2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 29, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

North Peace area athletes

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Prince Rupert amateur hockey

champions

G. Coons

Introductions by Members

Tributes

James Morrison

Hon. M.

de Jong

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Utilities Commission Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 15)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Downtown

Eastside Women's Centre

J. Kwan

Elimination of racial discrimination

Nuraney

Korean Canadian businesses in

Coquitlam

Thorne

Jennifer Atchison

H. Bloy

Downtown Maple Ridge Business

Improvement Association

Sather

PuCKS Program

M. Polak

Oral Questions

Police investigation of former

Solicitor General

C. James

Hon. W.

Oppal

Farnworth

J. Kwan

Macdonald

Karagianis

Thorne

Simpson

Petitions

S. Fraser

R. Lee

G. Coons

B. Simpson

Committee of the Whole House

Electoral Reform Referendum 2009

Act (Bill 6) (continued)

Horgan

Hon. W.

Oppal

Simpson

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Electoral Reform Referendum 2009

Act (Bill 6)

Committee of the Whole House

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2008 (Bill 2)

Ralston

Hon. C.

Taylor

Horgan

Royal Assent to Bills

Ministerial Accountability Bases

Act, 2007-2008 (Bill 5)

Electoral Reform Referendum 2009

Act (Bill 6)

Local Government Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 7)

Forests and Range Statutes

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 8)

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 9)

Housing Statutes Amendment Act,

2008 (Bill 10)

Musqueam Reconciliation,

Settlement and Benefits Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 12)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

Karagianis

Hon. K.

Falcon

Simpson

C. Evans

[ Page 10631 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: Today marks the end of the celebration of

excellence that we've called education month. We are joined in the gallery today

by numerous leaders in education including students, teachers, administrators

and in fact a ministry staff person.

Joining us today are three of B.C.'s winners of the Canada's

Outstanding Principals award: David Betts, district principal in Sooke; Carol

MacWilliams, principal at École KLO Middle in Kelowna; Tarjeet Mann, principal

at Braefoot Elementary in Victoria.

Also visiting us today is the female provincial coach of the year,

Nicky Carroll of Windsor Secondary in North Vancouver. We have Rhonda Draper of

Glenmore Elementary in Kelowna, who won the Governor General's Award for

Excellence in Teaching Canadian History; Britta Gundersen-Bryden, the 2008

winner of the Cornouiller d'or prize of the Fédération des francophones de la

Colombie-Britannique. We're very excited to have her as part of our ministry

staff.

Most significantly, today we have a number of student leaders who

rode their bikes 500 kilometres to raise money and awareness for the homeless as

part of the à vélos pour les sans-abri cycling for the homeless project.

They are Samuel Daigle and Michael Legault from Kitsilano Secondary in

Vancouver, Jeremy Desrochers from Carihi Secondary in Campbell River, and Kassym

Dorsel from École de l'Anse-au-sable in Kelowna.

I want to also thank their team leaders: Michelle Thibeault,

director of the Centre for Leadership and Adventure in Nature; Manon Landry,

special needs coordinator for the Conseil scolaire francophone; and Laurent

Brisebois, vice-principal at École Kitsilano Secondary School.

We recognized all of these individuals for their excellence in

education, and we're delighted to have them join us in the gallery today.

[1335]

A. Dix: It's good to be back. I want to introduce 48 of my

constituents who are participants in the Collingwood Neighbourhood House seniors

wellness program. Every week they get together and do all kinds of very

interesting activities in our community. Today their interesting activity is

coming here to the Legislature and watching question period and watching and

touring the Legislature and touring Victoria.

On behalf of everyone here in the Legislature, I would like to

wish them a great welcome to Victoria.

Tributes

NORTH PEACE AREA ATHLETES

Hon. R. Neufeld: Although they're not in the precincts, I

want to actually recognize some athletes from northeastern British Columbia, who

so seldom get recognition. The Fort St. John senior Flyers won the senior men's

triple-A Savage Cup after defeating the Powell River Regals in a five-game

series. Congratulations to the team and coach Adam Brash. They will face Bentley

Generals for the Mackenzie Cup starting April 3.

The Fort St. John–North Peace Eagles won the B.C. hockey women's

senior-A championship with a 5-4 victory over the Delta Jets in March. The team

and coach will travel to Winnipeg for the Western Shield championships in April.

The Cooper rink, consisting of Travis Cooper, Reid Johnson, A.J.

Lebonski and Josh Johnson, went undefeated at the juvenile men's curling

provincials. They will also travel to Winnipeg for the Optimists under-17

international championships, April 2 to 6.

Congratulations to all of these great athletes who are

representing the North Peace as they act now.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Krueger: Joining us this afternoon in the chamber

for the first time is Silvana Costa, one of the remarkable public servants we

are fortunate to have working in the mining and mineral division of the Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources Ministry. She's a senior project manager in the

policy and sustainability branch of the division, originally from Brazil, and

has been living in Canada the past ten years.

This spring she'll be awarded her PhD from the UBC Norman B.

Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering. Her studies, work and interests focus on

sustainability in natural resources development with an emphasis on mining

sustainability principles, mining communities and camps, as well as human

resources issues in mining.

Would all members please join me in making Silvana welcome to this

House.

Tributes

PRINCE RUPERT

AMATEUR HOCKEY CHAMPIONS

G. Coons: Prior to the Easter break I also mentioned some

events happening throughout the province — the B.C. Amateur Hockey Association

Championships. In Prince Rupert the girls bantam-A was won by Kelowna.

I would like to acknowledge and congratulate two local northern

teams from Prince Rupert, the Prince Rupert bantam-A Wampler Sea Wolves coached

by Dave Feser and the Prince Rupert Canfisco midget-A reps coached by Bruce

Tessier, for winning the provincial championships in their divisions and

bringing home the bragging rights.

[ Page 10632 ]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: Jacob Wilson, Dave Pauls and Nathan

Krellencamp are all grade 5 students at King Traditional School in Abbotsford

school district 34. They are here along with Jacob's father, Paul Wilson, to

watch this chamber in action, learn about politics and take the lessons they

have learned back to their civics class at King Traditional School in

Abbotsford. I hope the whole chamber will make all four of them welcome.

D. Routley: We're just coming back after a break, but

during that break — this Saturday — there were a whole lot of people out in

front of the buildings here from the Western Canada Wilderness Committee with

Ken Wu as their leader and the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada with Arnie

Burkhoff and many others.

There were over a thousand people outside expressing their concern

over old-growth logging and their expectation of a transition to second growth

and a more sustainable practice. I'd like the House to thank all of those

British Columbians who came out on the weekend and expressed their concern and

support for this Legislature doing something about their issue.

[1340]

Hon. S. Hagen: Previously, Rhonda Draper was introduced by

the Minister of Education. Rhonda is here today with her son Dylan from Kelowna.

The reason that's such an honour for me to have met with them over the lunch

hour is that 50 years ago this year, Rhonda's mother, Marie Johnson, and I

graduated from Camrose Lutheran College. It was such a pleasure today to spend

some time with Marie's daughter and her grandson Dylan. Would the House please

make them welcome.

H. Bloy: It's a real pleasure to rise in the House today. I

want to introduce my bride of 31 years, who is here to see me. She's up in the

gallery. We spent a nice weekend in Victoria visiting with family and friends.

Would the House please join me in making her welcome.

D. Jarvis: I have on the premises today a group of students

from Argyle Secondary School in North Vancouver, one of the highest scholastic

and sports schools on the North Shore. They are accompanied by their teachers

Ryan Hughes, Daniel Royer, Katie Wells, Rachel Tessier and Mark Fortin. If

everyone would make them welcome, that would be appreciated.

D. MacKay: I have a rather special guest I'd like to

introduce in the House today. I don't suspect she's at home watching. She's

probably with her mom and my son. Obviously, a lot has happened over the Easter

break.

On Friday afternoon I was blessed with a granddaughter that was

seven pounds. Her father, my son…. I know she's not watching today, but I would

like the House to welcome her to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, you have three to catch up with me.

R. Hawes: I'd like to just remind the member for Burquitlam

that his wife of 31 years is named Anita. So could the House make Anita welcome.

B. Bennett: In the House today there is a delegation from

Guangdong province in China. They're from the Jiangsu Provincial People's

Congress there. They're here on a study visit to study the budget oversight and

public consultation process here in B.C. More generally, they're part of the

Canada-China legislative cooperation project.

With the greatest apologies to them for the way I pronounce their

names, I am going to introduce them. We have Mr. Xue He; Mr. Tang Zhushan; Mr.

Chen Guihua; Ms. Li Mei; Mr. Li Ping; Mr. Zhang Xiaojian; Mr. Wu Jun; Mr. Yu

Wei; Mr. Ivo Balinov, who is a program officer with the Parliamentary Centre;

Ms. Liu Naiwen; and Mr. James Zhihong.

Please help me welcome these folks to the Legislature.

R. Hawes: Just to straighten out some of the confusion that

seems to be here this afternoon, the latest MacKay grandchild is named Montana.

I understand the grandfather has got some memory lapse sometimes. We'd just like

it on the record that Montana MacKay is the newborn grandchild.

Mr. Speaker: I don't think he'll forget his granddaughter.

Tributes

JAMES MORRISON

Hon. M. de Jong: Sadly, I have to announce to members the

passing of a great British Columbian — a hero, in fact.

James Morrison was born in Scotland in 1911. He arrived about ten

years later in British Columbia, and that was his home for the remainder of his

life. In 1939 James Morrison, upon hearing of the declaration of war, enlisted

and was a proud member of the British Columbia Regiment and the Duke of

Connaught's Own.

[1345]

But he didn't wait until the war to be a hero. I learned at his

memorial service last week that in 1937, he actually witnessed someone jumping

from the dizzying heights of the Lions Gate Bridge and jumped after them into

those ferocious waters that are the narrows. He was awarded the Medal of Bravery

in 1937 for having rescued that individual.

Besides his family, which, of course, was his first passion in

life, he had two others. The work he did within the organized labour movement,

particularly with the food and beverage workers through the '50s, '60s and

'70s…. He was the creator of a union newspaper aptly named, for that sector,

The Mixer . There was a legion of contributions that he made through the

years to that movement.

He was also passionate about politics. He was a longtime member of

the B.C. Liberal Party. I'm reminded by a former member from Burnaby, Patty

[ Page 10633 ]

Sahota, that well into his 90s he had no qualms about calling up and offering

advice and campaigning strenuously on her behalf, particularly at the George

Derby Centre, which was his home from the year 2000 on. It's a veterans home,

and he was proud to be there. He was a very popular fellow through the years.

A few years ago he was awarded the Queen's Jubilee medal as a

signal of thanks from a grateful nation, a grateful monarch, a grateful

province. He passed away on March 20. He was a great brother, a great father, a

great husband, a great grandfather, a great British Columbian and a great

Canadian, and he'll be missed.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

UTILITIES COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

Hon. R. Neufeld presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the Utilities Commission

Amendment Act, 2008, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I am pleased to introduce the Utilities

Commission Amendment Act. On February 27, 2007, the government's new energy plan

was released. The B.C. energy plan places the province at the forefront of

environmental and economic leadership.

Today we propose the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008,

which will bring the existing act in line with the conservation, energy security

and climate action goals of the energy plan. The amendments align the act with

the province's energy objectives — to encourage utilities to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions, pursue energy conservation and efficiency, produce and obtain

electricity from clean or renewable sources, develop energy transmission

infrastructure and capacity in time to meet customers' needs, and leverage

innovative energy technologies.

It is my honour to introduce legislative amendments to ensure that

our energy targets are met. Furthermore, the amendments will create a new

process for provincewide electricity transmission planning so that long-term

transmission needs will be met. As well, there are provisions to ensure the

competitiveness of rates.

It is the commission's role to regulate on a cost basis. The B.C.

Utilities Commission can take action to ensure our rates remain among the lowest

in North America and still meet the goals of the 2007 energy plan. Overall, the

changes to the Utilities Commission Act ensure that the government sets the

energy policy framework within the B.C. Utilities Commission, and the B.C.

Utilities Commission will regulate utilities.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) DOWNTOWN EASTSIDE WOMEN'S CENTRE

J. Kwan: I would like to express my congratulations to the

Downtown Eastside Women's Centre for celebrating their 30th anniversary last

week. High levels of violence, homelessness, addictions and poverty characterize

the downtown east side community. Women and children are particularly vulnerable

to exploitation, injustice and injury.

[1350]

Life on the street poses more dangers and exploitation for women.

The centre is one of the few safe places in the downtown east side for women and

their children. They provide support for over 300 women every day by providing

hot meals, clothing, secure mailing addresses, phone and computer access, and

functioning and secure toilets and showers.

The inequality for women continues today in Canadian society.

There are 67 percent more women than men who earn less than $30,000 a year. One

in five women continues to live in poverty in Canada; 56 percent of lone-parent

families headed by women are poor compared to 24 percent of those headed by men.

Women and youth account for 83 percent of Canada's minimum-wage workers, and 70

percent of workers living in abject poverty in the world are women.

Rural women constitute the majority of the 1.5 billion people who

live in absolute poverty. Women own only 1 percent of the land in the world,

according to the food and agricultural organization of the United Nations. Women

work 2.3 percent of the world's working hours, producing half of the world's

food, but earn only 10 percent of the world's income. Yet they own less than 1

percent of the world's property. And 37 percent of women of colour in Canada are

low income.

The link between poverty and health is clear. The lack of access

to affordable housing, transportation, food and non-secure health benefits such

as medications leads to poor health. Women and children who are poor are also

more likely to be socially isolated, which contributes to ill health.

I ask all members of the House to help me congratulate the women's

centre for their good work and commitment to ending poverty for women.

ELIMINATION OF

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

J. Nuraney: I rise in the House today to recognize the

International Day for the Elimination of Racial

[ Page 10634 ]

Discrimination. It was 42 years ago in 1966 that the general assembly of the

United Nations resolved to condemn and abolish all forms of racial

discrimination around the world. Since then, the motion has been turned into an

annual international day of awareness, activism, learning and celebration.

We honour this worthwhile cause on March 21. During this day of

recognition and awareness, people around the world celebrate cultural diversity

but also pause to consider the harm racism has wrought on the people and the

communities around the world.

The world has come a long way since that fateful day on March 21

in 1960 when police in Sharpeville, South Africa shot into a crowd of black

protestors, killing 69 and injuring 180. We can say with assurance that there

has been definite progress in preventing racial discrimination and in promoting

acceptance and understanding.

There remain, however, many places in our world and in our own

communities where racist attitudes remain pervasive. We must resolve that March

21 serves as a day when we recommit ourselves to working towards acceptance, as

a day when we express our outrage about racial discrimination and as a day when

we acknowledge the pain that innocent people have suffered because of racism.

I would ask the House to join me in showing their support for

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

KOREAN CANADIAN BUSINESSES IN COQUITLAM

D. Thorne: I am pleased to rise today to speak about the

importance of Korean business in Coquitlam. Many immigrants from Korea have

moved to the Coquitlam area in recent years, and with them have come an

increasing number of Korean Canadian businesses, particularly in the North Road

corridor. A number of these business people have joined the North Road Business

Association, which is working very hard to assist them to successfully take

their place in a vibrant business community.

A few months ago I participated in an interesting networking event

with Korean Canadian business and community representatives from Burnaby, New

Westminster and Coquitlam. One of the people in attendance, Andrew Lee of Angel

Investment and Finance, has located his business office directly across the

street from my constituency office. He has passed on to me several suggestions

for how government might improve services to facilitate Korean investment.

[1355]

SUCCESS is a local organization that is providing services to

Korean immigrants, entrepreneurs, through its business and economic development

division. Since 2004 this division has provided business services to more than

500 Korean clients. Korean-speaking staff assist immigrants by providing

one-on-one business consultation, business start-up seminars and networking

opportunities such as open house and information sessions.

Recently a delegation from Paju, South Korea, visited the city of

Coquitlam and met with municipal officials to discuss a possible twinning

relationship. Whether an official twinning will come about is still unknown, but

the visit by the mayor and his delegation confirms the importance of the Korean

community in Coquitlam.

I look forward to many more opportunities to build personal,

cultural and economic relationships with the growing Korean Canadian business

community in Coquitlam.

JENNIFER ATCHISON

H. Bloy: It continues to be a privilege to rise in this

House and speak of the people of my community who give back to this province to

make it the best place on earth to live. I know that all of us here are

dedicated to helping others, or we wouldn't be here. But today I am speaking of

those who give their whole life to volunteerism, who ask nothing in return for

their good deeds, who very simply excel at giving back to the community.

One example of this is found in my own riding of Burquitlam.

Jennifer Atchison is a recipient of the 2008 community achievements awards which

were announced on March 13. She is recognized for her tireless and ongoing

efforts to protect and rehabilitate Burnaby's Stoney Creek.

Jennifer has demonstrated her leadership on this and other

important environmental issues. She pulled together stakeholders from across the

industry, different levels of government, and the community to preserve Stoney

Creek. I do appreciate it, and my wife Anita, in the audience, appreciates it,

as we live on Stoney Creek.

Jennifer Atchison retired in 1994, but she didn't stop

contributing to her community in a big way. While exploring the Stoney Creek

area, she initiated a birdwatching club with the assistance of the Stoney Creek

Community School. Soon after this involved forming the Stoney Creek

Environmental Committee in 1995 after conducting a thorough research paper,

which was provided. Her proposals were then adopted by the Greater Vancouver

Regional District.

Allow me a moment to list her past achievements. She has been

honoured by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with Canada's recreational

fisheries award. She has received the B.C. Ministry of Environment award for her

project, the Great Salmon Send-Off, which runs every year at Stoney Creek.

She was recognized in Burnaby as a local hero, and she received

recognition in Canadian Living magazine. Jennifer's written work

continues to inspire environmental experts. Through applying Jennifer's

recommendations, the city of Burnaby….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

H. Bloy: Thank you for the opportunity.

[ Page 10635 ]

DOWNTOWN MAPLE RIDGE

BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

M. Sather: Business improvement associations, or BIAs, are

non-profit organizations that represent business and property owners in

neighbourhoods across British Columbia. The Downtown Maple Ridge BIA was created

in late 2006 and was officially launched on May 1, 2007.

They have a dedicated and active volunteer board of directors,

including Bob Masse, Racine Barbour, Chrislana Gregoray, Lynda Lawrence, Ernie

Beaudin, Tammy Diniz, Bob Jones, Peggy Logue and Tom Meier. They, along with

their staff, work with members to develop and manage programs that support both

large and small businesses in the area. As a non-profit organization, the BIA

office is supported by the community with donated office space, furniture,

manpower, web design and publishing services.

Members of the Downtown Maple Ridge BIA volunteer for two-year

terms on four key committees: beautification, events and marketing,

revitalization, and safety and security. Their Shop Local campaign encourages

residents to stay within the community to do their shopping. Sparkle Week

enlists businesses in sweeping sidewalks, cleaning doors and windows, and

perhaps creating a window display.

The property trespass, crime reporting and core area patrol

programs utilize trained patrollers who deal with significant issues like

property break and enters and homelessness. Renewal, improvement and growth —

these are the fundamental building blocks for long-term success of any healthy

town centre. The Downtown Maple Ridge BIA is yet another of our community

leaders helping people make Maple Ridge a better place to live.

[1400]

PUCKS PROGRAM

M. Polak: Street hockey is a Canadian tradition. All you

need for a neighbourhood game in the cul-de-sac are some sticks, old baseball

gloves and some couch cushions for the goalie. But for kids who wish to take

their hockey dream to the next level, it costs money. If your child has a

disability, it can cost even more. Thanks to the PuCKS program, hockey is

becoming accessible to more and more kids whose dreams would otherwise end in

the cul-de-sac.

PuCKS stands for promoting community through kids in sport. Their

goal is to offer hockey to all kids with or without disabilities, regardless of

their financial circumstances.

Through partnerships with organizations such as VanCity, WestJet

and TEAM 1040 Sports Radio, PuCKS provides equipment and financial support to

kids like Maranda Rudolph.

I met Maranda and her family when I, along with my colleague the

Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, had the opportunity to

present her with a new chest protector on behalf of PuCKS. Maranda is the goalie

for the Langley girls Peewee C Sharks. At the 2008 Ice Classic in Richmond,

Maranda was the game MVP against Kamloops, facing 70 shots and allowing only

nine goals. Maranda is also a PuCKS hockey scholarship recipient. Through PuCKS,

Maranda receives gear and financial support to ensure her continued success.

Not only will Maranda continue to excel as an athlete, but her

involvement in sports has given her the confidence to set important goals for

herself in other areas of her life. At 15 she is looking forward to attending

university once she graduates from high school.

With the help of PuCKS, Maranda can look forward to more game MVPs

and — who knows — maybe a future NHL contract.

Oral Questions

POLICE INVESTIGATION OF

FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL

C. James: For nine months the former Solicitor General has

been under criminal investigation. For nine months the public knew nothing. Only

when the media asked the right question was this serious matter made public.

My question is to the Attorney General. Do the people of British

Columbia deserve to know when the top police official in the province is put

under criminal investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: Our system of criminal justice operates on

the twin pillars of independence and accountability, and the appointment of a

special prosecutor is within the specific and exclusive jurisdiction of the

assistant deputy minister for criminal justice. The criminal justice branch has

complete control of the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was done in

this case.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental.

C. James: This is about accountability. This is about

ethics. This is about transparency and openness for the public. This is about

confidence in the criminal justice system. This is not about an ordinary

citizen. This is not about an ordinary MLA or an ordinary cabinet minister. This

is about the highest-ranking police official in this province, the person who

oversees the RCMP.

Again, my question to the Attorney General: why is the public kept

in the dark about a criminal investigation into the former Solicitor General

until someone asks the question? Doesn't he believe that the public has the

right to know?

[1405]

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, our system of disclosure and our

system of prosecution are based on the Crown Counsel Act. The Crown Counsel Act

is based largely on the recommendations of Stephen Owen, who conducted an

independent commission of inquiry

[ Page 10636 ]

into public prosecutions in this province and concluded with a report filed

in November of 1990.

In that report he makes certain recommendations. Those

recommendations translated into legislation. Our legislation — with respect to

disclosure, independence and all of those pillars and all of those principles

that we rely on — is the envy of the world.

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

supplemental.

C. James: It's very clear the Attorney General has not been

listening to the public in British Columbia, because I can tell you that they do

not have confidence at all in the openness of this government.

Over the last nine months the former Solicitor General has been

negotiating a new contract with the RCMP. The former Solicitor General has taken

a firm position on police amalgamation to fight crime, calling it a red herring.

In the time the former Solicitor General has been under criminal investigation,

he has been involved in every important matter involving policing and crime.

My question again to the Attorney General: how can the public have

any confidence in a government that keeps them in the dark about possible

criminal activity by the former Solicitor General?

Hon. W. Oppal: I will, for the benefit of the Leader of the

Opposition, read from the Stephen Owen report, Discretion to Prosecute

Inquiry , page 107. He deals with this very issue of public disclosure.

It reads as follows: "Where the general public or the victim of an

alleged crime knows that a police investigation has taken place, the potential

for perceived improper influence or any otherwise unjust decision can arise. In

such situations it should first be said that it is never appropriate to disclose

a police report or other sensitive investigation documents to the public when a

decision not to prosecute has been made."

M. Farnworth: Well, the special prosecutor was appointed

nine months ago. There was no disclosure made. Yet the only reason there's a

disclosure made is because someone — in this case, the media — asked the right

question. Nothing has changed other than a question was asked: "Was the former

Solicitor General under a police investigation?" It was at that point that they

said: "Yes, he is."

The Attorney General says that he wasn't informed. So how can the

Attorney General defend a process where it only becomes public when the right

question is asked? Does it mean, then, that in the future what will happen is

that the media or this side of the House will ask once a week: is a member of

cabinet under a police investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: I say, with the greatest of respect, that

the member opposite has missed the whole point of what we're doing here. The

policy set out by the criminal justice branch, which is based on Stephen Owen's

recommendations, is that where the matter is not in the public domain and a

special prosecutor is appointed, there should be no announcement made.

The reason for that is not….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

[1410]

Hon. W. Oppal: Not all investigations result in charges. It

would be unfair, to say the least, to reveal the state of an investigation where

it does not result in charges. Innocent people are often subject matters of

investigation. That's the reason why persons who are under investigation…. Their

identity is not made known to the public. It's called fairness. It's based upon

the presumption of innocence, which is a basic part of our criminal justice

system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: What it comes back to is that the media asked

the question. They just asked the question straight up, and they were given an

affirmative answer that, yes, the Solicitor General is under police

investigation. So it's not interference. It's just a straight-up question.

The Attorney General didn't want to answer the question: "Okay,

are we going to have to ask every week whether someone in cabinet is under

police investigation?" Perhaps he can answer this question. Does he think it's

appropriate that he finds out through the media that the top law enforcement

officer of the province of British Columbia is under police investigation and

that he has not been told about that?

Hon. W. Oppal: For the benefit of the member opposite, I

didn't find out through the media. I found out through the Deputy Attorney

General.

But let me read the law to you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Let me read to the hon. member the

provisions of the Crown Counsel Act,

section 7(3). It reads: "If the Assistant

Deputy Attorney General appoints a special prosecutor, the Assistant Deputy

Attorney General must advise the Deputy Attorney General (

a) that a special

prosecutor has been appointed, and (

b) the name of the special prosecutor."

You will note from that that the legislation that was passed

unanimously in this House in 1991 specifically excludes the Attorney General

from being notified, and

[ Page 10637 ]

there's a very good reason for that. It's to keep politics separate from the

independence that's required in the prosecution and the investigations of

wrongdoings in our society.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General just told this House that he

found out from the Deputy Attorney General that the former top cop in the

province of British Columbia was under criminal investigation. My question to

the Attorney General is: when did he find out?

Hon. W. Oppal: At 5 p.m. last Friday.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: So let me just get this straight. The Attorney

General says he found out at 5 p.m. on Friday. The press release was sent out to

the public at 5:30 from the government. All through, by happenstance, a

question….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: The press release went out from the criminal

justice branch to the media at 5:30.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

J. Kwan: And in the meanwhile, the criminal investigation

has gone on for nine months. Had the question not been asked by the media, would

it be the case, then, that the former Solicitor General would still be the top

cop in the province of British Columbia?

Does the Attorney General think that this is appropriate for the

investigation to have gone on for nine months before the public finds out that

the top cop in British Columbia is under criminal investigation?

[1415]

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to read from the statement issued…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: …by the criminal justice branch. In part, it

reads as follows:

"A decision to appoint a special prosecutor is

made when there is a significant potential for real or perceived improper

influence in the independent exercise of prosecutorial responsibilities. In

practice, special prosecutors are appointed in cases involving cabinet

ministers, members of the Legislature, other senior public or ministry

officials, high-ranking police officers, other senior positions in the justice

system or persons in close proximity to them.

"Commissioner Owen's major objective was to

maintain public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system.

This objective is also of paramount importance to me."

The author of that is Robert Gillen QC, the Assistant Deputy Attorney

General. Those are the guidelines that were used in the exercise of Mr. Gillen's

discretion in this particular case.

N. Macdonald: Okay, this is a matter of public confidence.

For nine months the top public official in charge of policing in this province

was under investigation. By the government's own standards…. This is their

stated position. The Premier's stated position is that as soon as a special

prosecutor is appointed, a minister steps down. That is the stated position of

this government. Those are the Premier's words.

That didn't happen. It didn't happen for nine months. That it

happens to leak out through the media is a very weak way of handling this sort

of issue. By the government's own standards the Attorney General has failed. The

question that I have for the Attorney General is: why?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Attorney, just take your seat for a second.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, the members of the opposition

don't seem to…. I recognize that there's a political component to this, and I

recognize that all of them are going to get up and ask….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: I recognize that they're all going to parrot

the same question. I recognize that. It's a part of the game. But you know, our

criminal justice system is regarded as being the best in the world because of

its independence, its fairness and its presumption of innocence. It has no place

for castigating innocent people who may be subject to an investigation and who

may never, ever be charged, let alone convicted. For people on the other side of

the House to start castigating characters of people who may or may not be

charged is grossly, grossly unfair.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The Attorney General deliberately misses the

point. The point is this. If it was the right thing to do on Friday for the

Solicitor General to step down, why was it not the right thing for the Solicitor

General to do that nine months ago? All that we hear here… All that we hear

from….

Interjections.

[ Page 10638 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: All we hear is that for this Attorney

General, the fact is that unlike everything that we've been taught, ignorance is

an excuse. What I want to know from the Attorney General is: why did he not act

on this nine months ago? And if it is because he was ignorant of the fact, why

doesn't he set up a system where the Attorney General knows what's going on?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, it's obvious that that member has

missed the point of what's being discussed here. For starters, the Solicitor

General didn't know. The Solicitor General wasn't supposed to know. Nobody was

supposed to know. You see….

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Our system is based on the fact that where

there is a special prosecutor appointed and dealing with issues of that sort,

then the subject matter of that investigation is not made known — public —

unless it gets out into the public domain. The reason for that, again….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. W. Oppal: The reason for that, again, is that many

people are investigated, but not all of them are charged. It's a question that's

based on fairness.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: Stephen Owen addressed these very issues in

his report. I would recommend that the members opposite read the report. Read

the report. Then read the act. As a matter of fact….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Attorney.

M. Karagianis: The Premier said in 2003: "We have always

been clear as a party and as a government that when a special prosecutor is

appointed to help the police carry out an investigation, it is appropriate for

someone to step down." He didn't say in there that a cabinet minister will only

step down when the public finds out about the investigation or the media asks

the right question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just sit down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, continue.

M. Karagianis: The Premier did not say anywhere in his

comments that a cabinet minister will only step down when the public finds out

about the investigation or the media asks the right question. The process here

is flawed.

Is the Attorney General saying that the only trigger for

accountability in his government is when the media asks a specific and right

question? Otherwise, there is no trigger for accountability for cabinet

ministers. Is that what he is saying to us?

Hon. W. Oppal: I will attempt to answer that question as

best I can, keeping in mind the somewhat questionable premise upon which the

question is posed. For starters, the Solicitor General did the honourable thing

here. When he first learned of the appointment of the special prosecutor, he

stepped aside. I don't understand that question at all — how the Solicitor

General was supposed to resign back in June of '07 if he didn't know about the

appointment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, I believe that the Attorney General

has stumbled upon the very gist of this entire question. How are we to know? Is

the Attorney General trying to tell us that for nine months the top cop in this

province has been under investigation — for almost a year — and no one in

government has known anything about it? Is the public supposed to…?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member continues.

[1425]

M. Karagianis: Well, it is reasonable to think that the

public deserve a better answer from this government than that.

For nine months the Solicitor General has been under

investigation, and this government is claiming they're completely ignorant of

that. How many other cabinet ministers are currently under special

investigation? How will we ever have any accountability in this government? This

is a government riddled with scandal. We have seen the Dobell case. We have seen

the B.C. Rail sale scandal.

Now we are seeing that investigations take place against a senior

cabinet minister in this government for nine months, and nobody on that side of

the House knows anything about it. I do not believe for one minute that it is

reasonable to expect that the only way we will find out what is going on behind

closed doors

[ Page 10639 ]

in this government is when the press asks the right questions.

Will the Attorney General admit that this is a flawed process that

needs to be changed right now?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I'll answer the last part of that

question, when she talks about changing the act. It should be remembered that

the opposition, at the time of the passage of this act, called it landmark

legislation. The Crown Counsel Act is model legislation. It's the envy of all

jurisdictions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't think the member opposite would

seriously want to change the act if she understood it.

D. Thorne: The Attorney General may feel that this whole

process and everything that has happened since Friday afternoon is acceptable,

but it's pretty clear already to me and to the people on this side of the House

that the people of British Columbia don't think it's acceptable. The Attorney

General….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just wait.

D. Thorne: I can talk louder than they can.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

D. Thorne: The Attorney General may not have found out from

the media what happened on Friday afternoon, but he certainly found out right

after his assistant deputy minister found out that the media had the

information. So it's really the same difference, isn't it?

I want to know: can the Attorney General really rationalize this

and say he finds it acceptable that he only finds out after the media make an

inquiry?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll resort once more to the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: This is a statement of Bob Gillen, the

Assistant Deputy Attorney General. He states:

"It is a general practice of the criminal justice

branch to make an announcement of the appointment of a special prosecutor only

if the matter is, in our judgment, already in the public domain and

circumstances that necessitate such announcement to maintain the public's

confidence in the administration of justice.

"The decisions to announce the appointment of a

special prosecutor and the timing of those announcements are made solely by

the branch without any involvement or influence of the Attorney General,

Deputy Attorney General, or any other public official outside the branch."

[1430]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: The Attorney General has decided to quote the

law here, so let me quote

section 7(4).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat.

Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: Well, let's quote the law.

Section 7(4) of the

Crown Counsel Act says that if after a special prosecutor receives their

mandate, the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General or Assistant Deputy

Attorney General gives a direction to a special prosecutor in respect of any

matter within the mandate of the special prosecutor, that direction must be

given in writing and be published in the Gazette.

By implication, yes, the Attorney General can be told about these

matters. Yes, the Attorney General can look at the public interest, and he has

the ability to give direction, including the direction to make the public aware

that a senior cabinet minister is under investigation — and not wait nine months

to do it.

Did the Attorney General misspeak earlier to this House when he

said he shouldn't be informed, or is he just covering up?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, that's a cute little statement

completely devoid of any substance.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, if you're going to quote

subsection (4), read subsection (3) first.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. W. Oppal: Let me tell you what the law is. Let me tell

you what the law is, through the Speaker.

[ Page 10640 ]

Subsection (3) states that if the Assistant Deputy Attorney General appoints

a special prosecutor, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General must advise the

Deputy Attorney General (

a) that a special prosecutor has been appointed and (

b) the name of the special prosecutor. That

section comes into play before

subsection (4).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: I seek leave to submit a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have a petition from British Columbians once

again asking this government to act on the safe antifreeze legislation.

R. Lee: I have a petition with 527 signatures requesting

the House to restore full funding to B.C. child care programs.

G. Coons: I have a petition collected in Tlell and Port

Clements, concerns with dramatic increases to fares and requesting a moratorium

against any fare increases.

B. Simpson: I present a petition — 84 signatures from

Cariboo North — in support of the private member's bills, the Right to Know Act

and the Toxics Use Reduction Act, introduced by the MLA for Vancouver-Fairview.

[1435]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage

debate of Bill 6, the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act, and in Committee A,

Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates debate

on the Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of the Whole House

ELECTORAL REFORM REFERENDUM 2009 ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; K.

Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

section 5 (continued) .

J. Horgan: We were in the middle of this

section when we

rose at adjournment for the spring break. I'm wondering if we could spend some

time on

section 5 — in particular, the reference to what is discussed in the

community that's interested in this subject, the supermajority, and why it is

that the referendum proposed for electoral reform requires a supermajority in

respect to the number of ballots cast and also with respect to the number of

electoral districts.

In light of the public sentiment that followed what many perceived

to be a successful referendum in 2005, why is it that the government chose to

carry on with a supermajority as they did the first time around?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's essentially the same rationale that

went into the last referendum, and that is that this would require a significant

change in the way we vote. For that reason, it was thought…. The intent was that

we have a more-than-bare majority. That's the reason for it.

J. Horgan: Well, the Attorney will know, although neither

he nor I was in this place before 2005, that the referendum did take place. The

question, although we don't know what the question will be, is likely to be

similar to the question that was asked in 2005.

For many citizens, there was an expectation that the near 60

percent threshold that was achieved in 2005 was sufficient. If we're not

changing the threshold and if we're not changing the question, and we're only

going to encourage more participation by providing more funding for proponents

than opponents, are we going continue to having referendums until we get the

answer we want? Or is it a matter of just keep putting this on the ballot to see

how people feel about it?

[1440]

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the fact that it came close to

hitting the threshold last time is probably good evidence or a good basis for

the fact that it should be put on again. That's the reason why we're doing this

all over again. It came close the last time, which indicates that a significant

number of people wanted change. I think it's in the public interest that the

public get the opportunity to decide this question once and for all.

J. Horgan: Well, I look back to the Charlottetown

referendum. I look at other referenda that have been held in the province of

Quebec, where those supporting sovereignty and those opposing sovereignty have

been battling for generations. Each time the question is put to the public, the

support for the question appears to be rising. For those democrats in Canada,

you only have to look back at the last referendum held in Quebec, where it was a

matter of fractions of percentage points that was the difference between success

and failure.

With that, and being democrats who have modelled ourselves as a

50-percent-plus-one society, why is it that the government continues to support

a supermajority in this instance? Is it a result of the initial legislation? Is

it specifically for this question? If there were other referenda proposed by

government, would you also have a supermajority?

[ Page 10641 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: The first part of the question can be

answered by the fact that there's now more public information regarding the

referendum.

The question regarding the requirement of more than a simple

majority can be answered as follows. That is, there are similar provisions in

other legislations. For instance, in the Clarity Act on the federal level, seven

provinces have to give their consent before any change is made. Many local

government initiatives require a two-thirds majority where there is a

significant change being proposed.

That's really the reason for it, because the STV process, if it is

adopted, would mean a very significant change in the way we select our

representatives. For that reason, it is thought by most people that we should

have a significant requirement — more than a bare majority.

J. Horgan: When I worked in the House of Commons around

constitutional issues at the end of the '80s and the early part of the '90s…. I

can remember vigorous debates on the 7/50 rule for constitutional amendments and

how that was going to play out across the country.

We saw some very interesting and innovative tools used by members.

Certainly, the Attorney will remember Elijah Harper and his famous feather in

the Legislature in the province of Manitoba. That sort of standing up against

the majority won kudos from those who were opposed to the Meech Lake accord and,

of course, acrimony from those who were in favour of it.

I go back to 2005. At the time of the referendum, this place was

in significant imbalance. There were 70-plus members of the government and very

few members of opposition. The government had initiated an innovative approach

to electoral reform. The constituent assembly, people from across the province,

was brought together to discuss and look at different methods and techniques of

managing and balancing our democratic institutions. I don't think you could have

found a time in our history when interest in this subject could have been any

higher than it was at that time. Despite that, the question didn't meet the

supermajority.

We've had three years go by. It'll be four full years before the

public is given an opportunity to answer that question again. The balance in

this place has changed. Government has stepped back from some of its more

draconian policies, and I believe, based on what I hear in my constituency, that

people are, by and large, satisfied with the electoral system.

With that in mind, could it not be argued that it's a bit of waste

of money and resources and energy to put forward a question again with a

supermajority that wasn't achieved at the height of discussion on electoral

reform?

[1445]

Hon. W. Oppal: The member raises some valid points.

However, the major difference here is that the Electoral Boundaries Commission

has now made recommendations relating to the single transferable voting system.

For that reason, we think it's something that's worth revisiting.

J. Horgan: I agree with the Attorney that certainly the

electorate will have a better understanding of the implications of STV now that

we have maps or…. Once this place accepts the recommendations of the Electoral

Boundaries Commission, I assume we will have legislation to that effect coming

forward, and that will help inform the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with

respect to a question for the referendum that's proposed for next year.

I've been spending quite a bit of time going to various on-line

forums and looking at the debate around this question. I was not a supporter of

STV last time. I was one of those who voted against it and made that clear to

constituents when they raised the issue with me. But I have been doing quite a

bit of research since that time, primarily because the two members of the

constituent assembly who were from my constituency are very compelling in their

arguments that I should pay more attention in looking at this.

As a result, I've looked at the discussion and debate on-line

mostly and through academic submissions about the impact of a supermajority on a

question of electoral reform. A fear in that community, who quite honestly live

and breathe this stuff…. Inconceivable to many of us, but there are people in

the community who are very passionate about this subject. The supermajority is

an impediment in their mind to success for this initiative, which they believe

will make our system more accountable to the people in communities.

Beyond the fact that the Attorney and the leg. counsel who drafted

this piece of legislation feel strongly that it's important enough to have a

supermajority, is there another compelling reason why a 50-percent-plus-one vote

wouldn't be sufficient in this case?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know if I can make it any more clear

or if I can articulate the position any differently than I already have except

to say that in 2003 when the announcement was made that more than a simple

majority would be required, there were no serious objections. Afterwards, there

were some objections when it failed to meet the necessary threshold.

The only thing I can say again — and I will resort to the same

argument — is that it's a proposal that really requires fundamental change.

Because the change contemplated is so fundamental, the proposal is to have more

than a simple majority.

J. Horgan: I guess when cabinet is faced with approving

legislation, you take it to your caucus and put the question to the caucus. You

say: "Well, we could have gone with 50-percent-plus-one, or we could have gone

with the supermajority. We chose to go with the supermajority."

The challenge that poses for all of us here as we vote for this

legislation, presuming it's going to pass, is that we'll go back to our

constituencies, and there will be many who will say — and the Attorney will hear

from them, I'm certain — that we are protecting our vested interests here in

this place. The first-past-the-

[ Page 10642 ]

post system works for us, and therefore we're trying to preserve it.

[1450]

That's not my argument. I want the Attorney to be clear on that. I

don't have a quarrel with our system. I believe in representing an area rather

than representing a point of view, so I'm quite comfortable with what we've got.

But as I've said in the debate, I do hear from a lot of people in the community

— not just my own, but since I've been taking an interest in this — that by

putting forward a supermajority, we are protecting our self-interest.

Does the minister have a comment on that or on how I could better

make the case when I go home — that I'm not doing that?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I'm sure the persuasive powers that

the member opposite has will suffice in the circumstances. I'm sure that with

your skills, Member, you'll be able to convince your constituents one way or the

other.

I think the point to remember here is that the government, by

virtue of the fact that it's putting this back in the public arena, indicates

that we're paying attention to the number of people who voted in favour of it. I

don't know if I can say anything more than that.

J. Horgan: We've talked about 60 percent of the ballots.

Section 5(1)(a): "at least 60% of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on

the question that is stated for the referendum." Now we go to subsection (b):

"in at least 60% of the electoral districts…."

Now, this is a challenge for me. We haven't really had a fulsome

debate, and I suspect we will when we deal with the Electoral Boundaries

Commission report in the form of legislation before we rise in May. But we're

now presumably up to 85, if the motion that was passed by this House is any

indication. We'll have 85 electoral areas, which increases the likelihood of a

defeat of this question because, of course, the 60 percent will mean more

constituencies will have to vote in favour of it than not.

Again, that means that areas that are not equal in votes, in terms

of those in downtown Vancouver, who are above the median — those that are above

the 50,000 or whatever the figure ended up being — and those that are

drastically below, in some of the rural areas of B.C…. There's a

disproportionate amount of voting power in those rural seats.

Again, we've had some discussion about this. This is not new.

Certainly, in this parliament we've been debating aggressively the Electoral

Boundaries Commission process. There have been some ups and downs — some

hiccups, if I could be generous — in that process. But now we're going into a

supermajority where it's not only the number of votes cast, but it's the number

of constituencies.

I appreciate the minister's confidence in my eloquence and ability

to sell this back home to the folks — my Malahatians and my "John" de Fucans.

But the question is: how do I justify large urban areas voting in favour being

defeated by fewer votes in a larger number of rural constituencies?

[1455]

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the best way I can answer that is to

say that the rural areas may look at this quite differently from the urban

areas. So the legislation does its best to level the playing field and offer….

It's a recognition of our unique historical landscape. So we have a tendency to

ensure that those rural areas are not under-represented even though they may be

losing population to urban areas.

J. Horgan: Well, I would argue that with this supermajority

proposed in

section 5(1)(b), they're overrepresented. There are fewer votes in

those northern constituencies. If we have a low voter turnout in the rural areas

because of…. Let's assume that with the frantic weather we're having these days,

we have some snowstorms next May and people can't get to the polling places.

Fewer people in those rural constituencies can impact the voting system for the

rest of British Columbia because of this supermajority required in

constituencies as well.

As I understand it — and, you know, the Attorney gets certainly

more, if not better, legal advice than I do — if we look at the 85 seats that

are proposed as, I guess, the fallback position of the Electoral Boundaries

Commission, we are in fact increasing the likelihood that urban voters are

disproportionately penalized in a supermajority versus rural voters.

I'm wondering if the minister has had any opinions from his

ministry on that or if he has any thoughts on how that would affect the outcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: Actually, the increase in the number of

seats has taken place in the urban areas where there has been a greater increase

in the population. That's where there are more seats now — in those areas. Yes,

the northern seats are to be kept there — or the intent is to keep them there —

so as to not deprive the people in those areas of representation. But the

greatest increase has taken place in the urban areas.

J. Horgan: Well, I'll have to respectfully disagree with

the minister on that. Had the Legislature taken into consideration the first

report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, where they recommended 81 seats —

removing seats from rural British Columbia, northern British Columbia, the

interior, Kamloops area and in the Kootenays — I would have had to agree with

him.

But if I am to understand that the House supported a motion

calling on 85 seats, which is two more than the final report recommended — so we

went from 81 to 83, and we will be approving in the weeks or months ahead 85 —

that increase from 81 to 85 is all in rural British Columbia.

The deviation for rural versus urban went from…. I think the

median was going to be 52,000 residents, and it has now dropped down to 49,000

or 50,000. So that is

[ Page 10643 ]

disproportionately favouring rural British Columbia. I don't have a quarrel

with that with respect to electoral representation in this place under our

existing system. But when I look at this legislation and I look at two

supermajorities — one for votes cast and another one for constituencies — I

think that changes the dynamic somewhat.

So I would ask the minister again: did he receive any advice

before tabling this legislation that suggested to him that it was

disproportionately favouring rural residents against urban residents?

[1500]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I must disagree with the member's

assessment. You see, in 2005 there were 79 electoral districts. In 2009 there'll

be 85. What that really means is that the rural areas have kept their seats.

There hasn't been any increase, and there has been no decrease,

whereas the

urban areas, because of an increase in population, have an increase. I think

that's the best way I could answer that.

J. Horgan: I'll just use Vancouver Island as an example.

One seat was added on Vancouver Island. It was not in the capital regional

district, and it was not in Nanaimo. It was added in the Cowichan Valley, which

is a beautiful place, and I'm proud to represent it, but it could certainly not

be described as urban.

By redrawing the maps around cities on the Island, by redrawing

maps in the Fraser Valley and in the Okanagan, we are creating smaller

constituencies around those urban centres, and we are — as you say, quite

rightly — preserving current seats as they exist on the 79-seat configuration in

the 85-seat configuration. But it doesn't change the fact that those seats in

the north, which were below the deviation provided for in the constitution

before the Electoral Boundaries Commission and are even more below now…. It

doesn't change the fact that those constituencies have fewer people in them. To

get to the 60 percent majority in those constituencies would be easier to do

than it would be in terms of numbers of votes in urban seats.

Therefore, my argument is that if you put the two supermajorities

together, it disproportionately favours a pro or a con vote in rural B.C. over

urban B.C. I don't know how else to say it.

I understand that the minister doesn't see it the same way I do,

but perhaps he's going to get some assistance from his staff.

The challenge for us on this side of the House is that we take

this stuff very seriously. Certainly there are many, many people in the

community that take this very seriously. I think it's incumbent upon us to fully

canvass this issue and ensure that government, in discharging its

responsibilities, has contemplated these variables in coming to the conclusion

that a supermajority — not just one, but two — is the appropriate way to go.

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know if there's anything more valid

that I can say except to say that these are the boundaries that have been

proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commission, an independent commission. We

think we have to live by them. I think, maybe, that we'll have to agree to

disagree on this. I don't know if there's anything more I could add to that

which I've already said.

J. Horgan: The Electoral Boundaries Commission, as

independent as it was, recommended 83 seats. That was their recommendation. It

wasn't: "It's 83. But maybe, if you'd rather, do 85." It was 83 seats.

In an appendix of the report, they said: "If you really, really

want to have more seats, you could add two — one here and one there." I'm all

good with saying that the commission was independent and the commission

recommended something, but it didn't recommend what we voted on last week, and

it didn't recommend what we're going to vote on in the weeks ahead.

We have added in this Legislature, both sides of the House, two

more seats. By adding two more seats, we've increased the likelihood of this

referendum failing. So when I go back to my constituents, when I get in the chat

rooms, the STV chat rooms out there on the Internet…. Believe me, those watching

at home, they're out there. If you want to find them, just google "STV B.C.,"

and you'll find them. There are some very articulate and thoughtful people in

these forums, and their biggest concern is the question of supermajorities.

Why I continue to ask the questions is that it's not wishful

thinking on my part. I'm just hopeful that government has, in the past three

years, given more than just a passing thought to this question, and that now

that we're increasing the number of seats and we're increasing the threshold for

success, there's a reasonable rationale for why we did that.

[1505]

Hon. W. Oppal: This proportional test is the same test that

was embodied in the previous legislation. I don't know if I can add anything

more.

J. Horgan: Moving on to

section 5(2), it says, "If the

result of the referendum (

a) is binding on the government in accordance with

subsection (1), and (

b) the ballots referred to in that subsection are in favour

of adopting the single transferable vote electoral system, the government is

required to introduce the legislation needed" — etc.

So what this

section does is ensure that if the referendum vote is

successful, we will have new boundaries, new maps. Will it mean another

electoral boundaries commission or will we be proceeding on the maps that were

prepared by the most recent group?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, obviously, we are not in a position to

bind any future Legislature. However, according to the law, according to the

act, there will be a further electoral boundaries commission appointed after the

2013 general election.

J. Horgan: This

section says that before the election is

held in May 2013, legislation will be introduced to implement the STV system. So

I guess my question is:

[ Page 10644 ]

does that mean a new round of finding three wise people to travel the

province again? Or are we going to be using the maps that were presented and

prepared by this commission when we accept the recommendations or findings of

the electorate in the referendum in 2009?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, again, without attempting to bind any

future Legislature, the intent was to rely on the advice given by the commission

on the STV recommendations that have been made.

J. Horgan: So then I'll just say this and see if I can get

agreement from the minister. We have an Electoral Boundaries Commission that has

reported back. They have given us a final report. We will put into legislation

the boundaries for the coming election in 2009. Should the referendum, which

we're discussing today, pass in 2009 — meet the requirements of the

supermajority at both levels — we will then proceed, as it's prescribed in this

section, to prepare for the May 2013 election on the boundaries that have been

put in the commission's report for this round, for 2009.

[1510]

The maps that were prepared, part and parcel of the documents that

we've been receiving from the commission, will form the basis for the 2013

election. There will not be another commission?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's the intention.

J. Horgan: With that, I give the floor to my colleague from

Surrey-Whalley, if he has any further questions on

section

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

S. Simpson:

Section 6 speaks of penalties respecting misuse

or non-repayment of funds, presumably for the proponent or opponent groups after

they've received their funding. Could the minister tell us what the government

has in mind in terms of the kinds of things that a proponent or opponent group

might do that would be deemed to be a misuse of the funds — other than,

presumably, theft of the funds — in terms of their conduct, of their action, as

a proponent or opponent group? Are there particular activities that the minister

presumes might constitute misuse of funds?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I would contemplate just the

misappropriation of funds, if anything of that sort takes place. Let's assume

for a minute that a party secures funds for purposes that are legitimate and

then uses them for an illegitimate purpose, for a wrongful purpose, for a

purpose that's not contemplated by the legislation. In those circumstances the

penalty

section would come into effect.

S. Simpson: When I read 6(1) — or it's referenced again in

6(2) — it says that a person who contravenes a provision of a regulation under

this act that relates to the use or repayment of amounts, etc., under

section 4,

which is the

section that applies the money…. To me, that looked like there may

be particular activities that wouldn't be "illegal activities," — i.e., a

misappropriation of funds or anything of an illegal nature — but in terms of how

they conduct themselves….

It has the potential to be interpreted that there may be

regulatory measures put in place about the breadth of conduct for one of these

groups, the proponent or opponent groups, that would be outside of the allowable

use of the funds. I'm wondering whether that was the intention of the minister.

Hon. W. Oppal: Where the funds are used for political

purposes in promoting some candidate as opposed to what the intent of this

section is would be an example of violating the provisions of this act.

Obviously, if there's a misappropriation or something of that sort, the criminal

law would come into play. But

section 6 contemplates a regulatory process under

the act where the conduct might fall well short of criminal sanctions or

criminal conduct.

S. Simpson: So then, just to be clear, and setting aside,

of course, that criminal activity wouldn't be allowed…. We all understand that.

Now, the minister is saying that overt partisan activity in favour of one

political party or another…. Overt partisan activity by the proponent or

opponent would be a disallowed use. That wouldn't be allowed to occur. I believe

that's what I hear the minister saying.

Are there other activities, other than those of an overtly

partisan political nature, that the minister envisions as not being allowable?

[1515]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I would expect that when the

regulations come into effect, they will specifically state the purpose for which

these funds are to be used. So the disuse, if you will, of the funds or the

misuse of the funds would attract the effects of this section. If they are used

for some partisan purpose other than the promotion or the non-promotion of the

referendum, then obviously in those circumstances

section 6 would come into

play.

S. Simpson: I know there are some more specific matters in

section 8, and we'll get a chance to talk more specifically about these

organizations that will come into play and what they can and can't do.

Just in regard to the issues around funds, presuming the passing

of this legislation sometime in the not too distant future, when does the

minister presume to write those regulations and make them available or have them

made available in public? And is there a process of consultation to go on around

what those limits or those regulations might be?

Hon. W. Oppal: The intent at this stage is to consult with

the Chief Electoral Officer and make regulations that are appropriate. That is

the present intent.

[ Page 10645 ]

You know, there is no process in place now to have any kind of

consultation. However, having said that, I think that's something that may be

worth considering. That's all I can say.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the minister is suggesting

that this is a matter that…. He may want to consider broadening this discussion

out. I mean, clearly, responsibility for development of the regulations rests

with the executive council. If they're giving that authority to the Chief

Electoral Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer will support that.

I'm glad to hear that, because this is a bit of a unique situation

in terms of this kind of referendum in British Columbia where the government has

gone out and provided resources to pro and con organizations and said, "We want

you to be active on this and to represent these two views and be able to

represent them in a strong and articulate fashion so that British Columbians

have as much information on both sides of the argument as is available" — as

well, of course, as the independent neutral information that will be provided

directly by government through Elections B.C.

But the need for both those groups to be able to, and sometimes

pretty vociferously…. As my colleague spoke about earlier, I certainly have

heard from many proponents of STV who are very enthusiastic and are looking

forward to being able to make their case, and from the other side, people who

support the current system and believe the current system is appropriate and

should stay as it is.

So I would hope that the minister will have that discussion. I'm

assuming that those folks within the Chief Electoral Officer's precinct or

within government who know pretty well who the different voices are on both

sides of this argument…. Hopefully, there is some discussion with them because

I'm sure that what nobody wants is either of those bodies to develop strategies

that later become deemed to be possibly inappropriate.

[1520]

It's a bit of new ground for us as we do this in British Columbia.

It's certainly been done elsewhere, but it's a bit of new ground. So I do hope

that the minister will consider…. As he's indicated here, he thinks that there

may be some merit to that question of further consultation. I do hope that he

would make the decision to have those discussions there.

Just in terms of this…. Maybe it comes more appropriately,

actually, later on around reporting. If that is the case, the minister can let

me know, and I'll save those questions for

section 8. Clearly, part of the issue

around this is use of the money and repayments of amounts that are used

inappropriately. How is the accounting of this anticipated to take place? How

will these groups have to account for this money so that, in fact, the

government has confidence that it is being used in the way it was envisioned?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think that's a question that ought to be

considered under

section 8.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

S. Simpson: Looking at

section 8, my particular questions

here come down to looking at

section 2(c). Then there are a number of

subsections under that that I'd like to talk about a little bit.

What this

section does is lay out some of the parameters for the

establishment of regulations that allow for the proponent and opponent groups to

be put in place, the payment of dollars, and some of the obligations and

restrictions and limitations that might be put on those expenditures. I think

this actually begins to talk about some of the things that in

section 6 we

talked around. It's a little more clear here.

I just need a clarification here. I believe that the minister said

in comments to my friend from Malahat–Juan de Fuca…. He talked previously about

comments from Hansard where he said that the other office…. He talked

about the budgets for the two offices and who would determine who the proponent

and opponent groups are.

It says here that Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will do that — so

the executive council, presumably. The question I have is: how will it be

determined how to establish the opponent and proponent groups and who they might

be? How does that decision get made?

Hon. W. Oppal: The regulations will provide for that process,

and the Chief Electoral Officer will be responsible for it.

S. Simpson: This is one of those pieces of legislation. We

sometimes say that the devil is in the details, and there certainly are some

details here to be had.

Is it the expectation of the Attorney General that there will be

one proponent group and one opponent group, or will there be a variety on both

sides?

Hon. W. Oppal: We dealt with this issue last…. It's

difficult for anybody to contemplate how many groups there are. We debated this

last day, and the most that I can say is that it will be for the Chief Electoral

Officer to determine if there are splinter groups or if there is more than one

group that represents a particular side. It's premature for us to speculate at

this stage as to how many groups on each side there will be.

It's important to remember that there are X number of dollars

available to each side, and I would think it would be in the interest of all

parties concerned to unify their efforts on one side or the other.

[1525]

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister that, ideally,

you would have one organization or one group on the pro side and one on the con

side. They would sort out their differences within those folks on either side of

that fence and then speak with one voice in general terms and expend the money

in that way so that it was more clear.

How do the regulations anticipate…? How do we even reach out? How

does the government plan to

[ Page 10646 ]

reach out to those folks on the two sides of this debate to even figure out

who's out there or to motivate them to come together, coalesce and, hopefully,

achieve this objective of one group on each side?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, there'll be extensive public notices

made available so that the members of the public know that they have the right

to align themselves on either side of the debate. I don't think there'll be any

shortage of information out there that advocacy groups can get involved.

S. Simpson: When is it anticipated that these groups would

be put in place, actually recognized and, presumably, funded?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the intent at this time is to start

the process in the latter part of this year, in the fall, and have the funds

available in early 2009. That's the intent at this stage. Hopefully, those

target dates will be met. There's no reason why they can't be met at this stage.

S. Simpson: Then is it reasonable to expect that sometime

later this year the overtures will be going out saying, "Those of you who stand

on one side of this or the other should start talking to each other about this,"

or: "Here's a set of criteria for what a group needs to do or not do in order to

be considered for funds"? Is that how the preparation will happen?

Will the government facilitate that to start to coalesce those

groups? I realize the government's not going to choose who participates and who

doesn't in the makeup of those, but at least to motivate or facilitate the

coming together of people to sort out their own positions….

I do have a concern that people will to some degree, not in terms

of having an opinion but in terms of coming together in some organizational way

and starting to talk through what might be some differences…. I'm sure there'll

be differences on each side about where the final positions and advocacy should

lay.

Is the government going to play a role in helping to facilitate

that? If so, how?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's intended that all of that would be done

through the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. The government would be at

arm's length from that.

S. Simpson: When these groups hopefully come together and

hopefully we accomplish what I think is everybody's objective to have one

strong, clear, coherent voice on each side of this that can make the best case

possible for their view and help British Columbians to find their way through

this and make a decision as to whether they think a change is in order for the

province…. Should those groups on either side of this not be able to come

together and not be able to come to an agreement on this, has the minister got

any thoughts about whether the response to that is…?

[1530]

It seems like there are a couple of possibilities. One is that

either the government…. This is the government through the Chief Electoral

Officer, who I realize — the minister is saying — will make those

determinations, but that the regulations they will follow will be written by the

government. Will the government be looking to say, "Okay. Well, we're going to

take your half a million dollars on your side of the argument and divvy it out

to three groups in some fashion," or to say, "No, we're going to make a

determination here about which of those groups most reasonably reflects the

view" — understanding it's not government but the Chief Electoral Officer making

that decision?

Is there a preference for the minister here over whether it's,

"Okay, we divvy up the money three ways if we can't come to some consensus on

that side of the debate," or: "Yes, Chief Electoral Officer. You make a decision

over who best reflects that point of view"?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think it might be unfair to put the burden

on the Chief Electoral Officer to determine which person or persons are entitled

to represent either side. So the answer to that will be found in the

regulations.

The Chief Electoral Officer clearly does not want to be involved

in settling disputes between groups that purport to represent one side or the

other. The Chief Electoral Officer would be in a position where he would

allocate the funds, but there would be regulations there to guide him.

S. Simpson: I think that's wise that the Chief Electoral

Officer not have to necessarily design the system or make those judgments solely

on their own. Presumably, then, somebody else — the ministry on behalf of the

government — will draft the regulations in a way that is balanced and fair.

I guess, then, the question would be: does the minister have any

sense of what that regulatory regime might look like to deal with this kind of

dilemma? I know from my own personal experience being involved in community

affairs — and I know that the minister knows this well, also — that when you put

half a million dollars on the table, you're likely to get a few organizations

that think that they might be the best people to use that money to achieve the

objective. It may be quite a few people, and it may be very difficult to cull

that down or coalesce that in a way that works.

Part of the concern I have is that we may create quite a malaise

on either side of this argument by hanging this half-a-million-dollar carrot out

there, which I think is appropriate. I support the notion of funding of pro and

con groups, but once that money's out there…. What I'm looking for is some

insight from the minister about how we get around that issue, because it's

likely to be a real question.

Hon. W. Oppal: The question raised is a valid one. The

concern is a valid one. While I'm not in a position at this stage to give a

concrete or definitive answer, I think that if we look at

section 32 of the

Recall and Initiative Act, it provides for a process where those issues can be

addressed. It might well be appropriate to rely on that legislation.

[1535]

[ Page 10647 ]

S. Simpson: I'm not going to ask the minister to entirely

recall the

section of the act by memory, but maybe the minister could just give

us some sense of what those initiatives are or those matters within that

legislation that might provide some guidelines or protections to deal with that

matter.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. W. Oppal: It's a lengthy section, but really it sets

certain standards for financial agents for the opponents. For instance, 32(1)

states: "The chief electoral officer must designate financial agents for

opponents in accordance with this

section as soon as possible after the end of

the application period…" Sub (2) goes on to say: " If one individual is proposed

under

section 31 as financial agent by 50% or more of the total number of

applicants under that section, the chief electoral officer must designate that

individual as financial agent for the applicants by whom he or she was

proposed."

It's a fairly extensive section, and it states the circumstances

or the requirements of financial agents for the opponents. It's well worth

looking at.

S. Simpson: That's curious. Let me understand this. Is the

minister saying we could end up with a situation where there are three or four

or five groups on the pro or the con side of this who all are looking for some

of the resources in order to advocate their particular perspective on STV — yes

or no — and that the government could make the decision to appoint a financial

agent, who a majority of those groups endorsed, and the money would go to a

financial agent, who would then make decisions about administration of the

money?

Hon. W. Oppal: The financial agent would be in a position

to make that decision, not the government. So that's what's contemplated under

the Recall and Initiative Act, and that may be of some assistance.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. We'll talk a little bit

about the obligations of financial agents. I know that under that law, much like

the laws that govern us when we have our elections, I appoint a financial agent

and my financial agent, of course, has legal obligations to ensure that the

funds that I bring in through donations and the way that I expense those and

claim them are all done within the parameters of the law. Presumably, a

financial agent for the pro or con side would have the same obligations under

this exercise here.

What I'm trying to get at here is that I thought I heard the

minister say…. Well, let's cut back to an election. We potentially have cases in

British Columbia where the parties often have financial agents that might

represent the interests of a number of candidates running in different

constituencies. There's an administration by an overall financial agent who has

legal responsibility for that and makes sure everything is done appropriately.

Is the minister then saying, with this, that where it may not be

possible or it may not be desirable for the government to say, through the Chief

Electoral Officer or through regulation, that we're going to boil this down to

one group on each side of this argument…? Yes, there may be three organizations

on the yes side or four organizations on the no side, but at the end of the day

we are going to appoint a financial agent who will have responsibility for the

half a million dollars, and they will have responsibility as financial agent for

deciding the distribution of that money to these organizations that are on the

pro or con side.

Maybe the minister could just clarify whether I'm heading in the

right direction here.

[1540]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the intent is to attempt to get people

to coalesce, so if there is a financial agent that represents one party and

another financial agent that represents two parties, it may be in their best

interests for the parties to get together to nominate a common agent. These are

really…. We dealt with this the last day, and a lot of this really comes to….

We're speculating as to what may or may not take place, but that's the process

we expect would happen — and that is that there would be groups that would

nominate a particular financial agent on either side of the question.

S. Simpson: I think I concur with the minister that groups on

both sides will clearly do that, because that'll be a requirement for them to

have eligibility for any of these funds — to have a financial agent.

The minister spoke about the act and about bringing people

together. The minister just spoke again about the instance where there maybe are

three groups, one of them represented by one person who's been a nominee for

financial agent, the other two groups agreeing on a potential nominee for

financial agent. Is it the intention of the government to require a single

financial agent on both sides of this debate?

Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is no. It's not the

intention of the government.

S. Simpson: With this, when these groups come together, are

there going to be requirements or is there an expectation that there will be any

requirements for these groups to have any legal standing — to be a legal entity?

Are you going to require that these groups be incorporated in some fashion or

that they be ad hoc or that they're free to be ad hoc? Are they going to require

that there be some legal entity attached to them in some way?

Hon. W. Oppal: No. There's no requirement that they be

incorporated. They could be individuals. They could be associations. It could be

a group of individuals. There's no set rule, and it would be against the public

interest to have some kind of a required corporate structure.

S. Simpson: Are there any classes of groups or

organizations that would be excluded from this process? For example, I presume

political parties may be excluded from being able to participate formally as

[ Page 10648 ]

proponents or opponents. Are there any other groups — I'm assuming political

parties — that would be excluded?

[1545]

Hon. W. Oppal: I would think at this stage political

parties, candidates, constituency associations and people of that sort that have

firm positions. Keep in mind that this is a follow-up of the recommendations of

the Citizens' Assembly. So the intent here is to get people at the grass roots

involved and not political parties or candidates or associations.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister that those of

us or the organizations that are explicitly partisan by their nature shouldn't

have a formal role in this process. We will have lots of opportunity to have

voice in this debate, if we choose to do it.

Section 2(c)(ii), I think, says: "the making of payments to

financial agents and the limits on payment." It talks about, I guess, the

setting of regulations as to how money would be administered. What is the

thinking when it says limits on payment? What's the thinking about what the

intention of that is?

I understand the first part that says the making of payments.

Presumably, if organization A is deemed to get $250,000, then that will be the

amount of the overall payment. What's the thinking on what limits on payment

means?

Hon. W. Oppal: The limits on payment phrase here makes

reference to the money that would be spent by the constituent groups. For

instance, if there's only one group on the yes side, they would be entitled to

the $500,000. But if there are a number of groups to one side, there would have

to be some formula as to the limits on payments that they would receive that

they would have to live by.

S. Simpson: Has there been any thinking yet — it may be

early for this — about how those moneys get distributed? The minister spoke

about trying to have some decision-making early in the new year as to who those

groups may be, one or more on either side, the proponent or opponent groups.

What's the thinking about how the money gets distributed? If I

have an organization that's a proponent of this and I've been told I'm one of

two, and I get a quarter million dollars as my allocation that's been agreed to,

do I get the quarter million dollars all upfront? Does it get disbursed in some

way over a period of time? Do I put in a budget for that to say: "Here's how I'm

going to spend the money"? Or do I just say: "Give me the money, and I'll tell

you what I did with it afterwards and hopefully what I did was legal"?

[1550]

Hon. W. Oppal: It's somewhat premature to speculate as to

what may take place. But a realistic scenario would be that persons on either

side would propose a budget to the financial agent, and the financial agent

would determine what is appropriate in the circumstances.

S. Simpson: I see that if we go on, when we look at

section

(c)(iii), it talks about "obligations, restrictions, limitations or conditions

in relation to the holding, use and disbursement" of the money. Is there any

expectation on the part of the minister and the government that in the

regulations there would be any limits on some of the uses of the money — i.e., I

get a half a million dollars and decide that we're going to go out and be

proponents of this, and I'm going to get $100,000 salary for this four months to

go out and campaign against this versus some other things — where potentially

individuals on either side may have direct benefit?

I don't think anybody argues about people being fairly compensated

for their time if they're committing to do this full-time, and I would expect

that some of the money would be spent there. But is there thinking that there's

going to be any effort to have limits or consideration of how much personal gain

or benefit an individual or individuals on either side of this might be able to

experience out of that money?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, you know, the intent here is to use

the money to educate the public, for holding forums and for holding meetings and

disbursements that are used. It's certainly not intended to provide salaries for

workers or that sort.

It is, as I said earlier, money to grass-roots organizations that

may not have the wherewithal to hold public meetings or to travel to places to

hold meetings to convince people of their particular position. That's the object

of providing funding to both sides.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister. That should be

the object, and I would agree that the majority of those resources should be

used for things like travel, communications, promotion of materials — you know,

if people want to produce a video and take the video out or do some advertising

or whatever. That makes more sense.

That being the case and the position of the minister that that

should be the emphasis for the use of this money, does the minister anticipate

putting any limits on the ability to have people be compensated? Obviously,

there's going to be a need for some staff resources if this is a major campaign.

There may very well be. But is there thinking about putting any limits on

compensation, either for employees or for consultants, because we all know about

consultants?

[1555]

Hon. W. Oppal: I would think that there'd have to be some

kind of limit put on it. At the same time, I think the point raised by the

member is a valid one because you still have to pay clerical staff, and you have

to pay people to come in and clean offices and all of those things that are

incidental to the operation of any particular office. I would think that in

those circumstances there would be some kind of a reasonable accommodation made

to cover those expenses.

[ Page 10649 ]

S. Simpson: I have some agreement with that. I anticipate,

though — I could be wrong; we'll see — that in addition to some clerical support

and those kinds of things, we're going to see some kind of request for some

organizational support. These are going to be fairly short campaigns — three

months, maybe a little bit longer from the time that people kind of start to get

up and running to the time of election day in May of 2009. It's going to be

pretty intense.

It's a provincewide campaign, so there clearly will be some

organizational staff resources needed to be there for either side, I would

imagine, to be able to make their case, whether it's organizational expertise or

communications expertise. So there are going to be dollars spent on that, and I

think there are legitimate reasons to do that.

The question I have, though…. I'm not asking for a specific

number, because I know it's premature to do that. But then, just to be clear, is

it the minister's thinking at this time that there will be some limit put on the

ability to drive money to consultants or to people who are going to be paid more

than the person who answers the phone — if the minister knows what I mean — in

terms of organizational or strategic or communications staff or consultants? Is

it his desire that there be a limit put on how much can go there versus spending

on travel, communications, etc.?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the best way I can answer that is to

state that the funds really are to be used for furthering a particular cause.

There may be expenses used for incidental purposes for matters that are

associated with that. It's not contemplated that they be used for salaries or

extensive salaries, although obviously some would be contemplated. So it's a

little premature to really give a definitive answer on that. I think that's the

best I can do in the circumstances — without speculating.

S. Simpson: We wouldn't want politicians on either side of

the House speculating about anything.

I do have a couple more questions, but I'm going to bounce back

just for a second. We had a bit of a discussion under

section 6, and it maybe

even applies more under

section 8, where we had talked about the role of

consultation with some of those proponents on either side, the advocates on

either side of this. The minister mused a little bit about maybe there was a

need to have a level of consultation that is greater than had initially been

anticipated to make sure some of this stuff gets sorted out in a way that

ensures that it protects the integrity of the process, but that people have the

latitude to do the job they have to do, whichever side of this debate they're

on.

Would the minister agree that maybe when developing the regulatory

regime around some of these sections that are specific to these groups, that

some earlier consultation — "early" being sometime before the end of the year —

is a good thing and should occur?

[1600]

Hon. W. Oppal: We're pleased to receive public input or

input from groups. However, there's not a lot of time left. This work has to be

done commencing in the early summer so that the office would be open by the

fall. That doesn't leave a lot of time. There's not enough time for extensive

public consultations.

However, having said that, if some suggestions are made, it may be

appropriate to consider them. In the meantime we have to get on with this,

assuming that the act will pass.

S. Simpson: Maybe just to clarify there. The minister just

talked about the office opening in the fall. Is the minister saying that we're

talking about the "neutral" office opening in the fall and then that office

having a role to play in all this, or something else?

Hon. W. Oppal: Sorry. I think I misspoke. What I meant was

that the application process would begin in the fall, and the office would be

open in early '09. But the intent is clear here. We don't have a lot of time

left. This has to be done, providing the legislation passes. We're up against

some time constraints here.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister that the time

is limited on this. I might encourage that if his office or the Chief Electoral

Officer's office is going to drive this process, it may be, as the minister has

also said…. We've got a pretty good idea who some of the key organizations were

in 2005 around this debate. I'm sure the Chief Electoral Officer has heard from

them, as has the minister — from groups making their case on one side or the

other.

I would think that there might be at least some time to get

together, maybe sooner rather than later, to provide some guidance that the

ministry is then going to have to make its own decisions about. I would hope

there's some room for discussion here. Otherwise, there's the potential that

when the regulatory regime is put in place for this, we're going to spend time

talking about critiques and criticisms about what's good and bad about the

regulatory regime rather than what's good and bad about STV, and that's what we

should be talking about.

I would hope there would be some time for that, though I would

agree that it can't be so onerous that it limits or impairs the ability of the

government to move ahead in the way that it has to, to start getting this

process moving forward.

Under (c)(iii) it talks about obligations, restrictions,

limitations and conditions in relation to the money. What are we thinking about

when we talk about those limitations and conditions? I understand the financial

obligations or restrictions, and we talked about that in

section 6 — the need to

spend the money in certain ways. But does any of this relate to any conditions

on the activities of the organizations — expectation about conditions on

activities?

[1605]

Hon. W. Oppal: No, I think the

section speaks for itself.

It talks about the "obligations, restrictions, limitations or conditions in

relation to the holding, use and disbursement of amounts received…" in the

accounting. Clearly, it makes reference only to the financial

[ Page 10650 ]

aspects of the process. It doesn't have anything to do with the limitation of

what they do in their advocacy.

S. Simpson: When I go back now to subsection (c)(vi), it

talks about "the publication of any matter in relation to a payment made to

opponent groups or proponent groups." Is this — maybe it's how I understand it —

going to be sort of a question of transparency and the reporting out? Some

public reporting of where dollars go, how they get spent and who got them — is

that what this is intended for?

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes.

S. Simpson: The last question I have around this is: when

this whole process comes forward and groups apply…? The minister spoke about

organizations maybe sometime early in the fall making application to be the

proponent, the opponent or part of that.

So there is some process of application that is going to occur in

the fall, to get ready for early next year. How is that process going to be

transparent so that we know which organizations have made an application to play

that role? And is that going to be public information, along with some sense of

how the determination is made about who in fact gets resources and gets

recognition as proponent or opponent?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, it's clear that the process itself

will be made public. The invitations to the public to get involved in the

process — that'll be public. But I think it's premature to say at this stage

whether the public could have knowledge as to which groups are on which side.

There may be people who may not want their particular positions to be publicly

disclosed. It's premature. I can't give an answer to that at this stage.

S. Simpson: There may be groups on either side that, for

whatever reason, don't want to disclose. But I would think that any organization

that's receiving funding or requesting public dollars, who are asking for part

of the half a million bucks on the pro or con side and may receive it…. The

public should know who's asking for that money and then who is deemed to get it.

The concern I have is that, as we talked about a little bit

previously, there could well be a long list of groups that think they're the

best people to get that money. Then there's going to have to be some

determination, whether it's arbitrary or however it's done. I'll assume it's

done in the best way possible. However it's done, there are likely to be

organizations who are disappointed that they didn't get dollars.

The question I have is: are the groups that ask for money to make

the case on one side or the other going to be made public? Will that be part of

the condition of the application for dollars? And then, obviously, the list of

the groups who are successful in getting dollars….

[1610]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the public will know who the

successful parties are. The public needs to know that. The groups will know

within each side who the other groups are. The CEO will ensure that that takes

place. Short of that, I can't speculate as to what other eventualities may take

place.

S. Simpson: Just to clarify here. On either side of this

argument, while there may or may not be a public notice of all the groups that

have made application, those groups will know who each other is. Is that what

the minister is saying — that if there are ten groups that apply for resources

on the pro side, those groups will all know who each other is?

Two or three of them get the money. They may do or not do what

they do about whether they feel that was a process they support. It will

probably have something to do with whether they get any money. So they will know

everybody else who was an applicant on that particular side of the argument. Is

that accurate?

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:12 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

ELECTORAL REFORM REFERENDUM 2009 ACT

Bill 6, Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate on Bill 2,

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2008.

Committee of the Whole House

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; S.

Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 4:15 p.m.

section 1.

B. Ralston: The present Arts Council Act in

section 3(1)

gives the council the discretion to — and I'm reading from

section (b) —

"allocate the money appropri-

[ Page 10651 ]

ated annually for the council by the Legislature." The amendment proposes to

require the council to make recommendations to the minister, thereby, I suggest,

removing control of that expenditure from the council itself.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Can the minister advise why this discretion was removed from the

council and given to the minister?

Hon. C. Taylor: Because the B.C. Arts Council isn't a

separate legal entity, we were unable to put the special account into the B.C.

Arts Council. This is a way to have them involved and give advice, but the

account has to sit with the minister.

B. Ralston: Well, I suppose, on behalf of the Arts Council,

they would be interested to know what force their recommendations would have, if

that's the explanation for not letting them make the decision themselves.

So what's the intention — if the minister can explain that? Are

these intended to be recommendations that are binding on the minister, or will

the recommendations be merely advice and leave the ultimate decisions entirely

to the discretion of the minister?

Hon. C. Taylor: Just on a personal note, I have talked to

some of the individuals involved, and they've been very pleased with this. They

see it as a great increase in terms of the dollars that they will be able to

give advice on to the arts communities around the province.

But it is intended, obviously, to be a partnership with the

minister responsible, and it is intended to encourage cultural sites and

festivals and activities throughout the province. We think this is a very

important way to use a significant part of the surplus this year — to set up

this special account.

B. Ralston: I don't disagree with anything the minister has

said in that respect, but I suppose I'm interested in the process that is going

to be developed by this legislation. Is it intended that the recommendations

will be merely that — just advice to the minister? Or is the council going to be

relied upon for its expertise — its knowledge of the province, the projects and

the applications — and its recommendations be accepted?

Hon. C. Taylor: From Finance's point of view, we made the

decision to use some of the surplus from last year to set up this special

account. What we focused on was how we could do this legally, and we've set up

the structure.

Those are excellent questions that I would ask you to ask the

Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts during estimates.

B. Ralston: Well, with respect, that's not a very

satisfactory answer. This is a $150 million fund, as I understand it. The arts

community is understandably interested in how the fund will be disbursed, and at

this point we're discussing the very legislation that's going to set that

process into motion. So to brush me off and send me off to estimates, which may

or may not come to pass given the reduced number of hours that are available for

estimates….

That question may never be posed. I wouldn't want anyone reading

the transcript of this to think that there will ever be an answer to that

question. I'm going to ask the minister again. Can the minister at least give

some sense of the thinking of the ministry about…? Obviously, the drafters have

chosen these words. What is the process intended to be? Will the advice of the

council be relied upon?

[1620]

Hon. C. Taylor: With due respect to the member opposite, of

course this has already been discussed, so it's not that it won't be discussed.

It was discussed during supplementary estimates. The minister, at that time,

said that they will have major involvement with the decision on what projects

would be successful.

From our point of view, we were unable, because it's not a

separate legal entity, to set up a special account under B.C. Arts Council. We

believe this is a good alternative. It sits with the ministry, and we

specifically named the B.C. Arts Council as the group that would give advice to

the minister so that projects throughout the province would have their advice

and, hopefully, support.

B. Ralston: I think it would be relatively simple to

constitute the Arts Council under the Society Act. A lawyer could do that in

about half an hour, I'm sure, if that were the real concern.

I guess, just to conclude on this, I can take from what the

minister is saying that the word "recommendations" is empty of any content. The

recommendations may be relied upon or they may not be, and that's going to be at

the discretion of the minister. Is that really where we are at this stage?

Hon. C. Taylor: We believe this is a really important

initiative. We have taken $150 million out of the surplus from last year and put

it into a special account so that, in fact, around the province cultural groups

will benefit from these dollars going forward.

We are very appreciative of the B.C. Arts Council and the work

they do. That's why we specifically named them as a group that would give advice

to the minister.

B. Ralston: Well, having served on the Finance Committee

and having listened to the representations from arts groups around the province,

I'm aware, as I think most members of the Legislature are, that the arts

community is keenly interested in this. They do bring a special expertise to the

process, and they're regionally dispersed. They're familiar with the

applications, for the most part, and understand the history.

I'm just disappointed that there's no answer in terms of whether

their advice will be relied upon or not. I can understand that if their

recommendations were considered binding and the minister was merely

[ Page 10652 ]

in the legislation to make the announcement…. That would probably be

understandable. But given the answer here, it doesn't seem as though the

minister is prepared to give any solace to the Arts Council that their advice

not only will be given but will be relied upon to make decisions about how the

funds from this new fund will be disbursed.

I'll leave it there, unless the minister has any further comment.

J. Horgan: I, too, would be interested to know if the

minister could advise this House if anyone else will be making recommendations

on the expenditure of funds from the special account.

Hon. C. Taylor: There is nothing that specifically

precludes other groups from giving advice to the minister.

J. Horgan: Then other groups could potentially include

other members of executive council. It could include caucus members of the

governing party. The range is limitless on who could provide the minister with

recommendations on spending this money.

[1625]

Hon. C. Taylor: The intent of this legislation and of this

special account is that the B.C. Arts Council is named as the group that will

give advice to the minister, and it's our expectation.

J. Horgan: It's your expectation, but not the only group

that you envision could be making recommendations on expenditures.

Hon. C. Taylor: I will leave the minister responsible to

give you his

interpretation of the answer to your question in estimates.

From our point of view — and that's what I have to answer for —

when we were setting this up, we were not legally able to give the dollars to

the B.C. Arts Council. Therefore, we set up the special account within the

ministry but specifically named them, because we have so much respect for the

work they do around the province. We specifically said that they would give

advice to the minister.

J. Horgan: I note in this

section that there's no

commitment by the government to accept those recommendations. Is it contemplated

that all the recommendations from the B.C. Arts Council will be accepted?

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said earlier, I'll leave that to the

minister to answer.

J. Horgan: Certainly, the government received applause from

the arts sector. When my colleague from Surrey-Whalley and I were travelling the

province with members on the government side, in virtually every community we

heard from members of local arts councils concerned about the lack of funding

relative to other jurisdictions across the country and about the importance of

arts funding.

When we heard the minister rise in this place and in the budget

speech talk about the cultural fund and the creation of a special account, it

was cause for optimism. Now I don't hear the same level of confidence in the

minister's voice when she's speaking about what may well happen with the

proceeds from this fund.

Again I'll ask her the question. If we were all set to issue press

releases on budget day and receive pats on the back…. Now that we've got the

legislation before us and the minister has an opportunity to stand in her place

and say to the Arts Council again that their recommendations will be accepted by

government and that any proceeds from this fund will go directly to those arts

councils, I would think she'd want to take that opportunity.

Hon. C. Taylor: I can certainly say with confidence that

approximately $7.5 million, that being the interest off of the special account —

perhaps more in some years; we hope for more in some years — will go to the arts

communities around this province. We have set this up so that the B.C. Arts

Council gives advice on which groups and which festivals and which events those

would be.

J. Horgan: I'm anticipating a response, but I'll ask the

question anyway. One of the concerns those of us who don't live in Greater

Vancouver have when funds like this are set up is that there's a

disproportionate amount of money that goes to the large hole in Vancouver and

that those of us on the periphery are left wishing we had more.

Again, in this Budget Measures Implementation Act we have no

indication that there will be an equitable distribution of that interest. We

have a half-measure commitment to accept recommendations from the Arts Council.

Is there any opportunity for the minister to give some assurance to those living

outside of major urban centres that they will have equal access to these funds?

Hon. C. Taylor: This question of making sure that our

cultural groups around the province give support is the very reason why we named

the B.C. Arts Council as the body that would give advice to the minister. I have

a list here of the B.C. Arts Council representation, which is from around the

province.

Therefore, we believe that their advice will be invaluable to the

minister, because none of us want to be supporting arts just in the lower

mainland. We want to support the cultural groups around the province. Certainly

that's what the Finance Committee heard, and that's what we were trying to

respond to.

B. Ralston: The minister makes reference to a legal

opinion. Is the minister prepared to table that legal opinion here in the

Legislature?

[1630]

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said earlier, the B.C. Arts Council is

not a separate legal entity. Therefore, we were given advice that the special

account would be set up in the ministry.

[ Page 10653 ]

B. Ralston: Why was the legal alternative of simply

incorporating it as a society under the Society Act, which is relatively

straightforward to do, not considered or taken?

Hon. C. Taylor: The B.C. Arts Council has a budget of over

$13 million a year. It has been working well as it is currently set up. We

really saw no need — and I personally had not been asked — to have a change in

structure. We think it works well. We think that these extra dollars will be

invaluable to the arts community around the province.

B. Ralston: I understood the minister to say that the

reason that this amendment was required was because the Arts Council, as it's

now constituted, wasn't an appropriate legal entity to receive the money. One of

the ways you could do that is to simply reconstitute it, a fairly

straightforward way of doing that. I'm not quite sure, and I'm asking, why that

alternative wasn't taken or eve