.

Th ere is no question. So I ask the minister again. Is she then saying, in her response to my colleagues the member from Fairview, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who were engaging in this debate — the member for Vancouver–Point Grey who raised these questions…? Is the minister saying — and I want to hear her say this on the public record — that she is being wilfully blind to any potential problems that could come up through the policing system related to this act?

Is she saying that there are no problems whatsoever and she does not see them and therefore does not even acknowledge the recommendations that were brought forward by her predecessor Wally Oppal in the missing and murdered women's inquiry? Is that the reason why she's rejecting this amendment? Or is the reason that she simply just wants to have par- tisan politics involved instead of doing the best job she can in bringing the best set of recommendations forward and legislation forward?

Is she just simply being partisan because they fail to see those problems and anticipate the issues that my good colleague the member for Burnaby– Deer Lake anticipated, and so, therefore, she will not acknowledge them? What's the real reason for her to ac- tually ignore and reject this amendment?

British Columbia DebatesMonday, March 10, 2014 2031 Th e Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I'll put the question. Th e question is the amendment to the defi nition of "missing person." Amendment negatived on division. K. Corrigan: Well, I think that's unfortunate. I think it would have improved the act, and I'd like to thank my colleagues for speaking very passionately. Certainly, my colleague has spent many years following and being very concerned about the inquiry and has been passionate and dedicated and speaks with a great deal of knowledge. So I appreciate her involvement in this and for coming and joining us. I think it's important for us t

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20140310pm-Hansard-v7n9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20140310pm Hansard v7n9
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8649558b239523dd6488033d915f7d89a5d4fc4f

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