British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, September 29, 2015 (40th Parliament, 4th Session) (20150929pm-Hansard-v28n11) (20150929pm Hansard v28n11)

20150929pm-Hansard-v28n11

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Tuesday, September 29, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 28, Number 11

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

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

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

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

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Small Business and Red Tape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................ Hon.

Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness .................................................................................................................... Hon. Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ............................................................................................................................................................... Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...................................................................................................................................................

Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees ................................................................................................................................. Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston Vacant .....................................................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Vacant ...................................................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr.

Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...................................................................

Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T. Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon.

Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke .................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ....................................................................Vacant Coquitlam-Maillardville...........................................................

Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm. Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon.

Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon.

Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ...........................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon. John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ...............................................................................

Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon.

Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ..................................................................Hon. Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast .................................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon. Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands ....................................................

Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................ Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon.

Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon. Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon.

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

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr.

Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ......................................................................Vacant Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

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

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 33; Independent 2; Vacant 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, September 29, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House ............................................................................................................................................ 9233 Bill 29 — Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 (continued) A. Weaver Hon. M. de Jong V . Huntington R.

Fleming Reporting of Bills ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9238 Bill 29 — Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 9238 Bill 33 — Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015 Hon. S. Anton G. Heyman J. Th ornthwaite L. Krog D. Plecas Hon. S.

Anton Bill 36 — Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015 Hon. P . Fassbender S. Robinson J. Martin N. Macdonald D. Ashton B. Routley D. Barnett B. Ralston L. Reimer L. Krog R. Sultan D. Donaldson M. Morris M. Farnworth

TUESDAY , SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 Th e House met at 1:31 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continued com- mittee stage debate on Bill 29. Committee of the Whole House BILL 29 — PROPERTY TAXATION (EXEMPTIONS) STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 (continued) Th e House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 29; R. Lee in the chair. Th e committee met at 1:33 p.m. On

section 1 (continued). Th e Chair: I recognize the hon. Minister of Finance. Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, again, congratulations, and as you take your seat for the fi rst time, I know that the committee and ultimately the House are in good hands. A. Weaver: I have but one last question on

section 1. It’s another example that I’m trying to seek some clari- fi cation on. Let’s suppose — hypothetically, again — that there is an independent school that owns vast quantities of wooded land immediately adjacent to that school that is on the property, yet this independent school runs a vig- orous and highly regarded outdoor education program on this wooded property.

My question to the minister is: would this wooded area, which is being used for an outdoor recreation — it could be, say, 50 acres and being used for an outdoor recreation program — be exempt from the municipal or rural taxes under the understanding of this bill before us? [1335] Hon. M. de Jong: Again, not wanting to presuppose what the adjudicative body might rule, I think the short answer is possibly. Reasonably necessary for the deliv- ery of the education program would, I think, be the de- terminative test.

I can think of circumstances that might fall into that category with an amount of land in excess of what we might traditionally regard as a playing fi eld. Th e Chair: Member for Delta South. V . Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, con- gratulations on your new appointment. Th e minister just used the words “reasonably neces- sary. ” While most of my questions have been asked and a couple satisfi ed by our own research, I would like to just explore some of the language here. Reasonably necessary.

Why, in the face of this permis- sive tax exemption, is the word “reasonably” used when, in fact, the land is to be necessary for the purposes of the institution? Why are we putting in the word “rea- sonably” here? Hon. M. de Jong: I think the best way I can answer the question is to acknowledge that, as tempting as it is to try and contemplate every possible circumstance and provide for it in the legislation, there will probably be times when, either with land or a building, it’s not neces- sarily black or white.

Th is morning we talked with our colleague from Swan Lake about a building situation where there was a mixed use — a dormitory for students that also had a faculty component or supervisory component. We’ve just heard another example where there might be a more expan- sive parcel of land for a particular unique program that a school off ers. We can’t contemplate or anticipate every circumstance.

Th e word is included to provide the adjudicative body — initially the assessment authority and, I suppose, ul- timately on judicial review, a court — with some dis- cretionary authority to apply that time-honoured test of reasonableness. I will acknowledge the member’s observation that we have not prescribed with absolute precision. Nor have we sought to do so in light of the fact that there may well be circumstances that we can’t anticipate today. V .

Huntington: I realize the question seems unreason- able, given the time-honoured question of reasonability in the law, but what it does for me is open up an entire area of defi nition that may not have been contemplated by the law. In fact, in relation to the question about dormitories for faculty, you suggested that that probably wouldn’t be a function that would receive the exemption. It was the opposite, then? Hon. M. de Jong: It would not be. V . Huntington: It would not be. Exactly.

It would not receive the exemption, yet here you’re suggesting that be- cause of the term “reasonable” it might, indeed, receive an exemption. However, if we take the same 50 acres surrounding the institution, and there was a strategic plan in place for the 9233

British Columbia Debates9234 Tuesday, September 29, 2015 future development of the institution, would that stra- tegic plan then qualify those lands for exemption? [1340] Hon. M. de Jong: No, I don’t think it would qualify. It’s not intended to be based on anticipatory use. It is actual use. Th e member’s example is not fanciful. I think there are examples of institutions, of independent schools, that have acquired land in close proximity to their facilities and that do so with a view, perhaps, to take an elemen- tary school and expand it to a secondary basis. Th ere are any number of examples.

But the exemption today, as it operates today and cer- tainly within the meaning of the legislation that we have before us, is intended to bestow the exemption on the buildings and land reasonably necessary to deliver the education program that is being off ered at that point in time, not what might occur at some point in the future.

Were there to be a buildout and expansion of the facil- ity, it would be legitimate for the owner, the independ- ent school, to say: “ Ah, now our exemption should be extended to apply to that. ” But the test is a very specifi c one, and it relates to the program that is being delivered at a point in time by an independent school. V . Huntington: Just one other question. As I say, so many of mine have already been asked.

Is it anticipated that the assessment authority would then refer to the cer- tifi cate of classifi cation for any particular independent school that is in the process of having lands surround- ing assessed? Hon. M. de Jong: I just want to make sure I under- stand. By “certifi cate of classifi cation, ” is the member re- ferring to the class of independent school — 1, 2, 3 or 4? Th e member is indicating that is so. In the legislative construct we have here and that is proposed in the amendments, the entitlement to an exemption is not based on the classifi cation.

If it is an in- dependent school within the meaning of the legislation and delivering education programs and otherwise quali- fi es, the classifi cation of the school isn’t determinative of whether or not the exemption would apply. V . Huntington: Just to clarify my own remarks, I was struggling with what the

definitions of independent school are, the defi nitions of purpose and public school, etc. As I say, our research satisfi ed my interest in those

definitions. But in my question, I believe that an in- dependent school requires a certifi cate of classifi cation in order to be independent. I was just wondering if that certifi cate would inform the assessment authorities if we were looking at land outside the basic building struc- tures in schools. Hon. M. de Jong: I better understand the member’s question. Y es, to the extent that the exemption only ap- plies to an independent school and having the proper certifi cate to operate is a prerequisite to that, it is relevant to that extent. Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Victoria– Swan Lake. R.

Fleming: Th ank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would off er my congratulations — I don’t think I’ve had the op- portunity to — for your appointment to this post. I would ask the Minister of Finance this question, just about the new statutory exemptions. At the outset of this stage of debate, I’ d asked him about the total value prov- incewide of the exemptions, and he answered that ques- tion and broke it down into categories that are currently exempt and the value of those that will be exempt aft er Bill 29 becomes law. He cited 2013 B.C.

Assessment fi g- ures as the latest that he had obtained. [1345] I wanted to ask, just following from that, about re- porting requirements. Th ere is nothing in this bill that obligates government to report annually or otherwise what the total value of these now statutory exemptions will be. It seems to me that it’s important, because we are changing the law. We have fi gures for that benchmark — the value of these exemptions pre–Bill 29.

Th ere may be some movements, as land is acquired or independent schooling is expanded, that are perhaps related to the en- hanced benefi ts in this legislation that would see a rise in the value overall. I think, just in general, no matter what you’re particularly looking for, there is a public interest in seeing the value of a statutory exemption. I wanted to ask him if there is any obligation or plan to report separately, specifi cally around this now fairly large and expanded class of exemptions within this sector. Hon.

M. de Jong: I was consulting with the staff about what the possible mechanism for providing that informa- tion might be. I was reminded that in the budget docu- ments, there is provision for reporting out on — in a

section on taxation — forgone revenues. We’ d really be restricted to forgone provincial revenues. I’m not sure we’ d be in a position to quantify what forgone municipal revenues are. Th at’s one mechanism by which it could be done. I don’t quarrel with the member’s assertion that there might be interest or there would be interest or is interest in an aggregate amount. I guess the observation I would make is 2 percent of the relevant properties are practically aff ected by this.

Having provided the fi gure around the value of the land and the amounts involved, I’ve sort of indicated the magnitude of what shift s from being a per- missive exemption to being a mandatory one. Th at’s really the change that is occurring here.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, September 29, 2015 9235 Let me think, if the member and the committee will, about the possibility of including a report on a forgone revenue with respect to Bill 29. I think it would be a very small amount, because practically, the shift is…. I think the member might be interested in the larger global amount, as it relates to the value of the property and the fact that an exemption exists. Sorry, that’s kind of a rambling…. I’m thinking about this as we go — about the mechanism by which you could report out on that. R.

Fleming: I thank the minister for thinking out loud on what reporting requirements might look like. I haven’t arrived at what they might look like myself. [1350] I do think that when you’re talking about what is es- sentially a large — fairly large and potentially growing — amount of land value that is exempt by provincial law, it might be in the broad public interest to have that re- ported in a way that can be meaningfully interpreted. So that’s a discussion maybe for later. I wanted to ask another question, though. I’ll just ask the minister to follow what I’m saying here.

Th at is that school district 61 here in greater Victoria, which I’m most familiar with, like a lot of older communities — the com- munities that were incorporated before Canada…. New Westminster and Vancouver come to mind. Th ere may be others. At one point in time, until the middle part of the last century I believe, local government was the school dis- trict and owned all of those properties. When school dis- tricts were created….

Many of them have a not entirely consistent way of recording ownership of those proper- ties, but typically, and in many parts of Victoria — I’m thinking of the school yards that I’m familiar with — the land continues to remain city-owned. Th e building and the land beneath the building were transferred to the school district entity. Th is wouldn’t be the case in sub- urban districts, I wouldn’t think.

Th e city government that continues to own the land surrounding the building at a public school is not able to use that for any other purpose so long as the school is functioning for what are deemed educational purposes. We’ve had rounds of school closures in public schools around B.C. — over 200 of them. In my commun- ity, there have been several. Th e school district, which doesn’t own the land around the building, continues to enjoy tax exemptions for these closed buildings. Now, they are sometimes rented to community organizations or leased. They may have a karate school.

They may store desks and materials for the district. Th ere are no school-age children learning a B.C. education curricu- lum in those buildings, but they’re deemed to be used for educational purposes. A fairly low test, is what I’m trying to say now. In expanding property tax exemptions to cover the same things that public school exemptions cover now, is there a scenario where an independent school could es- sentially close its line of business, which is teaching the B.C. curriculum to students, but maintain a property tax exemption because it is being used for an educational purpose? I’ve looked at the amended

section 220 of the Community Charter and all the other sections, the other three sections of the bill before us, and I’m not able to answer that question for certain, so I would ask the min- ister if he could. Hon. M. de Jong: I think I understand the member’s question, and the answer is no, given the test which re- quires that the independent school and the building be wholly used to provide instruction to children in a man- ner equivalent to that of a public school. Whilst I think the member’s

preamble to the question describes circum- stances that occur from time to time in the public system, the test is much narrower with respect to the application of the exemption provided for in this legislation. R. Fleming: I’ll just follow up on that question and ask, in the hypothetical example where there might be a tem- porary closure of an independent school, whether they would enjoy a property tax exemption that was for the 12 months of the year or whether it would be something that would be prorated. And who would make a deter- mination like that? [1355] Hon.

M. de Jong: I am reminded that the test seems to be…. I can’t point the member to the legislative authority for this. Certainly, the practice has evolved to where if the independent school is being operated and meets the test for any portion of the year, they have enjoyed the benefi t and would enjoy the benefi t of the exemption. Th e example I thought of was a circumstance in which an independent school that met the criteria for the exemption shut down for a period of time to complete a signifi cant renovation of the site, and there were no students on the site.

My advice is that, were that to be contained within a calendar year, they would probably continue to enjoy the benefi t of the exemption for that year. If it extended beyond a calendar year — say it took a year and a half to complete the work — it would require a determination and might ultimately require a determina- tion from the assessment authority. I hope that example is relevant to the question the member asked.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. A. Weaver: I have a question. I have a proposed amendment here too.

British Columbia Debates9236 Tuesday, September 29, 2015 [To amend the Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015 as follows: In

Section 2 (

b) by deleting text shown as struck out and add- ing the text shown as underlined:

Section 224 is amended (

b) in subsection (2) by adding the following paragraph: (h.1) in relation to land or improvements, or both, exempt under

section 220 (1) (1) [private schools] [independent schools], any area of land surrounding the exempt land or improvements;, and] On the amendment. A. Weaver: Th e descriptor in the explanatory notes both for

section 1 and

section 2 refers to “independent schools. ” I went to the Independent School Act. Th ere’s an extensive defi nition of what constitutes an independ- ent school, and private schools are not defi ned. I think this is a left over from a relic that exists in the Community Charter. I would propose, through amendment, that the words “private schools” be replaced by “independent schools” in (

b) in subsection (2). I’m passing four copies of the motion through to you, and I’ve previously provided such a copy to the minister as well as to the offi cial opposition. [1400] Hon. M. de Jong: I was cross-checking something. I’m obliged to the member for having provided the suggested change earlier. I have been provided with two reasons for why the pro- posed change is problematic. Let me preface my response, though, by saying that I, too, prefer the term “independ- ent school” to “private school. ” If I have a bias, it is in fa- vour of what the member is suggesting.

Th e fi rst reason I have been given is that because this is an explanatory term within parentheses, it is not sub- ject to amendment in the House. I actually don’t agree with that. I think that if a document is before the House, members are entitled to present their ideas. Th e second reason, though, is more compelling, and I’m afraid I am obliged to commend it to the commit- tee. Th at is because, in this case, the piece of legislation being referred to in rather antiquated fashion — for rea- sons that the member, I suspect, is correct — refers to private schools instead of independent schools.

Unless and until we make the change in a more fulsome way through that legislation, through that act, this will rep- resent an anomaly. I am reminded that nothing substantive turns on the term included within the square parentheses. I agree with the member that the term of use today is independent school, not private school. But for reasons relating to the construction of other statutes, I regret that I am obliged to signal an inability to support the suggested change. A.

Weaver: Well, with respect, I would like the min- ister to please provide a defi nition of private school, be- cause I could not fi nd one, and defi nitions have been struck, as far as I can tell. We now have an Independent School Act, which actually defines what, historically, were called private schools. With respect, I recognize that it’s an explanatory note. However, I would argue that it’s an explanatory note that is both misleading and has legal implications. Without a defi nition of private school, what does this actually give an explanatory note for? Th ere are two questions in there.

One is: what is the defi nition of a private school? If it was meant to be pri- vate school, why, in the explanatory notes to the left on this bill, does it actually only refer to independent schools, as opposed to private schools? Th e second question of that is…. If it was meant to be private school and you can provide me a defi nition — I can’t fi nd one — then I would be so pleased as to have some reassurance that this has absolutely no legal impli- cations in terms of an explanatory note. I mean, these ex- planatory notes are there to give guidance.

When they’re, I would argue, factually incorrect in terms of what they’re describing…. Th ere is nothing about private school in

section 220, to which this refers, or in

section 224. We are talking ex- clusively about independent schools. Th e legislation, as being brought to us, with that confusing and, I would argue, misleading explanatory note — in itself being in- consistent with the government’s own explanatory notes in the legislation I have in my hands…. Really, it makes no sense not to change it. Th e compelling reasons, be them what they may…. Frankly, it doesn’t make sense, because there is no defi nition, as far as I can see, for pri- vate school. I’ d ask that that please be provided. [1405] Hon.

M. de Jong: I am, at times, compelled to relay information that I receive from the folks we rely upon to draft these bills and will do so today. It highlights the following. According to

section 11 of the

Interpretation Act…. Th e term used to describe the square parentheses term is “editorial note, ” as opposed to “explanatory note. ” Th e edi- torial note is not actually part of the statute and not, for that reason, I’m told, subject to amendment. Th e mem- ber has my views on that second part of the statement. Th e second part of the member’s submission to the committee was seeking confi rmation that the inclusion of the term is of no legal consequence. I think I’m in a pos- ition to provide that assurance.

Th e second thing I’m able to do is alert the member to the fact that I am not hostile at all to his suggestion and, according to the advice that I have received, am capable, subsequent to this debate and discussion, to change the term. Th e logical term would be “independent school. ” Th at is something I’m prepared to consider on the strength of the exchange that we’ve had here. But I’m also obliged to relay to the committee the advice that I’ve received about the ability of the commit- tee to eff ect that change through amendment.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, September 29, 2015 9237 I hope the member will accept that I’m not trying to be obstructionist. I appreciate the practicality of his sugges- tion. In fact, I’m attracted to the practicality of his sugges- tion. But I’m also conscious that I feel a certain obligation to accept the advice from the draft ers along the way and can assure him and the committee that the term possess- es no legal signifi cance nor creates any legal complica- tions by virtue of its presence in the provision of the bill. A. Weaver: I love being trumped by process.

I’m a very big fan of being trumped by process. I will, if I might, withdraw my proposed amendment, if that is possible — I haven’t searched that — in light of the fact that this edi- torial note will be explored at a subsequent time. It did, unfortunately, not give me a chance to exercise some other procedural rule that I think is very import- ant in this Legislature. Far too oft en in this Legislature, we are going directly from committee stage through an amended bill directly to third reading without having a day with which to refl ect upon that.

Had this amendment passed, I would have not given leave for us to go to third reading immediately aft er the amended bill was put towards the Speaker. Th e reason why is that we have done this far too oft en. I’ve been caught off guard going on the same day directly from committee through to third reading on an amended bill, in particular where we were exploring some of the rami- fi cations of transit and other votes in the last election. In this example, I was hoping to highlight this lack of procedural regularity that’s been operating in this house since I’ve been here. With that, I’ll sit down. Hon.

M. de Jong: My only response, not to belabour the point, is: in circumstances where a bill leaves the committee unamended, leave is not required. It can pro- ceed to third reading. Where a bill is amended in com- mittee, leave is required. Occasionally, leave is denied.

In this particular case, given the exchange that we’ve just had, given what I’ve said about considering the mem- ber’s suggestion, I’m quite prepared to postpone third reading until I’ve had an opportunity to consider fully the member’s suggestion. [1410] Members do have the option where a bill is amended to withhold leave and acquire at least 24 hours’ notice to examine the implications. Th e Chair: Does the member have leave to withdraw the amendment? Leave granted. Amendment withdrawn. R. Fleming: I just wanted to ask the minister a question related to a

summary note I have about the Independent School Act that is from the ministry. It is not too old, ten or 11 months old. In the discussion section, it says the following: “In re- cent years, the Ministry of Education has identifi ed a number of gaps within the legislation which should be fi lled.

Th ese include limited powers of delegation, power to withhold funding, eligibility to serve as a director, fees and refund policies, group 4 schools, classifi cation of dis- tributed learning schools, authority to make inspectors orders, property tax exemptions” — we’re dealing with that gap today in Bill 29 — “and access to surplus board of education property. ” Having read through this bill, having gone through these stages of debate so far and having followed along some of the changes that have been made around the inspector of independent schools recently, I just want- ed to ask the minister if there is anything that could be construed, in expanding these mandatory property tax exemptions, to also fulfi l what is seen to be an agenda item for the government around expanding access to surplus board of education properties?

Hon. M. de Jong: Th e very short answer is no. Th ere is no linkage, generally speaking. Th e member will appreciate that when Crown land is placed on the market, the objective is to secure the best possible return for the taxpayer. I will say this. I am aware in some communities where a measure of cooperation has existed between the public board and an independ- ent school. I am aware of circumstances where a public school site has been sold to an independent school by that public board. But the obligation to secure a fair mar- ket price in those circumstances remains.

It’s a fair ques- tion, but a fairly emphatic no is my reply. R. Fleming: I thank the minister for his answer. My recollection is, in fact, now the Minister of Education ac- tually has to approve all disposal of board of education properties. Th is is my understanding. Th at is sticking in my mind as being the case. I actually don’t have any further questions on this sec- tion or the next two. I would thank the minister for his answers. At this stage in the debate, I am unsure whether we will be voting on it today or tomorrow, depending on what the members agree to here.

I would just make these comments in thanking the minister. I and other members of the opposition side did have the chance to engage elected offi cials — both mayors and councillors. I think that, given that there is support or certainly an absence of opposition to the con- tents of this bill…. Th at was one of the things that we felt was our respon- sibility to check upon and to raise at this stage of debate. I have been unable to present any concerns that were either in written form or given to me verbally by diff er- ent mayors and councils.

British Columbia Debates9238 Tuesday, September 29, 2015 I admit I didn’t contact all 230 councils in the prov- ince, but I think we did canvass the ones that may have thoughts on that. I will take my place on

section 2. Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. Th e committee rose at 2:15 p.m. Th e House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills BILL 29 — PROPERTY TAXATION (EXEMPTIONS) STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Madame Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? Hon. M. de Jong: At the next sitting, hon. Speaker. Bill 29, Property Taxation (Exemptions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House aft er today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 33, Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015. Second Reading of Bills BILL 33 — MOTION PICTURE AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 33 now be read a second time. Th e Motion Picture Act regulates the public exhibition of motion pictures in theatres as well as adult motion pictures intended for sale or rental. Th e province does not regulate general release, non-adult motion pictures viewed at home through means such as home video, cable television or the Internet.

B.C. ’s regulation of motion pictures is based on the principle that parents are responsible for deciding what is viewed in their homes while government, by way of an agreement with Consumer Protection B.C., provides fi lm classifi cation and advisories to inform parents of what is being shown in theatres. Th ere will be no changes to the current classifi cation system. Th e proposed amendments will modernize the act in a number of ways. Firstly, they will align the enforcement approach used under the act with the other sectors regu- lated by Consumer Protection B.C.

Currently, there are very limited enforcement tools available under the act. Consumer Protection B.C. may seize unclassifi ed fi lms, take licensing action or seek a prosecution for a court-imposed penalty. Adding pro- gressive enforcement tools — such as voluntary under- takings, compliance orders and administrative penalties — will improve compliance outcomes, enhance consum- er protection and reduce the time and cost of resolution through the courts.

Th e authority to publish information regarding en- forcement action taken under the Motion Picture Act will also be added, consistent with the authority to pub- lish such information under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Th is is an important trans- parency component of the enforcement regime and con- sumer protection. Other amendments will capture changes in the way movies are now distributed to theatres — for example, by satellite and digital distribution.

Outdated defi nitions have been removed, and other defi nitions have been clari- fi ed in order to eliminate confusion — for example, right now both the terms “fi lm” and “motion picture” are used — and to more accurately refl ect existing technology. [1420] Enhanced regulation-making power will prescribe vio- lations subject to an administrative penalty, capture digit- al technology and respond to future technology changes in distribution and exhibition.

Th ese amendments will reduce the licensing requirements for theatre owners, who will no longer be required to hold a separate licence to screen movies that have a restricted classifi cation. One licence will allow them to screen both general release and restricted movies, saving operators both time and money. Other changes will ensure that the statute is aligned with the case law regarding obscenity and the Criminal Code. Currently, the act allows the director to order the removal of content from an adult motion picture.

Th e proposed amendments will allow the director to simply approve or refuse to approve an adult motion picture based on an amended list of criteria that more closely aligns with the Criminal Code. Th ese amendments will give Consumer Protection B.C. the tools they need to eff ectively regulate the motion pic- ture industry and to continue to provide classifi cation and fi lm advisory services to B.C. families. G. Heyman: It pleases me to rise to speak to anything whatsoever to do with the fi lm industry in B.C.

I’ d like to begin my remarks by noting that since the bill was tabled for first reading yesterday, I’ve had a chance to review the previous iteration of this bill that was tabled in 2012 and debated through second reading.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, September 29, 2015 9239 It was informative and kind of fun to read the com- ments of the then minister and members on our side of the House — notably the members for Vancouver–West End as well as Nanaimo — with respect to what is essen- tially a bill to modernize the enforcement to mechanisms of the fi lm classifi cation system as well as to update the terminology in many ways, as the Attorney General has pointed out, in

an act that has now seen its last revision almost 30 years ago. One of the things that was kind of fun in reading through the debate in Hansard and considering the bill is that had the Legislature been wont to spend more time sitting and dealing with what may be routine but import- ant business of the House — if the Premier had, at that time, more interest in having MLAs elected from around the province meet to actually deal with the business of the province — this bill likely would have been passed in 2012 and wouldn’t even be before us.

But seeing as that was not the case in 2012, this bill was not dealt with at third reading and passed. Th erefore, it is before us again. We get to revisit debates of the past and do our work all over again. Let me segue from that into talking about B.C. ’s fi lm industry in general, which I’m told by people I meet in the industry — whether it’s people on the production side, actors, people in the unions, whether they’re representing performers or people who are working on sets or in pro- duction lots — they are busy. Th ey are happily busy.

Th ey believe that the industry is doing as well as it’s ever done and that even better days may well be ahead. I think while much of that is to do with the lower Canadian dollar making B.C. a more desirable place to do business, it also has to do with the tax credit regime that was introduced by an NDP government and main- tained by the government opposite. [R. Lee in the chair.] Th is is good news for British Columbians because it is an important economic sector. It’s a growing and thriv- ing economic sector.

In addition to the advantages that we have now received in the last couple of years from the change in the valuation of the dollar that has helped this industry as well as potentially our export industries, we also know that people around the world — and particu- larly people in California involved in fi lm production — see B.C. as a desirable locale, a beautiful place, a place in a similar time zone, a place that is in close proximity to the centres of production in California. Th e future is good. Certainly we on this side of the House want to do everything we can to maintain that healthy future.

I’ve noticed recently that when I do fi nd time to watch a movie or a TV series, I am very often recognizing scenes that were shot in Vancouver or scenes in other parts of British Columbia, and it goes click in my mind that this is the B.C. industry doing well. [1425] When we see the fi lm industry in B.C. doing well, it only makes sense that we want to modernize and stream- line and remove impediments that may exist for the people who actually show these fi lms, whether it be in Vancouver, whether it be in Prince George, whether it be in Terrace.

People who make a living from provid- ing a venue to show entertaining fi lms to the people of British Columbia that bring us so much pleasure and oft en education and increasing our cultural apprecia- tion of the diff erences around the world as well as what we see in Canada and North America…. It’s important that we support the people who not only make the fi lms but the people who show them and provide venues for them to be viewed.

Having said that, this is a bill that, while I am still in the process and people on this side of the House are still in the process of reviewing and looking at in prepara- tion for clause-by-clause debate, appears to be one that we will support. We will have some questions. We are still poring through some of the clauses to see if some of the concerns that we know have been raised by the industry in the past are actually addressed in this bill.

But quite simply, it makes sense that Consumer Protection B.C., whom I note have supported this bill, have said that they are supportive of the updates, be- cause if passed, they will provide Consumer Protection B.C. with the compliance mechanisms to more eff ect- ively regulate the industry for the benefi t of families and all citizens in B.C. It’s also important to note that they’ve said that chan- ges to this act as contained in this bill will ensure a level playing fi eld for motion picture licensees in B.C.

Also, I would note that other provisions of this bill will bring the powers of Consumer Protection B.C., with respect to fi lm licensing and showing, in line with those that apply to other areas of the B.C. economy to which CPBC ap- plies regulations. Certainly, the present system, which off ers a very lim- ited range of enforcement options — it’s essentially li- cence suspension or cancellation, seizure or resorting to the court system to simply levy a fi ne that could easily be replaced by an administrative penalty — will now be changed.

It will be changed to better refl ect what has be- come an accepted model of progressive compliance and enforcement. It is important, I think, whether it is in employee-em- ployer relations or government relations with industry or people in the retail sector, that the principle of progres- sive enforcement — progressive discipline, if you want — progressive explanation and imposition of rules take place.

It makes sense to move up a ladder of progressive discipline that can culminate, if necessary — if there are repeated violations followed by discussion, by warning letters which are contemplated in this bill to adminis- trative monetary penalties that don’t involve the courts.

British Columbia Debates9240 Tuesday, September 29, 2015 Th e licence suspension or termination remains an op- tion if the violation is serious, but certainly, it removes the enforcement and compliance provisions of this bill from a kind of all-or-nothing approach and also removes it from an unnecessary and burdensome addition to the load of the court system, which doesn’t serve anybody particularly well.

It’s also worth noting that streamlining has taken place for theatre owners — in a sense, modernizing the licens- ing system to no longer require theatre owners to hold separate licences to screen movies with a restricted clas- sifi cation versus movies with other classifi cations that are suitable for families or for young people.

Th ere still remains a separate classifi cation for adult content, but it clearly, in this bill, demonstrates an under- standing that restricted content is not the same as adult content and can be separated out in terms of licensing — not in terms of classifi cation, but in terms of licensing. [1430] Th at appears to be a positive result of this bill. It will be when it’s passed, and it will make life simpler for many theatre owners and exhibitors — in particular, smaller ones and independent ones.

Th e ability of Consumer Protection B.C. to publish in- formation on contraventions of the act will be very useful information for the public, for parents who want to know if there have been violations of the licensing provisions — what those have been and what the penalties have been. Th at is important information for consumers to know when they are considering who to patronize as they take themselves or their families out for entertainment.

The authority of Consumer Protection B.C. to set fees without ministerial approval allows Consumer Protection B.C. to align their fee-setting model for this sector with the other sectors that they regulate. Th e fee- setting process under the act includes industry consulta- tion and a 90-day notice period. Th is of course just brings consistency within the regulatory and fee-setting regime. [R.

Chouhan in the chair.] I also note, as my predecessor in this particular spokes- person portfolio noted three years ago, that the right of the government to censor movies, as opposed to classi- fying them in a general sense, has been removed. I think one of my colleagues may ask some questions about this and make some points about this. We’re still exam- ining the bill.

Th ere is some possibility that there are some regulations that will still allow this, but essentially it looks like a move toward modernization and a recog- nition that something is either illegal or not illegal and that if it’s not illegal, let’s classify it and let adults make informed choices. Th ere is one issue that I’ve tried to determine in my review of the bill this morning, with respect to whether it’s been addressed. It’s an issue that was raised in 2012 and before by some theatre owners.

Th e then Attorney General noted in her remarks in 2012 that there may be some amendments moved with respect to this issue, that Consumer Protection B.C. was trying to work through it. It has to do with whether a fi lm needs to be reclassi- fi ed if…. For instance, let me use for an example a very old fi lm that has been classifi ed quite some time ago and is about to be reshown. Th e distribution may have changed, the distributor may be new, or the previous distributor may no longer exist.

Th e concern was that it was onerous to have to reclassify a fi lm that essentially has not changed in any way whatsoever, and there is a cost attached to that. We will be wanting to determine that this issue has been addressed. Certainly in 2012, there was some indication from the minister at the time, the Attorney General at the time, that she was aware that this was an issue and that she would attempt to address it. I’ve had some conversations this morning with a per- son who almost ran afoul of this particular aspect of the regulatory regime.

It was fi xed for a particular instance, but it needs to be fi xed in terms of the amendments to this legislation. Finally, it’s important to note, I think, that other amendments in this bill align a whole range of issues — from administrative penalties and orders under the act to fee setting to inspection and seizure to licensing powers — with referencing sections of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Th is is likely to bring desir- able consistency for Consumer Protection B.C. as well as consumers, operators and retailers in British Columbia.

On the whole, I think this is a worthwhile modern- ization of the act. The Attorney General noted that outmoded references to physical fi lm stock have been amended to take note of what has long been the case — digital distribution and showing of fi lms both in theatres as well as in the manners that are not covered by this bill but which all of us who subscribe to Netfl ix or other streaming services understand. [1435] Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, can we keep our voices down, please, when the speaker is speaking? Th ank you very much. G. Heyman: Th at kind of modernization is important.

It is perhaps overdue. I know the wheels of government grind slowly, especially when the Legislature, as was the case in 2012, rarely sat at all, but we are here this fall. We have the ability to deal with any number of what may seem like routine pieces of legislation but are important to the people who are impacted by them, and perhaps, we are fi nally getting around to making some changes that could well have been made many years ago.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, September 29, 2015 9241 With that, I will take my seat and defer to other mem- bers who wish to speak to this bill. J. Th ornthwaite: I, too, am delighted to be able to stand up in the House and join the member for Vancouver- Fairview and speak all positively about fi lm. We really have come a long way in the last little bit with regards to the fi lm industry. A few years ago, it was all doom and gloom and lots of clouds and rain in the air, but the fi lm industry is doing great now.

Obviously, it does have a lot to do with our great talent, our great infrastructure, the fact that we’ve got the perfect area for fi lming, geography, our time zone — everything like that — and, of course, the dollar. I’ d also like to give a little plug to a few individuals that helped to not only make the fi lm industry prominent in our last election platform but also carried through with those items. Certainly, the current Minister of Energy and Mines as well as our Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and, of course, the Minister of Finance have really done a positive thing for the fi lm industry.

I know that the industry in general is very, very apprecia- tive of all of the eff orts of our government in meeting the needs of the fi lm industry. Th e main one that occurred a couple of budgets ago, in 2014, was the extension of the distance tax credit to the CRD region. Th e next one, which was, of course, this year in 2015, in February, was the extension of the DAVE tax credit to post-production. Th en, most recently, July 27 has now been proclaimed Screen in B.C. Day. We had a big event in North Shore Studios at that time, in addi- tion to announcing that we would be forming a fi lm offi ce in Los Angeles.

Th ree signifi cant election platform items have been honoured just in the last two years. Getting back to this particular bill, our government is making changes to modernize the Motion Picture Act that will encourage compliance under the law and pro- vide greater assurances for families. Th e rationale for this change is that we want to refl ect new technologies and to bring into eff ect a more eff ective compliance and enforce- ment model, which aligns with other consumer sectors and will help Consumer Protection B.C. and the industry ensure that the law is being followed.

Our government is introducing a progressive com- pliance and enforcement model that is used in all other industries that Consumer Protection B.C. regulates and is also used by the liquor control and licensing branch, for example. Th e Motion Picture Act protects children and families by ensuring that all motion pictures publicly exhibited in B.C. and all adult videos sold or rented in B.C. have been reviewed and given age-appropriate classifi cations and content advisories.

Th e purpose of the regulation is that there is continued public demand for classifi cation of fi lms shown in the- atres and public spaces to inform parents and to put lim- its on what children can watch. Th eatres are regulated to control who can view restricted or inappropriate fi lms, therefore limiting harm to children. Th is ensures that British Columbians’ community standards and family values are refl ected in the classifi cation of movies shown in theatres. [1440] Th ese changes do not represent an additional regula- tory burden on the industry.

In fact, some businesses will see a decrease in their licensing fees because theatres will no longer require a separate licence for showing fi lms that are classifi ed as restricted. As many of you know, the 34th annual Vancouver International Film Festival is happening now until October 9. Since its inception, this festival has worked to encourage understanding of the world’s many cultures through cinema and to facilitate the meeting of fi lm pro- fessionals from around the world right here in British Columbia.

VIFF is among the fi ve largest fi lm festivals in North America, screening hundreds of fi lms from more than 70 countries, including undiscovered gems from Canadian talent. It brings the world to Vancouver in an accessible, friendly and engaging way. Many of the theatres that exhibit fi lms during the fes- tival are smaller venues, such as the Vancity Th eatre, the Rio and the Pacifi c Cinémathèque. Th ese theatres are dedicated to bringing their audiences essential cinema, new releases, classics and little-seen gems from around the world, many of which can carry an adult rating or 18A.

Th ese changes to the Motion Picture Act will have a positive benefi t for these smaller theatres and will no longer require a separate licence for exhibiting these types of movies. To give you an example, the Pacifi c Cinémathèque last year hosted a festival featuring fi lms by Canada’s own king of body horror, David Cronenberg, and just fi n- ished retrospectives for Orson Welles and the fi lm noir genre in a small, 194-seat cinema dedicated to fi lm edu- cation and preservation. It relies on donations and fi nan- cial support from sponsors for the majority of its annual operating budget.

Th is theatre is one of the most active fi lm organiza- tions in North America and for 40 years has provided local fi lm lovers with more international fi lms, directors’ retrospectives, contemporary and classic Canadian fi lms, art house masterpieces and experimental cinema than any other theatre in British Columbia. Th is reduction in costs for them will have a signifi cant impact on reducing expenditures and allowing the or- ganization to focus on doing what it does best, which is providing movie experiences that inspire, stir emotions and stay with you long aft er you have left your seat.

I want to reiterate my support for Bill 33, and I’m looking for- ward to the other comments from the member opposite. L. Krog: I, fi rstly, want to compliment the member for

British Columbia Debates9242 Tuesday, September 29, 2015 North Vancouver–Seymour in demonstrating that kind of modest approach to complimenting the government’s record that was so absent yesterday in the remarks from the member for Chilliwack. He seemed to spill forth with great enthusiasm about how dismal everything was previously and how the prov- ince was in such terrible fi nancial shape, notwithstanding it fi nished with two balanced budgets, and that constant repetition of this wonderful myth and story that has grown up and is certainly actually believed — I’ d like to think anyway — by the B.C.

Liberals, because they keep repeating it constantly. I know they wouldn’t repeat any- thing that was untrue, so I’m satisfi ed, of course, that that’s the case. When I hear the member for North Vancouver– Seymour stand up and not engage in some unnecessary political attacks, just as some might accuse me of doing from time to time, it’s always a great pleasure to hear re- marks along those lines.

Far be it from me to remind everyone in this chamber, of course, that was it was the public policy of the NDP in the 1990s that led to such an increase in fi lm production in British Columbia and gave the fi lm industry such an enormous boost that it became a signifi cant economic driver in our province. Th at is something that I’ d like to hear repeated from time to time. One gets somewhat tired of — I can’t call it cherry- picking — certainly, an emphasis on trying to pick out the tiny failures of government from the 1990s and re- peating them over and over again and ignoring all of good-news stories.

And the fi lm industry was most cer- tainly one of those good-news stories. Now, I’m conscious of the fact that we’ve been down this road before. It’s not quite Groundhog Day, but three years ago we were wandering down this path. I’m con- scious of the fact that a three-year period is, in fact, twice the gestation period of an elephant, so we could have done this twice, I suppose, along the way and got this bill passed a long time ago, but that’s not the case. [1445] I’m also rather amused by the fact that we are leaving the name Motion Picture Act in place. How fascinating.

Y ou know, we haven’t moved beyond the great memory of what an innovation it was for people to actually see moving pictures and how exciting it was — and the time that fl ows aft er that, when we moved from silent mov- ies into talkies. I’m reminded of a story my grandmother told me with great enthusiasm — how she went to see her fi rst talkie, as she called it. It was a movie about the Klondike and the gold rush. She was telling a fellow called Walter Ford this wonderful story about the movie. Of course, Mr. Ford….

Th ose of you who are uninitiated in the history of Coombs and Parksville and Qualicum won’t probably know that Walter Ford, together with another contractor, logged 35,000 acres of land all around that area — one of the most signifi cant contractors in central Vancouver Island — literally over a hundred years ago. Now, aft er my grandmother had, with such enthusi- asm, recounted the details of this movie — I’m sure to Mr. Ford’s chagrin, because he wouldn’t have to go see it — including the detail of the Chilkoot Pass and what a tremendous obstacle it was for people to overcome, Mr.

Ford looked at my grandmother, smiled and said: “Y es, Mrs. Best, I know. I was there. ” Within a couple of lifetimes we’ve gone from no mov- ing pictures to motion pictures to talkies to now the kind of technology that requires this legislation to sit and con- sider the motion picture industry and its regulation. I am most intrigued by the changes in definition. I know that the Attorney General — to paraphrase Dorothy, somewhere over the rainbow — is listening, riv- eted to my remarks to this important debate as we engage in debate on this bill today in second reading.

I will be very intrigued to understand the exact pur- pose of what seems to be a tremendous simplifi cation of the defi nitions. Right now the Motion Picture Act pro- vides, in the defi nition section, that: “‘adult motion picture’ means any of the following: (

a) a motion picture that was submitted for review under the former Act or under

section 2 (1) of this Act for the purpose of exhibition in a theatre and that, following the review, (

i) was not approved…. (

b) a motion picture that has not been reviewed under

section 5 that depicts (

i) explicit sexual scenes, (ii) the coercing, through the use or threat of physical force or by other means, of a person to engage in a sexual act, if that sexual act is depicted in explicit sexual scenes or sexually suggestive scenes, (iii) incest or necrophilia, (iv) bond- age in a sexual context, (

v) persons who are or who appear to be under the age of 14 involved in sexually suggestive scenes, whether or not they appear nude or partially nude, (vi) persons who are or who appear to be under the age of 18 involved in explicit sexual scenes, (vii) explicit sexual scenes involving violence, (viii) scenes of brutality or torture to persons or animals, depicted in a realis- tic and explicit manner, or (ix) sexual conduct between a human being and an animal. ” Now, that’s a pretty extensive list, and now we are re- ducing that rather explicit

section to simply the follow- ing: “‘adult motion picture’ means a motion picture that has, as its main object, the depiction of (

a) sexually ex- plicit scenes, (

b) scenes, depicted in a realistic and explicit manner, of brutality or torture to persons or animals, or (

c) scenes prescribed by regulation. ” Now, the prescription by regulation exists in the pre- vious act under

section (c).It says: “a motion picture that contains scenes that depict conduct or an activity that is prescribed in a regulation made under

section 14 (2) (d). ” What I’m driving at is: I’m not sure what the purpose is for reducing the clarity — if you will, arguably — or the specifi city of the defi nition. I’ll be interested to hear what the Attorney General has to say. Given her extreme- ly brief remarks today, this is certainly a bill that cries out for reasonable questions to be asked during the course of committee stage. I would hope and assume that it means we are coming to respect a little more the maturity of the viewing pub- lic to make decisions about what kind of movies they see

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, September 29, 2015 9243 and not to be off ended by the depiction of some activities, as they’re contained. Indeed, the act itself…. [1450] Th e amendment proposed by the repealing of subsec- tion (5) in

section 5 is rather interesting as well. What that

section says is that if the director reviews an adult motion picture, he must “consider the adult motion pic- ture in its entirety and take into account the general char- acter of the adult motion picture, including whether the theme, subject matter or plot of the adult motion picture is artistic, historical, political, educational or scientifi c, and (

b) approve or refuse…the adult motion picture in accordance with subsections (5.1) and (5.2). ” Th en it goes on to say, in (5.1): “If an adult motion pic- ture does not contain a depiction of any of the following scenes, the director must approve the adult motion pic- ture. ” Th at includes, as I repeated in the defi nition section, “sexually explicit scenes involving violence; (

b) sexually explicit scenes that are degrading or dehumanizing; (

c) a person who is under 18 years of age or who is intended to represent someone under that age, and who appears (

i) nude or partially nude in a sexually suggestive scene or (ii) in a sexually explicit scene; (

d) scenes prescribed by regulation. ” Th en, interesting that (5.2) says: “If an adult motion picture contains a depiction of any of the scenes referred to in subsection (5.1), ” which I’ve just read, “the direc- tor may approve or refuse to approve the adult motion picture. ” We are giving signifi cant discretion now to the direc- tor. Essentially, what we’re saying is that we are liberaliz- ing the laws around what most people would refer to as pornography in British Columbia.

I am very interested to hear what the members opposite have to say, particu- larly those who might have strong views about that, be- cause that is the essence of this legislation. It is to make available and less restrictive the censoring, if you will — certainly by the removal of that

section — and classifi - cation of movies that are shown in this province. Now, I call them movies — but motion pictures, etc. Interjection. L. Krog: Talkies. Y es. The member for Coquitlam couldn’t resist sliding in the reference to talkies. Th at’s pretty much what we do in this House, hon. Member, on a fairly constant basis. I’ll be very interested to hear what those Liberal mem- bers have to say about that and whether they’ll be sup- porting the government in this legislation.

For those of us who believe that less censorship is probably a good thing, that the opportunity for people to view what they want to view is a good thing…. I’ d be interested in hear- ing what those members have to say about what is a sig- nifi cant liberalization of the regime that governs how motion pictures are classifi ed in this province. I would argue that it’s a step forward, that it recognizes changing views. We are a more mature society. But not everyone is going to agree with the opposition on this, and not everyone will share the same views.

When the time comes in committee stage, I hope, if I’m available, to have the opportunity to ask the Attorney General what the thrust of this change in regime is and whether or not, in fact, the B.C. Liberals are solidly be- hind this move forward. With those remarks, I’ll take my place and look for- ward to hearing the other members of the chamber, particularly the Liberal backbenchers, engage in com- mentary on this particular issue. D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I am pleased to speak today to the Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015.

As we are all aware, the fi lm industry in our province is booming. Known for our diverse and scenic fi lming locations, B.C. has become a leading creative hub. We have many talented people working in fi lm in B.C. Th e industry provides approximately 20,000 direct and in- direct jobs. In my own riding, the city of Abbotsford is marketing the city as a destination for fi lm crews. Th e economic im- pacts of fi lming in the city benefi t our community. As for cinemas in my community, a new Cineplex cinema and VIP opened in Abbotsford in 2013.

I know that because I was there for the opening. [1455] Th is is a world-class movie theatre. Th e complex fea- tures 11 screens, three of which are VIP cinemas that boast reclining seats in the front row and bar service. Th e VIP area admits only adults, since it’s a licensed auditor- ium. Beyond the front row, the VIP cinema off ers large, padded chairs that rock and lean back. Th e cinema em- ploys 150 full- and part-time workers. It’s a great place. However, the amendments in this bill are about giv- ing Consumer Protection B.C. the tools it needs to bet- ter protect the interest of individuals and families.

Th is bill ensures that all motion pictures shown in theatres in British Columbia have been reviewed and classifi ed. Th is helps parents and moviegoers make informed choices about what they are watching. Th e act is creating a progressive compliance and en- forcement model. Th e new model will help Consumer Protection B.C. and the industry ensure that the law is being followed. Th is is a similar approach that has been successful in other sectors that Consumer Protection B.C. regulates. Th ere will be a range of enforcement actions that can be taken against a licensee for noncompliance with the act.

Sanctions will now range from a warning letter to monetary penalties that don’t involve the courts, such as licence suspension or termination, depending on the seriousness of the violation. Previously, the only penal-

British Columbia Debates9244 Tuesday, September 29, 2015 ties available were licence suspension or termination, a fi ne that involved the court system. Consumer Protection B.C. is a not-for-profi t corpora- tion that acts at arm’s length from government. Th ey issue licences for the motion picture and video industry based on the requirements of the Motion Picture Act. Th ere continues to be public demand for classifi cation of fi lms shown in theatres and public spaces. Th ese classi- fi cations inform parents and put limits on what children can watch.

Th eatres are regulated to control who can view restricted or inappropriate fi lms, thereby limiting harm to children. Th e scheme we have ensures that British Columbians’ community standards and family values are refl ected in the classifi cation of movies shown in theatres. Th is approach is taken not to censor but to clarify the classifi cation of motion pictures seen in theatres. We believe we have struck the right balance in regulating content of movies. In British Columbia, we regulate less than other provinces. We do not regulate classifi cation of home videos and video games.

It is important to note that these changes do not repre- sent an additional regulatory burden on the industry. In fact, the changes in this bill mean that the theatres will no longer be forced to hold separate licences to screen mov- ies with a restricted rating. Th is was an unnecessary cost and burden on business owners. Because of this change, some businesses will see a decrease in their licensing fees. Also, this fi lm makes some minor amendments sur- rounding modernization of the language in the bill. Defi nitions for terms such as “fi lm” and “motion picture” have been modernized in the act.

Th e last time any signifi cant changes to the Motion Picture Act were made was in 1986, almost 30 years ago. Bringing in a more eff ective compliance and enforcement model will ensure the law is being followed and provide greater assurances for families. Th ese amendments will modernize the Motion Picture Act. Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the min- ister closes the debate. We’ll wait for the minister. Th e House will take a fi ve-minute recess. Th e House recessed from 2:59 p.m. to 3:03 p.m. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Deputy Speaker: Madam Attorney to close the debate. Hon. S.

Anton: I thank the speakers for their com- ments, and I move second reading of Bill 33. Motion approved. Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting aft er today. Bill 33, Motion Picture Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House aft er today. Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 36, intituled the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015. [1505] BILL 36 — AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 Hon.

P . Fassbender: I move that Bill 36, the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act, 2015, be read for a second time now. Th e Auditor General for Local Government offi ce was created to help local governments deliver the best possible services in the most effi cient, cost-eff ective way to the one taxpayer that all of us in this House and throughout the province serve. Th e mandate of the offi ce is of value not only to local governments but to the province as a whole. When the B.C. Auditor General for Local Government was initially launched in January of 2013, it was the fi rst of its kind.

Like any new, leading-edge offi ce, there have been lessons learned and steps taken to strengthen the offi ce and the position for success moving forward. Since some of the challenges became obvious, a lot of posi- tive momentum has been generated through the last few months, including fi ve well-received audit reports for the local governments of Comox Valley regional district, Vernon, North Vancouver, Sechelt, Dawson Creek and, most recently, Surrey.

Th e acting AGLG and the audit council have been implementing the recommendations resulting from an independent report of the governance and operations of the AGLG. As well, the contextual thinking and views ex- pressed by the UBCM in the report they provided to the minister and to the local governments, and the survey of audited local governments, helped to inform the future direction for the offi ce of the AGLG and will contribute to the improved operation of the offi ce.

At the UBCM, I had the opportunity to meet with a number of local governments who support the offi ce of the AGLG — and were frustrated, as we were, by the issues that came to light and the problems that we had — but do believe that since the changes have been imple- mented by the acting AGLG, they see the value, and they see the value of the reports. I’m confi dent that the new auditor general, Mr.

Gordon Ruth, who I announced at the UBCM, will himself, and the offi ce, become high- functioning and results-based and be willing to work with local governments to fi nd solutions and opportun- ities that will fully benefi t the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, September 29, 2015 9245 On that note, I would like to recognize the tremen- dous work accomplished by Arn van Iersel, who provided superior leadership in a diffi cult time of transition. He also provided the stability during that time for the offi ce and the staff . I also want to compliment the remainder of the staff in the offi ce for the work that they did to make sure that the offi ce moved ahead and implemented some of the recom- mendations that had been brought forward.

It is absolutely critical that the Auditor General for Local Government Act maintain the AGLG’s current mandate, organizational structure and independence with regard to the performance audit program. Th ey strengthened the legislative authorities of the minister with the changes in the act, the audit council and the AGLG and support them in the fulfi lment of their duties and responsibilities. Th e amendments we’re proposing enhance, strengthen and clarify the role of the minister and the minister’s rela- tionship with the AGLG.

It will also enhance, strengthen and clarify the authority of the audit council to fulfi l its duties and responsibilities. It will also clarify the terms of appointment, removal and suspension of the AGLG, should that be necessary. [1510] The changes to the Auditor General for Local Government Act refl ected in this legislation align with the recommendations from the audit council’s in- dependent review of the AGLG offi ce.

And the resulting amendments strengthen the legislative authorities of the minister, the audit council and the AGLG as well as sup- port them in the fulfi lment of their duties and respon- sibilities. Th e Auditor General for Local Government was es- tablished to work with local governments to collabora- tively build partnerships as we identify the opportunities for future growth.

One of the key aspects in this work, which we heard from UBCM in the meetings I had with the executive and from member local governments, was to be sensitive to local governments as we move forward with this offi ce, and that is clearly our intention. With new, stable leadership and these amendments to the Auditor General for Local Government Act, the offi ce is now well positioned for the long term to help local gov- ernments improve their operations and deliver services more eff ectively and economically.

I ask that all the members lend their support to this legislation, because I believe it will fulfi l the original in- tent in the formation of the offi ce. As I said at UBCM, it was clear to me that the member local governments real- ized that there are opportunities to learn from each other, and that is exactly what the offi ce will do. S. Robinson: I rise to speak to this Bill 20 — well, the original Bill 20, now Bill 36 — because I have some ser- ious concerns about this proposed piece of legislation.

I want to speak to the actual amendments that are being proposed, and I want to speak to the process that was undertaken and respond to some of the remarks made by the minister. First of all to some of the changes that I noticed in this bill. We’ve had a chance to take a look at it. Part of what I’m concerned about is what we would call, I guess, min- isterial creep — that there’s a real change in the tenor of this offi ce that was intended to be an independent offi ce. We see that independence completely eroded with these amendments.

I think it’s important to just go back and take a look at the original legislation, because the intent of that legisla- tion spoke at length about the importance of independ- ence. I think it’s important for all members of the House to go back three years, when this was being debated in this House. I just have some quotes from Hansard. I love the fact that we have things on record, because it just re- minds us of what people were thinking at the time. Going back to when this was fi rst debated in the House under Bill 20, the Auditor General for Local Government Act, the minister at the time was Ida Chong.

She brought that legislation through, and she was commenting on the existing local government legislation that spoke mostly about fi nancial accountability rules. She noted that there was a gap: “ …there is a gap. Th ere is no requirement for independent value-for-money performance audits, and this legislation is about fi lling that gap…. ” So when it was fi rst proposed, there was recognition that independence was important.

She went on to say, “Independence in conducting per- formance audits is vital to the credibility of any auditor general, ” and she went on to talk about why she would appoint the auditor general, the way it would happen, why the AGLG would have the sole discretion to select local governments to audit, and she went on to describe, again, the importance of independence with this offi ce. Th en, of course, as I’m reading Hansard, because it’s a fascinating document with lots of words spoken by many people who are still in this House, there was the MLA who said….

At the time, he was speaking as the representative of Kootenay East, and I believe that’s the Minister of Mines today. He had lots to say about this. He talked about the value of the Auditor General for Local Government being able to conduct performance audits.

Value-for-money audits are what he talked about. [1515] Th en he goes on to say: “Secondly, this will be a sep- arate, independent office that doesn’t report to the Legislature. ” Clearly, this member, now the Minister of Mines, thought it was very important — in fact, I would even argue, critically important — that this offi ce had in- dependence, that this offi ce did not answer to anybody in this House. Th at was the message back then. And then he goes on to say, a little bit later on: “I think it’s important to talk just for another minute about what

British Columbia Debates9246 Tuesday, September 29, 2015 this bill is not. It’s not about encroaching on local govern- ment jurisdiction. Th at’s not what this is about. It’s about setting up a process whereby local government can get some independent advice about how they do business. ” Th ere’s that word again: independent, “independent ad- vice. ” Th at’s what this was set up to do. Th en he went on to say…. I thought this was really interesting, because, of course, we’ve seen this. We’ve got more information. He said: “Th ere will be no add- ed cost….

Th e province will cover the cost of this. ” And then he said: “So not added cost; it’s actually all about de- creased cost to the taxpayer. ” I thought that was interest- ing, given that this offi ce has cost, I’m guessing, well over $7 million to produce a handful of reports, most of which have provided absolutely no value. I’m getting ahead of myself. I’ll speak to that in a moment. Th e member for Kootenay East, at the time, then went on and said: “It’s a fairly modest piece of legislation” and “It’s not going to cost local government money. ” We have found out that that’s actually not the case.

But again, I get ahead of myself. Th en we have from committee…. Th is is March 2012. Th e minister at the time was Ida Chong. In the committee stage of bringing in Bill 20, three years ago, again there was emphasis on the independence of this offi ce. Th is is a quote from the hon.

Ida Chong: “We also indicated that this reporting structure — that is, the audit council…for any auditor general aims to satisfy both the independ- ence and the accountability, and that’s what this audit council is designed to do. ” Th en she carries on about ac- countability, and she fi nishes up saying: “For that reason, we have set up a structure that I believe meets the test of independence. ” Well, it doesn’t end there, just as they’re bringing in the legislation. Th ere were certainly other ministers who have spoken to the importance of the independence of this offi ce.

We certainly saw what happened last year as I asked a couple of questions, I think. For weeks and weeks and weeks, it felt like that was all I got to do here in this House — ask questions about the auditor general. I think some of my colleagues will remember those days. Interjection. S. Robinson: The member for Surrey-Whalley re- members. Th at’s really good. I’m glad that he has such a good memory. We heard in this House over and over and over again about the independence of this offi ce.

On March 3, the minister at the time — who is now, I believe, the min- ister for small business; I think she’s changed portfolios — said: “Th e AGLG, as I said in the previous, is a func- tionally independent office with a high degree of au- tonomy.

Government has no ability to direct the AGLG regarding reporting timelines on audit topics. ” And then she went on again: “Th e AGLG, again, is a functionally independent offi ce with a high degree of autonomy. ” I think these were just her speaking notes. “We’re just wanting to reiterate for everybody, over and over again, that this is autonomous and separate from government and separate from the Legislature, and that’s what makes it valuable.

Th at’s what makes it a valuable tool to local governments, and it’s critical that it have this independence. ” On March 9, again, I’m guessing I probably got to ask a few more questions about what was going on with this offi ce. She said: “It’s a good opportunity to remind the member opposite again” — I guess that’s me — “that, as we know, for any auditor to be eff ective, it needs to be in- dependent from politicians. In this case, it is here as well. ” Clearly, she was committed to the independence of this offi ce. As politicians, we just get in the way. We make a mess of things.

If it is to have any value, if it is to have any credibility, it absolutely must be independent. [1520] Later on, on the tenth, she reminds us again: “I would have hoped that the member opposite…. ” Th en, I guess, it fizzled out. I don’t have the notes here. It said “in- dependent offi ce. ” So clearly I got the message. I got the message. It was repeated to me over and over again. Every time I raised the issue about the AGLG, asking about what was going on, I was assured that its independence was critical to its function, was critical to its credibility and was critical to its success. Okay, got that.

So this story, of course, carries on. We know that there were certainly very problematic issues with this fi le. But I think we need to remember that when the Premier promised this as part of her leadership bid, she, too, called for it to be an independent offi ce. Th e Premier recognized the value of that — that in order for it to have credibility, it needed to be independent. So what do we have? Well, we have some changing things. We have a proposal here before us that suggests that maybe independence isn’t a good thing.

We have some amendments here that are saying that actually the offi ce ought not to be independent, that the minister ac- tually gets to have a whole lot of say about what goes on, that everything will happen with OIC, that with the swipe of a pen, things can change. Auditors can change. Th e minister has way more control now, way more say. Where is the independence now? What happened to the independence of an auditor general, that that pro- vides the credibility?

So when things were deteriorating back in March, when we fi rst raised here in the House that the Auditor General for Local Government was not performing — the auditor general in the fi rst year had promised to do 18 audits of local governments and aft er two years had produced a single audit and had spent $5.2 million to get that done — we found that there were ac- tually some major challenges, real major challenges with this offi ce.

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, September 29, 2015 9247 We learned that all was not well in the Auditor General for Local Government’s offi ce. Th ere were lots of con- tractors being used. Th e offi ce didn’t understand what local governments did. Th ere were certainly some sig- nificant challenges. Even though we got assurances that all was good, that really wasn’t what was going on. Eventually, we know, the Auditor General for Local Government was fi red. W e also know that she ’ s suing the government.

We know that, by my calculations, over $7 million has been spent just for the Offi ce of the Auditor General for Local Government and that we still have mounting legal costs. We know that local governments on aver- age — the ones that have been audited; there’s about 16 or 17 — have spent about $12,000 of local taxpayer dol- lars. We know that there’s only one taxpayer, as the min- ister just said. So all told, we’re in for, I don’t know, well over $7 million for sure to produce 17 reports, of which what we know is that only two local governments said had any value.

I’m getting a little bit of ahead of myself, because it’s such an exciting, riveting story about how things have unfolded with this offi ce. Mr. Trumpy was brought in last spring to do a quick review of what was going on, and he made some recommendations. Th e minister spoke to those recommendations. When it was announced that Mr. Trumpy was going to take a look at what was going on in this offi ce, the Premier promised — she promised — that the UBCM would be consulted. Th e UBCM is the body that rep- resents local governments. It’s one phone call, just one phone call.

Th ey represent the hundreds of local govern- ments around this province, and one phone call would have been suffi cient. Th e minister at the time, the min- ister who is now Minister of Small Business, said: “Well, Mr. Trumpy may call the UBCM. It’s up to him. ” What we learn is that they were never called. Th ey were never consulted. Th is is really disappointing, because you would think that that would be a valuable opportunity to sort of say: “Hey, guys, how’s it going? Did things work out okay for those who have been audited? Did you have any feedback for us?

We’re taking a look at this, and now would be the time. ” Th at didn’t happen, unfortunately. [1525] Th at would have been the right thing to do, but that doesn’t mean that that’s what this government is go- ing to do. So the UBCM, being very resourceful and very creative, decided to do their own report. Th eir re- port — I want to read the title in for the record — is Auditor General for Local Government: Perspectives on Operations, March 2013-March 2015. Th ey took it upon themselves to do a review and to do a survey.

Th ey went out, and they checked in with all the local governments who had been working really hard to address the ongoing demands of the Auditor General for Local Government. Th ese were demands…. I don’t think people in the House will have an appreciation of the demands I would call a little bit crazy-making, because they changed all the time; it was diff erent auditors coming in and going out.

In one local community that I spoke to, they had an auditor come in who was brought in from New Brunswick who was French-speaking and didn’t speak any English, and the expectation was that they were going to be able to somehow do a performance audit for this local govern- ment. And that’s how much this offi ce had deteriorated, in terms of its ability to perform. But again, I digress. Interjection. S. Robinson: And it wasn’t Maillardville, as the mem- ber for Surrey-Whalley suggested. Th is report, Auditor General for Local Government: Perspectives on Operations , was quite comprehensive.

So 17 local governments were consulted, and there are various charts. Th ere are two things that I thought were really important to fl ag for the House. Of the 17, only two communities agreed with this statement: “Th e fi ndings of the audits published to date contained valuable information that has been used by our local government to improve our processes and pro- cedures relative to the audit topic. ” Two found it useful. Th e others, when you talk to them about what they learned, said: “Well, we were already making those chan- ges. We were already adapting.

We had actually already seen that” or “We have it in our plan to address it. We knew it was coming, and we just haven’t had the resour- ces to pull somebody in to take a look at how to do that better. ” Only two communities have identifi ed what was helpful — $7 million and climbing for two communities to fi nd some value. Th is report had some interesting recommendations for the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, and I think it’s important to read those into the record.

The first one: “Prior to undertaking legislative or administrative amendments to the AGLG, consider and act on the fi ndings within this report in an eff ort to improve the eff ectiveness and effi ciency of the Offi ce of the Auditor General. ” One of the questions I have for the minister is that I’ d like to know what exactly was in this report…. I’ d like to ask the minister: what was in this report that they found useful to make these amendments? And I guess I get to do that at committee stage, and I look forward to that.

Th e second one — and this one I thought was really interesting: “consult with local governments with regard to alternative governance and administrative models for the AGLG. ” Well, I called the UBCM yesterday when this came to the Legislature, and it was the fi rst they’ d heard that this legislation was tabled. I was a little stunned. I mean, I

British Columbia Debates9248 Tuesday, September 29, 2015 called them thinking: “Okay. Th ey’re the spokespeople. Th ey’re the stakeholder in this. It’s their members who are most impacted by what goes on with the Auditor General for Local Government. ” And this minister and this government didn’t have the decency to pick up the phone and say: “We’re going to be making some legisla- tive changes. We want to meet with you about what to do. ” Or at least give them the heads-up that it’s coming. It’s coming the fi rst week we’re back. No, I’ d phoned and said: “So, what do you guys think?

Do you know anything about this?” And they’re like: “Th is is the fi rst I’ve heard of it. ” Finally, the third recommendation specifi cally for this ministry is to “commit to undertaking an independent review. ” And again, now I’m really leery about what in- dependent means, but I think I know what UBCM means by independent.

I’m not so sure what this government means by independent, but that’s a conversation for an- other day. [1530] To “commit to undertaking an independent review of the offi ce of the AGLG within two years of the next ap- pointment of the AGLG, and make this review available to the public. ” Th is suggests to me that the credibility of this offi ce has been seriously damaged. I think we can all agree — everyone in this House can agree — it’s been seriously damaged.

Now they’re proposing legislation that strips the independence of this offi ce — independ- ence that previous ministers said was absolutely critical to this offi ce functioning. I just worry for how much more money is going to get wasted on this independent Offi ce of the Auditor General for Local Government that really isn’t independent. It also begs the question about what it is that the ministry is really trying to address. Th e issue that certainly came before us when I was ask- ing questions in this House about the performance of the previous Auditor General for Local Government….

At the time, it seemed like the problems for the offi ce rested with the original choice of the Auditor General for Local Government. Th ere had been a bad choice made. I was looking up the Auditor General for Local Government. Th ere is lots, actually, written on it. Trying to wade through it over the day was a little bit over- whelming. But what stuck in my mind was that this gov- ernment spent, I think it was, $57,000 to fi nd her in the fi rst place. Th at was what it cost taxpayers — $57,000 to fi nd her. It was problematic. I get it. Sometimes you make a bad hire. It happens. It has happened to me.

I get it. Th ey made a bad hire, and it created some problems — some real problems for this minister and some real problems for this government. At the time, the message that we heard and that British Columbians heard was: “We have a problem with this person we hired. We made a mistake with who we hired. We need to deal with that. ” Okay. I didn’t hear anything about the nature of the legislation.

Th at wasn’t what they were talking about. “We made a bad hire. ” What’s fascinating about this legislation that we’re see- ing before us is that it creates an unprecedented level of government control over an independent auditor gen- eral. It’s a complete departure from the principle that an auditor general is to be independent from government. What does that mean? Well, it means it’s a huge risk for government interference. Th at gives the minister signifi - cant power over local government. At the end of the day, when you trace it all back, who’s in charge of our local governments?

I think mayors, councillors and regional directors ought to be shaking their heads. Th ey’re going to be, at the end of the day, answerable to the minister. We have lost all autonomy for what I would argue…. And I would argue anybody on either side of the House about the importance of lo- cal government and the autonomy that it requires. Th is piece of legislation is eroding that, and I think we all ought to be on alert. I know that there are lots of people on both sides of this House who come from local government, and I know that they value local government.

I hope that they will speak up for local government, because I think this is the thin edge of that wedge in terms of autonomy of lo- cal government. Th at’s what I’m going to speak to right now, just about the legislation itself. But I want to speak for a little bit about the process. I have a few things to say about how this unfolded and connected to the timing. W e all just came off …. I believe most members were at the UBCM last week. We all got to meet with tons of people from local government. Certainly, the minister spoke to a number of people from local government.

I certainly had a very busy calendar having meetings with many people from local government. We also know that the UBCM resolution to get rid of the Auditor General for Local Government barely passed, but it did pass. Almost 55 percent endorsed getting rid of the Auditor General for Local Government or asking government to remove this offi ce. [1535] So when the minister speaks to lots of people, there’s lots of support and he’s a great cheerleader for it, I think we need to temper that a little bit because there really isn’t signifi cant huge support. Fift y-fi ve percent of that body said: “Get rid of it.

It’s of no value, and it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars. ” What this government has proposed would save tax- payer dollars is actually doing the opposite. So when you have 55 percent endorse the elimination of the offi ce, you don’t have resounding support. Th e other thing about timing that I fi nd quite fascinat- ing is that if the UBCM were to have an opportunity to speak or refl ect or come up with some sort of comment

British Columbia DebatesTuesday, September 29, 2015 9249 on this piece of legislation, this would probably be one of the most diffi cult times for them to do that. A new executive just got elected on, well, I guess, Friday. Friday the winners were announced. So on Monday, you’ve introduced a piece of legislation that a new body — they haven’t even met yet — can’t even re- fl ect on. Th eir ability to participate in any way, shape or form has been nullifi ed, eliminated. Th ey can’t provide a voice that says “Y ea” or “Nay, ” or “Tweak it here, or tweak it there. ” Th ey have no voice.

Th e last thing I want to say about process on this is how the minister spoke about partnership at the UBCM. He waxed eloquent about the importance of working together, of rolling up our sleeves, of fi nding ways to come to agreement on a range of matters — that there’s one taxpayer and all levels of government ought to be working together. He smiled his smile and just carried on about how fabulous it would be for us all. I’m sure people wanted to get up and give him a hug and sing Kumbayah about how great it would all be to work in partnership. Th is is partnership? Th is is a slap in the face.

Th is is, I think, actually, a little bit disgusting. Th is is a new min- ister. He had an opportunity to start partnership, to do partnership, to lead by example of what partnership means. And his fi rst act when we’re back in the House is to put out a piece of legislation, really, the fi rst working day aft er the UBCM. Th e UBCM staff are exhausted. Th ey are still doing cleanup. Th e executive is just getting their act togeth- er and trying to fi nd each other’s phone numbers and getting their relationship started as a functioning body.

And what this minister does is lay out a piece of legisla- tion that aff ects them. It’s a big piece of legislation, and they won’t be able to provide comment, which is rather disappointing. I have one last comment I just want to make before I take my seat. Th is was the Minister of Mines, who at the time…. I don’t even know if he was a minister, but he said…. He was here as the MLA representing Kootenay East, so I’m assuming…. He was certainly here in this House. Interjection. S. Robinson: He was an independent at the time? Oh, okay. He was an independent at the time. Interjection. S.

Robinson: Well, that’s a story for another day, I be- lieve, says the member for…. Okay. Another day. I want to fi nish off with his words, because I think they’ re refl ective of what has gone on here. Th is was Tuesday, February 14, 2012. He said in this House: “I think, frankly, the opposition is going to be surprised and disappointed by the extent to which local government embraces this idea of a local government auditor gen- eral. I think this is going to be a very successful venture. ” Well, I think this venture has proven to be very costly to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I think they’re con- tinuing to fl og at it, to push at it, to tweak it. [1540] Clearly, the minister was saying that any time you do something new, it’s a problem. Well, this has been a very expensive problem. Rather than consider having a con- versation with the Auditor General that answers to the Legislature and seeing if there would be a place there for some of this work, they continue to push something that is just a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. Th ey’re trying to fi x something that is really problem- atic.

I think, unfortunately, they are losing their stake- holders in this venture as well, and that is perhaps the most disappointing thing of all. J. Martin: I am so happy today to be able to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents from Chilliwack and speak in favour of the Auditor General for Local Government Amendment Act. Th is government, as we all know, is committed to stay- ing the course with the AGLG. Good fi scal management includes long-term planning for community projects and infrastructure without going into debt.

It is vitally important that governments continue to fi nd new ways to conduct business for less. Th is goes for all levels of government, whether we are speaking about federal, provincial or local levels of gov- ernment. Local government works at keeping their com- munities vibrant and healthy and improving the quality of life for all of their residents. Th e Offi ce of the AGLG was created to assist local gov- ernments in improving their operations.

By undertaking a performance audit, the offi ce may provide some guid- ance to local government that can help them provide better service to their communities and citizens. If our local governments can be more effi cient in their spend- ing, these communities are better off . Th e AGLG was fi rst launched in January 2013, and the core mandate is to conduct performance audits that focus on the economy, the effi ciency and the eff ective- ness of the design and the delivery of programs, services and policies.

Th e work of this offi ce supports local gov- ernments, and in the end, this is of benefi t to all British Columbians. This bill that we’re speaking of today clarifies and enhances the governance and accountability provi- sions of the act. We believe the work of the Offi ce of the AGLG will improve accountability of local governments throughout beautiful British Columbia. It will help im- prove local government operations as they learn from the work of the offi ce. Because in the end, all levels of government serve one taxpayer, the same taxpayer. If the Auditor General for Local Government is able to save the

British Columbia Debates9250 Tuesday, September 29, 2015 taxpayer money through local governments, then that is a success. Th e proposed amendments will make it clear that as a provincial appointee, the AGLG is accountable to gov- ernment and accountable to the audit council. Th ese changes will strengthen the relationship between the AGLG, the audit council, the minister, government and local governments. Of course, the AGLG will continue to have the in- dependence and continue to select and conduct a performance audit program. But there will be a clear responsibility to deliver results.

And there will be con- sequences for non-delivery. Th e authority of the audit council and the minister to review the performance of the Office of the AGLG will be strengthened and en- hanced within this bill. Th ese amendments mean that the audit council will have a clear opportunity to review and to monitor the AGLG’s performance and delivery. This includes re- viewing how the AGLG fulfi ls its mandate. Th e audit council will now be able to provide a report to the min- ister at any point in time.

And the council will be pro- vided with broad authority to request information from the AGLG when necessary to carry out its responsibilities. As well, the council will not have authority over human resources within the matter. Not only is the accountability of the audit council strengthened but also the role of the minister is strength- ened. Th is legislation enables the minister to initiate a review of the Offi ce of the Auditor General for Local Government at any particular point in time. Th is is in addition to the mandated review in 2017.

Th is legislation also enables the minister to directly recommend suspen- sion of removal of the AGLG without waiting for recom- mendation from the audit council. Additionally, this legislation ensures that the minis- ter has a role in the budget and estimates process for the AGLG. In the end, it is a good thi

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150929pm-Hansard-v28n11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150929pm Hansard v28n11
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8e06a47e74d9339d1137ddd56543b98d020cd10f

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