2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, April 16, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Clifford Bolton

R. Austin

Personal Statement

Apology for comments made in the House

H. Bloy

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 33 — Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Bill 34 — Limitation Act

Hon. S. Bond

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Tom Foord

E. Foster

Vaisakhi

J. Brar

D. Hayer

Impact of residential schools

S. Fraser

Volunteerism for seniors in West Vancouver–Capilano area

R. Sultan

Surrey rent bank

H. Bains

Oral Questions

TransLink governance

H. Bains

Hon. B. Lekstrom

S. Simpson

Deltaport expansion and protection of farmland in Delta

L. Popham

Hon. D. McRae

V. Huntington

G. Gentner

Grant’s law and protection for workers

R. Chouhan

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Mediator in collective bargaining for teachers

R. Austin

Hon. G. Abbott

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, report No. 1, 2012, Development Initiative Trusts: An Audit of Legislative Compliance and Public Accountability Practices in the Three Statutory Trusts

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 21 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon

B. Ralston

Hon. K. Falcon

Bill 23 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon

B. Ralston

Hon. S. Cadieux

S. Simpson

G. Hogg

Hon. K. Falcon

Bill 26 — Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012

Hon. S. Thomson

N. Macdonald

B. Routley

C. Trevena

B. Simpson

M. Sather

S. Fraser

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment (continued)

R. Fleming

Hon. T. Lake

M. Sather

B. Ralston

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation

Hon. P. Bell

J. Kwan

J. Brar

[ Page 10641 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

R. Sultan: In the gallery today we have a rather large number of guests. I am very pleased to introduce them, beginning with His Worship Teunis Westbroek, mayor of Qualicum Beach and chair of the Municipal Insurance Association; followed by Gary MacIsaac, who is the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

We also have four representatives of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies of B.C., otherwise known as ACEC: Neil Cumming, past president; Steve Fleck, vice-president; Glenn Martin, executive director; and Steve Bean, who is director and chair of Vancouver Island liaison. Sitting with them is also Richard Rees, who is the CEO of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia. Sitting with them as well is Don Lovell, who is chair of the Vancouver Island branch of the Architectural Institute of British Columbia.

We also have a number of people from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., otherwise known as APEGBC. I would want to welcome council members from APEG. Today in the gallery are, most prominently, Jeff Holm, P.Eng., president; Michael Isaaccson, P.Eng., vice-president; Frank Denton, P.Eng., past president; and Derek Doyle, P.Eng., who is CEO and registrar of APEGBC.

As well, we have from that association Emily Cheung, John Clague, Ana Fernandes, Donna Howes, Janet Sinclair, Gillian Pichler, Peter Mitchell, Joanne Williamson and Laurel Buss.

Finally, we also have in the gallery Renee Mulligan, who is legal counsel and policy adviser with the Ministry of Justice.

Our guests, most of whom have travelled some distance from a wide variety of organizations to join us today, are just some of the many individuals and organizations that have participated in a consultation process on reforms to the Limitation Act, resulting in a bill that will be brought forward today by our minister later this afternoon. I ask that all members of this Legislature please make these guests very welcome.

S. Fraser: I would like to join my colleague across the way from West Vancouver–Capilano in welcoming His Worship Teunis Westbroek and Gary MacIsaac. Both were attending, in my constituency, the AVICC, Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities, convention, the AGM held in Ucluelet this year and this weekend. Would the House please help me make them feel very welcome.

D. Barnett: Today in the House from my constituency I am very, very pleased to have Chief Mike Archie, chief of the Canim Lake band in the Shuswap territory, which my riding is in. Along with him are Coun. Donald Dixon; land administrator Pam Theodore; and, from Canoe Creek band, which is also within my riding, Coun. Harold Harry. He is stepping in today for Chief Hank Adam. Coun. Gertrude Harry is also here from the Canoe Creek band. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

I also have here today in the House representatives of our rural agency liquor store association. I have Trent Leggett, president; Colby Woodhead; and Annette Brausse. Would the House also please make them feel welcome.

Tributes

CLIFFORD BOLTON

R. Austin: It is with great sadness that I rise in the Legislature today to inform the members of the House of the death of Clifford Bolton, also known by his Tsimshian name of Soō-Natz. He died last Thursday, April 12, in Terrace after suffering a series of strokes.

Now, members of this House will recall that they were introduced to Clifford and his wife Rena at the opening of this session of the Legislature, as he was not only the father to the Lieutenant-Governor of the province, Steven Point, but also the artist who carved the jade portion of our Black Rod, made in commemoration of Her Majesty's diamond jubilee as Queen of the Commonwealth.

[1340]

Clifford was not only a renowned artist but was also the father of 13 children, a respected elder in his community of Kitsumkalum as well as a political leader for many years as the elected Chief of Kitsumkalum. He was a fluent Tsimshian speaker who really valued the importance of bringing back the culture and language.

A memorial was held on Saturday in his honour, and his funeral followed just yesterday. Clifford will be remembered as an inspiration to all who knew him, and of course, we also have the legacy of numerous incredible pieces of art, mostly carvings done in wood, jade and other materials.

I would like to ask, hon. Speaker, that you send condolences to Clifford's family from all of us in the B.C. Legislature.

Personal Statement

APOLOGY FOR COMMENTS

MADE IN THE HOUSE

H. Bloy: Earlier today I withdrew remarks that I

[ Page 10642 ]

made this morning in the House, and I would now like to apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for the remarks that I made this morning.

Mr. Speaker: Apology taken.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — JUSTICE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to introduce Bill 33, the Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012. This bill amends the following statutes: the Commercial Arbitration Act, the Court of Appeal Act, the Election Act, the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act, the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, the Motor Vehicle Act and the Offence Act. The bill also makes a consequential amendment to the Family Law Act.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 33, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 34 — LIMITATION ACT

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Limitation Act.

Hon. S. Bond: : I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased today to introduce the Limitation Act. The bill will repeal and replace the existing Limitation Act and create a new, modernized act.

The act will simplify the legal regime for determining the time periods people have to start a proceeding to sue one another in the civil justice system, promoting greater certainty and predictability. This act has been long awaited by many professionals and others who have asked the government to bring British Columbia in line with other Canadian jurisdictions.

This will help to ensure that British Columbia businesses are competitive and subject to similar rules as their counterparts in other provinces. This is important as we see more and more mobility of professions across provinces. The legislation will bring B.C. limitation law in line with other provinces which have recently updated their statute with the uniform statute developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34, Limitation Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TOM FOORD

E. Foster: It is with sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to a great Vernonite and British Columbian. Last week Vernon lost a legend. Kal Tire founder and tire industry hall of famer Tom Foord passed away last Thursday, just one month short of his 90th birthday.

Over the past 50 years Kal Tire, the company Tom founded in Vernon, has steadily expanded, literally across the globe. Tom built Kal Tire into Canada's largest independent tire dealer, and Kal Tire mining tire group operates in 19 countries, across five continents. Tom was inducted into the Tire Hall of Fame and named to the Western Canada Tire Dealers Association Hall of Fame.

For some 4,600 employees in 20 countries, Tom was the best boss they ever had. He emphasized team-building and customer service. In Vernon and the North Okanagan, Tom was a local institution, and not just because he was a local boy done good.

[1345]

Despite national and even international success, Tom resisted the temptation to operate Kal Tire from anywhere but Vernon. He even named the company after a local landmark, Kalamalka Lake. For most people, that might have been enough, but Tom was more than just a business success story. He was a tireless, dedicated philanthropist who wanted to give back to his community.

He was instrumental in the development of the People Place, a great service which works with non-profit agencies and finds them affordable places to operate. Tom was the driving force behind the North Okanagan Neurological Association's new child development centre. Tom also gave his time and efforts to the North Okanagan Hospice Society, the United Way, the Vernon Jubilee Hospital Foundation and the North Okanagan Community Life Society.

[ Page 10643 ]

It's not a stretch to say that he single-handedly made a difference in Vernon and made it a better place to live. I hope that the House will join me not only in extending our condolences to the Foord family but in recognizing his immense contributions. Mr. Foord will be missed by all who knew him.

Tom, thank you. You truly made a difference.

VAISAKHI

J. Brar: Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji ki Fateh .

This month communities across the province are celebrating one of the most important religious holidays of the Sikh faith, Vaisakhi. This festival has a great religious significance for Sikhs, as on this day in the year 1699 Guru Gobind Singh Ji established Khalsa Panth, the body of people dedicated to the principles of equality, social justice, respect and tolerance.

This festival also marks the beginning of the harvest season in India. Here, as we celebrate Vaisakhi in B.C., it provides us with an opportunity to reflect upon the tremendous contributions of the South Asian community and how our culture is enriched by the Sikh and Hindu faiths.

The growing enthusiasm about the festival of Vaisakhi shows how much pride British Columbians take in the tradition and culture of the B.C.'s Sikh, Indo-Canadian and South Asian communities. Vaisakhi allows all of us to come together and celebrate the South Asian community's culture as part of our province's collective heritage. It helps us learn about one another and strengthens our pride in our shared customs.

The Sikh community has played a central role in building this province and in bringing the core values of Sikhism to every aspect of our province. Those principles — equality, social justice, respect and tolerance — are key to B.C.'s future and ones we must all continue to strive for.

I want to take this opportunity to thank B.C.'s Indo-Canadian and Sikh communities for their contributions to B.C. Last week we celebrated Vaisakhi in Vancouver, Victoria and other parts of the province. On April 21 thousands of people will come together from all over North America to celebrate Vaisakhi in the beautiful city of Surrey. I welcome all of you to join us for this extraordinary celebration in Surrey. Baisakhi di Lakh Lakh Vadhai.

D. Hayer: Over the past few days we have marked some very important events: Easter, celebrated by Christians; Passover, celebrated by Jews; and Vaisakhi, celebrated by Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and others. Each is celebrated in the spring, the season of new life and new beginnings. It is a time of renewal both for Earth and for faith. It is also a time for families and communities to come together to renew their purpose and to join in celebration of things they hold dear.

Vaisakhi has been celebrated in India for thousands of years. It is a national holiday in India. It is celebrated by Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists. It is a harvest festival, the start of the new year and a special religious day. Sikhs celebrate Vaisakhi as the birth of Khalsa, the pure one. In 1699 Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the tenth Sikh guru, established Khalsa and established that all human beings are equal.

Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians celebrate Vaisakhi at parades or at other community events. All of the South Asian community is looking forward to the hope and promise that Canada provides, and there's no better place in the country than British Columbia to celebrate the success so many of us have achieved in Canada.

Vaisakhi is also a time of tolerance, respect and honour, traditions that must be upheld. Like Easter, celebrated by Christians, and Passover, by Jews, it is a time of rejoicing and a time of reflection, a time to observe the past while celebrating the harmony and the peace in our faith.

[1350]

I would like all of us in this House and this chamber to remember the significance of this important time in our lives and to join me in acknowledging all faiths and all nationalities as they observe the sacred celebrations now and throughout the year.

Mr. Speaker: Just to remind members to keep the noise level down so we can hear the two-minute statements.

IMPACT OF RESIDENTIAL SCHOOLS

S. Fraser: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings, the regional event, were held in Victoria on Friday and Saturday. I attended, as well, the hearings previously in Port Alberni. The bravest people I know bared their souls and relived nightmares — nightmares that you cannot wake up from.

Imagine, if you will, that you are six years old and there is a knock at the door and you are taken. The residential schools were designed to strip the Indian from the child, to strip you of your family, your friends, your community, your language, your culture, your pride, your spirit. In this foreign environment you are abused psychologically, physically, sexually. The residential school you are in is sanctioned by the state and by the church.

This is the product of institutionalized racism and systemic discrimination, and that still lingers. Wendy Morton, master poet, has put real stories from real residential school survivors into poem. She has given me permission from one survivor to share this today. It's entitled "George."

When I was born

My mother went to Nettle Island

Showed me to our people. She told me this.

[ Page 10644 ]

I grew up on River Road.

I don't want to remember those years

at residential school.

At home we didn't speak our language.

My parents knew we'd be beaten for it.

My dad hitchhiked to Victoria.

Got us out, into public school. He was a fisherman, a pile driver. Broke his back. He was always an artist.

He got famous.

I quit school in '55. Worked in the plywood mill, at the fish packers, the sawmill. We always sat at the back of the bus.

What do people see when they see us?

A drunk Indian? Nobody says it. It is hidden.

If you listen, you can hear it.

VOLUNTEERISM FOR SENIORS IN

WEST VANCOUVER–CAPILANO AREA

R. Sultan: This is National Volunteer Week. Volunteering is essential to the social fabric of British Columbia, and I cite three examples from my own riding.

Trudy Hubbard's North Shore Volunteers for Seniors is a non-profit society dedicated to promoting the independence and well-being of seniors through diverse programs. Clients are 80 to 98 years old. Over 7,500 seniors were served this past year by 3,200 North Shore volunteers who contributed well over 5,000 volunteer hours.

West Van United Church, under the leadership of Madelyne MacKenzie, runs the caring ministry. One hundred volunteers provide diverse services to approximately 150 seniors. A vivid example would be the simple act of listening and talking with a woman who was ill and isolated in her apartment.

A third important institution is Inge Schamborzki's Health and Home Care Society. Volunteers looking after seniors full-time can be subject to burnout. Inge, among other things, is in the business of providing respite care so that volunteers can take a break, be re-energized and continue their work.

I've given three examples involving volunteering for seniors, but volunteering is, of course, central to our community in thousands of other ways, from hockey coaching to staffing our many non-profit organizations.

Volunteers, we salute you.

SURREY RENT BANK

H. Bains: I had an opportunity to attend the Rent Bank Forum on March 23 in Langley. I would like to commend the efforts of Susan Keeping and Judy Peterson from Sources, formerly Newton Advocacy Group Society, for the creation of the Surrey rent bank.

Working with marginalized people who were on the verge of homelessness, Newton Advocacy staff came to the realization that the people were falling through the cracks and were becoming homeless because of a temporary setback or lack of money. After studying the Calgary model, the Newton Advocacy Group decided that this was what was needed in Surrey.

The primary goal of the Surrey rent bank was to reduce and prevent homelessness among low-income families and individuals. Families under this program could borrow up to $1,600, and individuals can borrow up to $1,200. The loan is paid back over two years at a low interest rate.

[1355]

Interest is returned to the borrower upon repayment of the entire loan and after attending two financial literacy workshops. Loan repayments are reinvested in new loans to help more at-risk families and individuals.

After two years 88 loans have been delivered, increasing the housing stability of close to 300 people, including children and dependents. Sixty percent of the borrowers are women with children. The Surrey rent bank stability report shows that six months after obtaining the loan, at least 77 percent of the rent bank borrowers remain housed in the home for which the loan was given or have moved to a less expensive or better accommodation.

The Rent Bank Forum was a great success. With close to 50 participants, people attended from as far as Kamloops and Vancouver Island to learn about how the rent bank helps prevent homelessness.

Congratulations to Judy and Susan for their effort to address the effects of poverty and help eliminate homelessness in Surrey.

Oral Questions

TransLink GOVERNANCE

H. Bains: Last week TransLink commissioner Martin Crilly rejected a proposed fare increase to make up for a massive funding shortfall. He said that TransLink must instead find savings from increased administrative costs, costs that have increased by $42 million from 2006 to 2010. Crilly's report said, "Implementation of the new governance structure in 2008 appears to have contributed to this cost increase" — a governance structure change that this Liberal government forced through.

My question to the Minister of Transportation is this. Does the minister agree that his predecessor's ill-conceived plan for TransLink was a failure?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: TransLink, obviously, is facing some challenges today. I think that is fair to say. You and I have talked about that. But I hope that the member isn't saying that the governance structure worked perfectly before the changes took place, because it didn't. There were challenges within TransLink.

I've had the opportunity to meet with the Mayors Council on numerous occasions. We've talked about trying to find ways to improve the governance structure. It doesn't mean changing it completely. It means taking a structure and refining it so that it can work better and so

[ Page 10645 ]

that the Mayors Council can be engaged to a greater extent.

That's what we're doing. We're working towards that. They've just recently, actually, concluded a meeting where…. I'm looking forward to their response to a letter that I sent to them. We'll continue to work towards a solution and refine this so it works even better for the people that they all represent and work for.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Like the previous minister, "I know best what's good for you" is the approach that didn't work last time, and it isn't going to work next time as well.

In 2007 the Minister of Transportation said this: "The current TransLink model is no longer effective." His solution was to cut local government out of the decision-making process. That only made matters worse. TransLink's own efficiency reports show that TransLink's efficiency is falling behind, while its management structure becomes more and more bloated.

I ask the minister again: will he tell us how this is a more effective way to run TransLink?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Once again, I will let the member know — and I think he's aware of this — that we've had numerous discussions, the Mayors Council and myself, looking at refinements that can take place to make TransLink and the Mayors Council work more effectively for the people that we all represent.

We're continuing those discussions. I've forwarded some solutions that I believe will help move in that direction. I'm waiting for the response from the Mayors Council. When we have that, I think we're going to be able to proceed and make some progress.

It may not be what the member across thinks should happen, and I can fully accept that. But what I can tell you is that the discussions I've had with the Mayors Council have been very good, and we're going to continue to work together. It doesn't mean that we will agree on everything either, but we will work in the best interests of the public that we all represent.

[1400]

S. Simpson: The B.C. Liberal model for TransLink has left local mayors and local governments with very little control but most of the responsibility to pay the bills.

We have a situation with this minister where instead of listening to the Mayors Council, who are calling for a whole review of a governance system that has failed, he's suggesting tweaking the system by adding a couple of mayors to the TransLink board. That has been rejected by the mayors as a tweak that doesn't get us to where we need to go. The governance system has failed. It needs a complete overhaul.

My question to the minister is this. The Mayors Council has requested that the provincial Auditor General do an in-depth review of TransLink's governance model. Will the minister support that request by the mayors?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will continue to work with the Mayors Council, as I have over the last year since I've held this portfolio. We are going to make some refinements. But so the member is clear, as I've made it clear to the Mayors Council, we are not about to blow up the governance structure at TransLink and start over. We're going to find ways to refine it to make it work better for the people that we all represent. I made that commitment to the Mayors Council, and I'm going to live up to that commitment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: It's too bad this minister couldn't have given that advice to his predecessor, who blew up the system last time and put us in the mess we're in today.

TransLink is facing a major shortfall. The B.C. Liberals and the mayors can't agree on how to pay for it, and unfortunately, the Premier and this minister can't seem to get on the same page at the same time as to how to deal with the issues at TransLink. That's part of the problem. We have to wait to see whose message is the one that's being delivered.

Will the minister bring the local governments back to the table as full partners, not as secondary partners, to fix this transportation planning mess and get this thing back on the rails?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As I said in my previous answer to you, Member — and it doesn't matter if you raise your voice when you ask the question; the answer is going to be the same — I'm going to continue to work with the Mayors Council. We're going to find ways to refine the governance structure that helps all of the people that all levels of government represent. We're going to continue to work at that, and we're going to find the solutions needed.

DELTAPORT EXPANSION AND

PROTECTION OF FARMLAND IN DELTA

L. Popham: Ron Emerson of Emerson Real Estate Group confirmed last week that the almost 600 acres of prime agricultural land he has optioned around the Deltaport is planned for development. This is prime agricultural land, some of the most fertile land in North America. It's an understatement to say that this type of land is important for food production. It's critical.

Does the Agriculture Minister think it's appropriate to take 600 acres out of the agricultural land reserve to use for industrial development?

Hon. D. McRae: I know this has been an issue that's been important to Delta farmers for some time. It's one

[ Page 10646 ]

that they've raised with me when I met with them — twice now. The member opposite, for Delta South, has raised this issue as well.

However, the Ministry of Agriculture nor the Agricultural Land Commission records who purchases land in British Columbia. At this time there has been no application, as far as I'm aware, to take the land out of the ALR. If an organization or an individual wishes to do so, there is a process there.

At this time I'm not going to engage in hypothetical conversations as to what Mr. Emerson may or may not do. There is no file before my ministry which shouldn't be, nor is there any file before the ALC.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: We know that Mr. Emerson is a prominent supporter and donor to the Liberals. The Agriculture Minister is supposed to be the person who stands up for farming. That means standing up for farmland even if the developer is a prominent Liberal donor. Mr. Emerson said on TV last week that the land is in the right place to accommodate port expansion and therefore is appropriate for exclusion from the ALR.

Would the Agriculture Minister put the interests of farming ahead of the interests of the B.C. Liberals and defend the ALR?

[1405]

Hon. D. McRae: You know what? I am so pleased to say that I have defended the Agricultural Land Commission and the ALR during my time as minister.

I know the member opposite doesn't like to hear that this government injected $1.6 million into the ALC over the past two years. I know that the member opposite doesn't like to admit that last fall we actually brought new powers to the Agricultural Land Commission to allow them to better do their mandate, which is to preserve and protect farmland in British Columbia.

I know the member opposite is very informed that it is an independent organization that has a mandate which is not one that the Minister of Agriculture actually meddles in — unlike the 1990s and Six Mile Ranch, when the government opposite did so.

I have no problem living in a free country where people can buy land and make application. However, I have total faith that the ALC will do and fulfil its mandate, which will be protecting and preserving farmland for future generations of British Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

V. Huntington: Just as an aside, I have never spoken to the Minister of Agriculture about this issue.

We now know that Kingswood Capital and the Emerson Real Estate Group have secretly optioned 555 acres of the finest soil in Canada — south Delta soil protected by the provincial agricultural land reserve. We also know that B.C. Rail has already purchased 145 acres of adjacent land pursuant to its mandate to acquire strategic port-related lands. That's over 700 acres of the finest agricultural soil in this province now on the chopping block.

The developers have advised that B.C. Rail lands are available for the proposed intermodal yard and logistics park. We also know that ministers of this government, in a meeting with the developers, were "excited" about the project.

I want to know from the Minister of Transportation or his colleague the minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation when that meeting occurred, what transpired at that meeting and what assurances were given by members of this government that they would support the wholesale industrialization of this irreplaceable farmland.

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies if I got the member wrong. I had eight hours of gruelling estimates with the members opposite, and it was asked there. If I've misplaced the name of the individual who actually asked the question, I apologize.

The reality is that the ALC is an independent organization which, I think, has done a great job in making sure that this mandate is protected. During estimates — and the member opposite, I believe, was in the room during the time — I asked the staffer from the ALC: "Is there an active file between anybody in regards to the port and this expansion?" He said no. When I asked if there had been any conversation between the port and the ALC, he said, in memory, that there might have been some conversation four or five years ago, but he had not had any conversation in the near past.

The reality is that I'm very pleased with the Agricultural Land Commission. People like Chair Bullock, the commissioners and the staff of the ALC are very confident that they will continue to do their mandate without any influence from this government whatsoever. They are charged to protect farmland in this province. They've done so very well, and because of the new dollars we've injected into them, the new legislative powers, I know they'll continue to do that job well into the future.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: That's only if the cabinet of this government lets them do their job. If the only value we shared as a society was economic, we could tolerate the voracious appetite that the province, gateway and the Port of Vancouver have for B.C.'s farmland.

[1410]

Most of us share values beyond the economic. We value agriculture. We value our environment, and we

[ Page 10647 ]

value our quality of life. But these values aren't shared by this government. Our environment, our farmland and our quality of life means so little to this government, who are willing to sacrifice so much. Not one person on that side of the House has said a single word about this attack on the ALR.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

V. Huntington: I'm going to ask the Minister of Agriculture, yet again, if he will stand up and say that he believes in the agricultural land reserve enough to defend the loss of south Delta farmlands from industrialization.

We all know there's no application yet before the ALC. What we also know is that this government has stated before that it will support…

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

V. Huntington: …an application to remove this land from the ALR. Will the minister stand up and say that he will publicly fight for the future of B.C.'s soil-based agriculture?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm not aware of this government saying anything such as the member opposite is trying to say in this House. You're confusing me completely.

The ALC has the statutory authority to protect farmland, preserve and promote farming in this province, and they have done so. I said earlier that obviously I support the ALC. Otherwise, I wouldn't have brought in the strengthening amendments that the chair of the ALC was very thankful for, not only to work with the colleagues around the province and farmers around the province to make sure that we got it right, but he was also more than willing to stand up and say that we did get it right when we brought in those amendments.

Second of all, the reality is the ALC gets hundreds of applications every year, sometimes up to 800. This isn't even one of them. Why? Because no one has made a formal application. So the things we're talking about today…. Well, we do have Mr. Emerson in the news. By all means, every citizen in this province is allowed to think of "what if?" I love the fact that we get to live in that province. But the reality is that until it comes forward to the ALC, that's all it is and all it will ever be.

From this stage forward I will continue to say that the ALC is a fantastic organization. I have worked hard in my year as minister to make sure it has the money, the legislative authority and the mandate to do what it should be doing in this province from this day forward.

G. Gentner: The member for Delta South asked a legitimate question. In all my years in this House, relative to the defence of the ALR, I've never heard such a wimpy answer that I've heard across the way. Maybe I should correct it as a lame-duck ministry.

Mr. Emerson stated that the ALR is not subject to federal government authority, including the port. So it's clear that this Liberal insider is trying to circumvent the provincial Agricultural Land Commission and take prime land out of the agricultural land reserve.

Once we lose farmland, it's gone forever. Will the Agriculture Minister state clearly that agriculture is a priority and tell the federal government and their friends that agricultural land will stay in the agricultural land reserve and not be used for any other reason than for farming?

Hon. D. McRae: Well, I think I've stated several times, and I'm more than willing to do it again, that actually I'm very pleased with where we've got the ALC to in my term as Agriculture Minister. I know for the members opposite that whatever we do over here will never be good enough. It's so easy to sit there and criticize, on the other side of the House, yet provide no solution time after time.

[1415]

You know, I was saying to someone the other day that as a high school teacher, I just remember we went through the worst recession in 70 years. All they do is criticize, yet never offer a solution.

You know what? I'm proud to be a minister who actually does things. Let me just give you a little quote from the chair of the ALC. This is from Richard Bullock.

"I think our job is to protect farmland, and I think one of the challenges we've had over the last 37 years is a lot of folks did not believe it was a piece of legislation that was solid. I think" — and I have to take out my name here — "the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues have put a nail on that argument. It's here. It's here to stay, and I hope people hear that message, hear it loud and clear, and let's begin to build."

If you don't have faith in the ALC, I'll tell you right now that I sure do.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members: through the Chair, please.

The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: Mr. Emerson says the plan to take land out of the agricultural land reserve is a question of what is good for the country. Clearly, what Liberals think is good for the country isn't in the best interest of food security.

Will the minister, again, finally take a stand on agriculture? Will he say no to his Liberal donor and no to the federal government and demand that the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission are respected, and will he ensure that we are not sacrificing the best agricultural land in Canada for windfall profits for those who want to flip land and make millions and millions of dollars?

Hon. D. McRae: Again to the member opposite, let me reinforce that I'm very confident that the ALC has the

[ Page 10648 ]

statutory authority to do exactly what I'm hoping it will do: protect and preserve farmland in British Columbia. I am confident the individuals, the panel members and the staff will do so.

Furthermore, let's not talk hypotheticals. There are people around this province, from the Peace River to the Kootenays to my home riding of the Comox Valley, who buy land and have ideas. But you know what? The ALC doesn't know those ideas, because until the application comes in, they do not discuss.

The port has never approached me. Mr. Emerson has never approached me, and as far as I know, he has never approached the ALC. These are conversations we can have after such an application comes forward. The ALC will have them. They will do their job. I have confidence in the organization.

GRANT’S LAW AND

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

R. Chouhan: In November the Minister of Labour said: "I want to be clear that Grant's law, the gas-and-dash legislation that was brought forward…. We're absolutely committed to it, and there's no intent to change it." Yet over the weekend, less than five months after the minister made that statement, watered-down regulations came into effect. Grant De Patie's father, who lobbied this government for change so that his son's death would not be in vain, said: "I think there is going to be dire consequences because of these changes."

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Why is this Liberal government abandoning their responsibility to protect young and vulnerable workers in B.C.?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I want to start by offering my condolences to the De Patie family. Grant De Patie's death was a terrible tragedy, a loss that is impossible almost to speak of. It was a tragic loss of life and something that we don't ever want to see happen again in this province.

Grant's law, which came into effect some years ago, is the gas-and-dash legislation. It is mandatory prepayment of gas. There has been no change to that policy, and I think the member opposite is aware of that.

What he may not be aware of is the change that's happened in the province since that time. Back in 2007 there were over 160 gas-and-dash thefts in this province. Last year there were none.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: When Grant's law came into effect in 2008, the Premier, who was a talk show host at that time, didn't like that change to protect workers. She called it an overresponse to a very tragic circumstance. Grant De Patie's family certainly didn't think that it was an overresponse.

To the Minister of Labour again, does she agree with the Premier that Grant's law went too far and that's why it was watered down this weekend?

[1420]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I'm sure the member opposite would not want to leave a mistaken impression with the public. Let me just say again: Grant's law remains. We have no intention of making any changes. This very important policy came into place after Grant De Patie's death. The policy is there. It says that gas has to be paid for in advance. There has been no change contemplated, and there will not be. Now, the member opposite is, I think, speaking about different policy, which was with respect to working alone.

What WorkSafe has done is they've added a third option. There are many businesses around the province that will continue to have a barrier or continue to have two workers in the evening, but there are other options open to them, as of the changes that have been made. This is policy that is looking at finding a balance.

Worker safety is of paramount importance, but WorkSafe also heard from small businesses around the province — businesses that are owned by families and businesses in rural B.C. that are important to those areas of the province. Mr. Speaker, a third option has been added. Very vigorously, WorkSafe will ensure that it is upheld. They are going to be making an audit of this policy.

But yes, there is a third option in place, and there's a balance here. It is very important to uphold worker safety, but it's also important to listen to these small business owners that do have a valuable role in the province.

MEDIATOR IN

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING FOR TEACHERS

R. Austin: In Bill 22 the B.C. Liberals chose to appoint a so-called mediator to oversee a so-called mediation to address contentious issues between the teachers and the government. Days after the bill was passed, the minister announced that Dr. Charles Jago would take on this task. In addition to questions about Dr. Jago's lack of experience in the area of labour mediation, it has come to light that Dr. Jago previewed aspects of Bill 22, calling into question his neutrality on the issue.

My question to the minister is: in light of the latest blow to the mess that is Bill 22 and this government's approach to teacher bargaining, does the minister still say that Dr. Jago is the right mediator?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm appalled at the member's so-called question — absolutely appalled. I'm appalled that he would take…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 10649 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: …an acknowledged leader in this province and this nation, a gentleman who has been awarded the Order of Canada in recognition of his exceptional work as one of the early presidents of what is now a world-class institution, the University of Northern British Columbia — taking someone like Dr. Jago and saying that he can't do this job when he has been a very capable leader at the Northern Health Authority as a chair of that board for a number of years. It is absolutely appalling that this member — I am sure as a shill for the BCTF — takes this opportunity to degrade Dr. Jago's abilities to deal with these issues.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Austin: I think the minister is not getting the point of this question at all. I was a student at UNBC when Dr. Charles Jago was the president. I have worked with Dr. Charles Jago as the chair of the Northern Health Authority. In both of those capacities he is a brilliant public administrator.

Interjections.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

R. Austin: My problem is not with Mr. Charles Jago in those capacities. My problem is in choosing him as the mediator in a process that's already been fixed by this government in which he has already expressed opinions around the very issues that he has had to mediate about doesn't make him an independent mediator.

I mean, let's be honest. This process is destined to fail anyway, but even so, couldn't the minister have chosen someone truly independent with some mediation experience to do this job?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm surprised that a member who is from northern British Columbia who has had an opportunity, apparently, to meet Dr. Jago and perhaps to work with Dr. Jago doesn't understand not only the brilliance, as the member acknowledges, but also the independence that Dr. Jago brings to this job. Anyone who has the slightest idea of Dr. Jago's abilities as well as temperament would recognize that he is absolutely the right man to bring the parties together in this dispute.

The members opposite can express all the cynicism they like. We need a mediator in this process that can bring the parties together. Dr. Jago can do that. We are not appointing an arbitrator here. We're appointing someone with the knowledge, the wisdom, the experience, the constructive spirit that can bring the parties together. I believed, and I continue to believe, that Dr. Jago is the right man for that job, and I'm disappointed by this cynical, shallow view expressed by those across the way.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 1, 2012, Development Initiative Trusts: An Audit of Legislative Compliance and Public Accountability Practices in the Three Statutory Trusts .

Hon. I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: Today I am pleased to introduce to the House a group of young British Columbians that are visiting us from my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, from Oak Bay high school. The group is made up of 29 grade 11 students who are accompanied today by their teacher, Mr. Todd Evanchiew, and a number of adults. I certainly want to wish them the best of luck as they conclude their school year, but at this time, I ask that the House please make them very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I am going to go through a relatively lengthy list of orders of the day today. We will start this afternoon in second reading of Bill 21, intituled the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012. That will be followed by Bill 23, intituled the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

By agreement of myself with the Opposition House Leader — the Orders of the Day that the two Whips' offices would have, would have this ordered differently — we'll be going to second reading of Bill 26, intituled Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations should we get there. Then we would go back to Bill 24, which is intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act.

Through this week we will go through, also, Bill 31, intituled the Motion Picture Amendment Act, which is at second reading, as well as second reading of Bill 30, which is intituled Energy and Mines Statutes Amendment Act and also second reading of Bill 32, intituled Energy and Water Efficiency Act.

[ Page 10650 ]

That's to let members know that those will be most of the bills that will be dealt with this week in second reading before we get back to committee. We will be at the committee stage on one bill tomorrow morning and move through these bills this week. So if you have plans to speak to them, you have the opportunity now to get prepared.

Mr. Speaker: And in the small House?

[1430]

Hon. R. Coleman: Also, Mr. Speaker, in Committee A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, continued. Should that get completed, we would then move to the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

Mr. Speaker: If members could move off to their other duties.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 21, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: …be read a second time now.

Mr. Speaker, an important feature of Budget 2012 is government's response to the concerns of charities and non-profit organizations about the certainty of gaming grant funding.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The 2012-2013 estimates address the funding concerns by allocating an additional $15 million to the funding provided to these organizations through the community gaming grant program.

Bill 21 clarifies who is responsible for administering community gaming grants by creating a new position within the Gaming Control Act for a community gaming grants manager. All duties respecting community gaming grants that were previously held by the general manager are being reassigned to the newly created community gaming grants manager.

These measures are consistent with the recommendations from the community gaming grant review and will maintain the integrity and transparency of the decision-making process. This government respects the important work done by charities and non-profit organizations within their communities. The additional funding and the new clarity and accountability in the community gaming grant process will provide certainty to these organizations that they will receive the financial support they need to continue their important work.

Madam Speaker, government, as you know, has maintained a net zero mandate for public sector compensation settlements for collective agreements that expired in 2010 and 2011. For collective agreements expiring in 2012 and later, government's main priority remains unchanged: no additional funding for increases in compensation.

These measures are required due to the government's current fiscal situation. But it would be wrong for the members of the Legislature to apply that standard to the public sector without leading by example. Therefore, Bill 21 amends the Members' Remuneration and Pensions Act to extend the freeze on annual compensation increases for Members of the Legislative Assembly for two additional years. This measure ensures government's wage mandates apply to everyone in government and reinforces our efforts to achieve a balanced budget, as required by law, in 2013-2014.

part 2, Bill 21 amends several tax statutes to implement a number of the tax measures announced in Budget 2012. These measures provide additional support for B.C. families and businesses.

Bill 21 amends the Income Tax Act to create a new children's fitness credit and a new children's arts credit, which will benefit B.C. families with children. With the new non-refundable children's fitness and arts credits, families can claim up to $500 in eligible fitness expenses and an additional $500 in eligible arts expenses per child.

Bill 21 amends the Income Tax Act to remove the medical expense expenditure limit for taxpayers claiming expenses for certain dependents. The Income Tax Act is also amended to increase the dividend tax credit on eligible dividends from 9.76 percent to 10 percent.

Two income tax credits are extended in Bill 21. The book publishing tax credit is extended for an additional five years to March 31, 2017. As previously announced on September 21, 2011, the B.C. training tax credit program, which encourages employers and workers to participate in apprenticeship programs, is extended for an additional three years, to the end of 2014.

[1435]

Bill 21 also amends the Income Tax Act to provide for new training tax credits for B.C.'s shipbuilding and ship repair industry. The new training tax credits will be available for eligible employers that employ qualifying apprentices in the B.C. shipbuilding and ship repair industry. These amendments support B.C.'s shipbuilding and ship repair industry efforts under the national shipbuilding procurement strategy and support marine industry jobs.

Bill 21 also amends the Income Tax Act to provide the

[ Page 10651 ]

full Film Incentive B.C. tax credit for qualifying interprovincial co-productions and amends the copyright ownership requirements for such co-productions.

Bill 21 also amends the Small Business Venture Capital Act to allow for tax credits targeted to direct investments in eligible new small businesses that are less than two years old. Budget 2012 allocates $3 million for tax credits for investors in these new small businesses. This will support up to $10 million annually in additional equity financing in the province.

Bill 21 amends the Home Owner Grant Act to provide a grant supplement for low-income veterans. The low-income veterans supplement was announced on November 10, 2011, and is effective for 2012 and future tax years. The supplement will apply to qualifying low-income veterans under the age of 65 who have served in the Canadian Forces as officers or non-commissioned members. The grant supplement will be $275 for most qualifying veterans. This measure is a tribute to the service and sacrifice of younger veterans who may now face income challenges.

The Home Owner Grant Act is also amended to extend eligibility for homeowners moving into a residential care facility. This amendment will allow homeowners who have moved into a residential facility but have not yet sold their home to claim the homeowner grant for one additional year.

The Land Tax Deferment Act is also amended to remove the fire insurance requirement for homeowners with sufficient equity and to clarify the deferment eligibility criteria with respect to leaseholders.

The Taxation (Rural Area) and School acts are amended to provide the authority for partial exemptions where the Crown is one of the registered owners of a property.

The Taxation (Rural Area) and Property Transfer Tax acts are amended to clarify exemptions in certain situations, and the Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to add a general refund provision.

The final scheduled increase to the carbon tax will take effect on July 1, 2012, and no further increases or expansions are planned at this time. The Carbon Tax Act is amended to clarify that the carbon tax will continue in future years at the July 1, 2012, rates, which are the equivalent of $30 per tonne of emissions.

Over the next year we will undertake a comprehensive review of the carbon tax and its impact on British Columbians. The review will cover all aspects of the carbon tax, including revenue neutrality, and will consider the impact of the competitiveness of B.C. businesses, such as the agricultural sector and, in particular, B.C.'s food producers.

The Carbon Tax Act and the Motor Fuel Tax Act are amended to make the obligations of collectors, retail dealers and purchasers for fuel imported by ship into British Columbia generally more consistent with the federal obligations regarding fuel imported by ship.

In addition, technical or consequential amendments are made to the Carbon Tax, Motor Fuel Tax, Family Law and Police acts.

B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 21.

Bill 21 contains the statutory changes designed to implement the minister's budget speech. By their very nature, many of those proposed amendments are technical and will be dealt with at committee stage in a more detailed and exhaustive way. However, I do have some comments at this time on Bill 21.

[1440]

Perhaps it's worth noting that there are some areas of the minister's budget speech which are not captured in this particular bill just yet.

In the budget speech the minister spoke of the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credits, meant to be effective April 1. The budget speech said that that would be implemented by way of separate legislation, so I expect that that will be forthcoming at some point soon, given that there is some government publicity about the program and some interest in the program, understandably.

The increase in medical services premiums, which is set to take place January 1, 2013 — that increase is a scheduled 4 percent — will be accomplished by amending the regulations of the Medicare Protection Act and does not figure in this bill.

Perhaps most notably, HST transition measures are not in this bill. In particular, all the measures that are required to eliminate the HST and reinstitute the PST are not there.

The Referendum Act, under which the referendum was conducted last year, says, and I'm quoting from Referendum Act

section 4: "If more than 50% of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on a question stated, that result is binding on the government that initiated the referendum."

Then the next

section speaks of the duty of the government if the referendum is binding. I'm quoting from the section, and I think it is significant. Although there is some latitude given to the government, the direction of this

section is fairly clear:

"If the results of a referendum are binding, the government must, as soon as practicable, take steps, within the competence of the government, that the government considers necessary or advisable to implement the results of the referendum including any and all of the following: (

a) changing programs or policies, or introducing new programs or policies, that are administered by or through the executive government; (b)" — and this is perhaps the most significant — "introducing legislation in the Legislative Assembly during its first session after the results of such a referendum are known."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Now, we were here in the fall. We're obviously in the spring at this point. Thus far, the legislation implementing the results of the referendum, a binding referendum, have not yet been introduced. I look forward to

[ Page 10652 ]

that, and we haven't had an indication from the minister recently as to when that legislation might be forthcoming. One appreciates, of course, that the legislation is a challenging drafting task and will require much discussion with the federal government and federal authorities, particularly the Canada Revenue Agency, in order to implement those provisions.

Nonetheless, the direction given to the Legislature in the Referendum Act is very clear, and it doesn't, subject to anything the minister may care to say in debate later on, seem to have been taken to heart in the sense that we're well into the spring session, and the referendum results were known last August.

Finally, I would like, then, to turn to those items that the legislation does deal with. First, I might say that the further two-year freeze on the salaries of legislators, Members of the Legislative Assembly, is something that we support and expect. Notwithstanding the constraints that we have in debate at second reading, we will indicate our support at committee stage, just so that is clear. I want to place that on the record, lest there be any misunderstanding by those who follow these things, that we support that further two-year freeze on increases for Members of the Legislative Assembly in their pay.

The budget does implement a number of measures that were mentioned in the budget speech. It is, I think, really perhaps a linguistic or semantic quibble, but the expenditures that are referred to in the child fitness and arts credit enable a qualifying person to make a claim of $500 maximum but, if the maximum is claimed, to receive a credit of $25 a child. So while the claim is $500, and the minister spoke of that, the maximum credit that can be received is $25 — both the sports and the arts credits.

[1445]

Now, these mirror similar — some have called them "boutique" — tax credits that have been introduced at the federal level by the federal Tory government. These appear to mirror those exactly, perhaps an indication of the influence of federal Tory advisers in the Premier's office as the budget was put together.

Some would say that while…. I certainly appreciate that parents who have children either in community sports or who take some of the myriad of arts-related activities that children these days seem to engage in, at least some children — whether it's ballet, dance, music lessons or any of that sort of thing — will appreciate this.

But certainly, on the child fitness credit, there's a good argument that could be made that spending money that is more broadly available perhaps gives access to all children, regardless of their income level. I know there was a program — somewhat controversial, but I think the difficulties were ironed out — of contributing money to children's playgrounds on schools. This credit will inevitably favour those who have parents who are in a position to make those kinds of expenditures, although many parents do make sacrifices to enable their children to take part.

There are some organizations — such as the Right to Play, for example, which is a broad-based charity — that speak of at least one-third of children in any given population or city being unable to participate in organized sports because of the financial limitations of their families. One might wish that the tax expenditure that's made here was perhaps directed in a way that would more broadly benefit all of the community in the way that Right to Play suggests, as opposed to a taxed social expenditure by tax credit. That's clearly a political choice that the government and the minister have made. It's not one that I wholeheartedly endorse.

There are other credits in the bill — the training tax credit and the training tax credit for shipyard workers. I think those are more properly explored in the committee stage.

Broadly speaking, on the shipbuilding tax credit, since it is for recognized apprentices, that's something that we on this side support. It does give rise to questions, more broadly, about the kind of regime that one would wish for that applied to other industries as well. That's a question that we can explore at a later stage.

I do wish to deal with the issue of the enhanced dividend tax credit in a little bit more extensive way.

The basic principle of the tax credit is to avoid double taxation, in the sense that corporations pay income tax on the revenue that they earn, then, if they pay it out, if it's paid out in dividends, taxing it again might be considered double taxation. So the purpose of the tax credit is to give recognition for dividend income received from eligible Canadian corporations which has already been taxed as corporate income.

One of the policy goals of this kind of policy is what's called tax integration — in other words, to make sure that all types of income are taxed at approximately an even rate so that there's no opportunity for tax avoidance.

Now, this enhanced dividend tax credit was created, I'm told, in 2006. The ministry suggested that it did produce — it did achieve tax integration. However, since then, there have been substantial changes in both federal and provincial corporate income tax, largely by way of the decline of those taxes.

[1450]

It's now, I'm advised, the case that the tax rates applied to dividend income are now lower than on wages or salaries, and the operation of this amendment will make that difference slightly greater. That's something that the minister and I will explore when we get to committee stage, but suffice it to say, at this stage I'm concerned about the impact of that particular aspect of the bill.

The other provisions, I think, are relatively straightforward — the carbon tax, the application of the homeowner grant to low-income veterans. These are, I think, things that we support, but we'll look for the details of the implementation at a later stage.

The carbon tax. The legislation is clear. It does give rise to the broader policy question of the review that the min-

[ Page 10653 ]

ister has initiated. What is clear is that notwithstanding the fact that the review of the carbon tax is barely underway, the minister and the government are announcing exemptions from the provisions of the carbon tax — most notably recently to those who operate greenhouses that grow produce. They've been given a one-year exemption — I suppose, conveniently, to take them past the date of the next election.

This is not the way to do a review of an important policy like this, to give one-off…. Perhaps, notwithstanding the idealism of the Minister of Education, one might cynically conclude that these are politically driven and are not really in keeping with a broad and comprehensive policy review.

The stated purpose of the carbon tax was an elegant simplicity in the sense that it was a broad-based tax that applied to all forms of use of carbon with as few exemptions as possible. If one begins to do individual industry exemptions, the purpose, the statutory purpose and the professed statutory purpose, of the carbon tax begins to be eroded. I'm sure that the public has an interest in this and that it should be part of a broader debate, but we'll perhaps have an opportunity to explore that at committee stage.

Finally, I would say the book publishing tax credit…. The agency that advocates on behalf of the book publishers made a fairly compelling representation at the Finance and Government Services Committee, and I'm pleased that the government has heard that suggestion. I think it's of interest to Canadian and British Columbia publishers that their efforts be recognized, to some degree, in the tax system.

With those brief comments, I would draw to a close. I should say, perhaps as a coda to my remarks, that we oppose the budget and these legislative mechanisms, notwithstanding the individual statutory changes that I've pointed to as being supported. But broadly, we oppose the budget, and we oppose this bill which seeks to implement the broad outlines of the budget that was placed before us some time ago.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member opposite, the Finance critic, for his usual thoughtful comments. I was feeling pretty good about the entire speech up until the very last part where he advised that he was not supporting the budget. However, I acknowledge that that probably shouldn't be too much of a surprise.

However, I would like to share, for the benefit of the member opposite, that the response in the financial community to the budget, I think, is important, at least in this House, for us to understand. Having had the opportunity to canvass decision-makers in the major financial capitals of North America over the last week, I can assure the member that the response from those, at least the segment of the population that are the ones that make the investment decisions and make the decisions about whether or not to invest capital into certain markets, was extremely positive.

[1455]

The fact that we saw the major credit-rating agencies reconfirm British Columbia's position as a triple-A credit rating with a stable outlook I think is something that we can be very proud of.

The reason why that matters, of course, for all of us is that when you have the highest possible credit in a very uncertain world, it means that we as subsovereign province, as British Columbia is, in the great country called Canada have the ability to borrow at the lowest possible rates. It's kind of like if you're going to apply for a mortgage on your home and you've got the best possible credit rating. It really adds value and saves taxpayers millions of dollars which we can then apply to, of course, program spending or, in fact, paying down debt.

I am obviously disappointed in the lack of support for the budget, but I understand the real world that we operate in is a different world than perhaps what might be our considered ideal version.

However, the member did mention some other comments that I think I'll touch on very briefly because I think they are really worthy of discussion. He pointed out that he was wondering when the introduction of transition measures to move from the HST back to a two-tax PST-GST system would be coming forward. He appropriately acknowledged the massive drafting challenge that's involved. The fact of the matter is that the member opposite nailed it perfectly, because that is in fact the case.

What I want to assure the member of is that we will fulfil the obligation to get it in, in this session. But I think the member deserves to know that it is a huge challenge. I can give him my absolute word that drafters are working on this as a priority over all other initiatives right now in government to make sure that we meet that challenge of getting it in by the end of the session.

I do want to forewarn, if I will, the member opposite that it is a real challenge in this time frame. We are doing everything possible to ensure we do so. I was going to be talking to the member off line about that just to let him know that I'm not trying to do this in a way to bring in a very major bill late in the session. We are likely required, by the very nature of what the drafting process has been, unfortunately, to end up doing something quite near to that.

I want him to know he has my personal conviction and support to do everything possible to get that in at the earliest possible time that the drafters complete that drafting. I appreciate the member raising the issue and assure him that I will be giving every support to getting it in as quickly as I responsibly can. It's largely in the drafting process completely now. I don't get involved with that level of detail, as the member would know.

[ Page 10654 ]

Just to touch on something the member said with respect to the childhood fitness and arts credit program. The member is right to point out that the program is designed to mirror the federal program. Between the two of them, they provide some support to young families who have their kids involved in sports or arts programs outside of the school system.

It's a way to provide, in the form of a tax credit, some support to those families to encourage them to continue to keep their kids in important arts and fitness programs that — I think all of us can certainly appreciate — are important to building a future where children get a full appreciation of the benefits of physical activity and, of course, being involved in the arts and cultural sector of our great province.

The member did point out a very valid point about the importance of funding for playgrounds. The good news is, Member, that we actually made an announcement — I was part of it — some many months ago. The date slips my mind. My recollection is it was a $9 million announcement that we would be funding a whole series of new playground ventures across the province.

Perhaps even more importantly, we have made it part of our new capital standard that every new school that is announced that will be constructed in the province of British Columbia will include playground equipment as part of that new school. That will take away the requirement to have parents have to be involved in raising money for….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you. I thank the Education critic for that. I do agree with the Education critic. I actually think that that's something that probably should have been in place a long time ago.

[1500]

That is something, I think, that will go a long way — in fact, will deal with exactly that issue — to ensure any child at any school in British Columbia will have access to the basic fitness and outdoor playground equipment that will ensure they take advantage of the opportunity to be physically active. Certainly, that is something we will see, as these playgrounds are being constructed as we speak, across the province.

The other issues that the Finance critic pointed out we'll have an opportunity to debate at the next stage, Committee of the Whole House, so I won't spend too much time on them. I just wanted to touch on some of the key points that I thought were validly raised by the member opposite.

I do appreciate the member opposite and his caucus for supporting government on extending the MLA pay freeze to another two years. Of course, that will follow on the prior freezing of the MLA rates that has taken place for the previous two years. I do think that in public life it is important for us to lead by example. Certainly, we're not asking the public sector to undertake anything that we are not undertaking ourselves. I do think that the support of the members opposite is appreciated, in that narrow part of it.

Perhaps, in the course of committee stage debate — who knows? — we might, through the power of my oratory and the force of my arguments, be able to bring the members to supporting the budget overall and joining the otherwise rather broad chorus of support that we've seen in the small business community, the investment community, the financial community and the credit rating agencies around the world that have endorsed the budget and the direction of this government.

With that, I would move second reading of Bill 21, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012.

Second reading of Bill 21 approved on division.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 21 be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading of Bill 23, intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

BILL 23 — FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 23, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, be read a second time.

[D. Black in the chair.]

These amendments will encourage investment in the social enterprise sector, confirm procedural safeguards that protect co-op members and make corporate registry filings more efficient. They will also streamline the appointment processes at the Financial Institutions Commission and provide greater certainty and transparency regarding the Auditor General's authority.

The most substantive amendments are to the Business Corporations Act. These amendments will allow for the formation of a new type of corporation: the community contribution company or CCC.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

A community contribution company will combine socially beneficial purposes with a restricted ability to distribute profits to shareholders. This new hybrid style of corporation responds to an emerging demand for so-

[ Page 10655 ]

cially focused investment options and will foster, we believe, social enterprise investments.

Under the legislation, a community contribution company would be required to set out its community purposes in its articles and to identify itself as a CCC in its name. A CCC will be prohibited from paying dividends above a certain rate. The rate would be established in regulations but could be limited to, say, 35 percent of annual profits — just to use an example.

On dissolution, a CCC will be subject to what is called an asset lock that will restrict the distribution of its assets to its shareholders. The extent of this restriction will also be set out in the regulations.

In addition, CCCs will be subject to a higher degree of accountability than an ordinary company. For example, three directors will be required instead of one, and the company will be required to publish an annual report detailing its social spending. Finally, certain restrictions on corporate reorganizations will ensure that payout restrictions cannot be circumvented. Otherwise, CCCs will be governed by the same corporate framework that applies to all British Columbia companies.

[1505]

The most significant change to the Cooperative Association Act will strengthen the procedural safeguards that protect co-op members on termination. At the same time, housing cooperatives will benefit from new, streamlined procedures for terminating membership if the member fails to pay rent or other occupancy charges. In addition, the amendments will remove the requirement that the registrar vet a cooperative's rules and list of directors prior to incorporation.

Technical refinements to the Business Corporations Act, the Cooperative Association Act and the Partnership Act will ensure the continued effectiveness of each statute, support the expansion of on line filing for partnerships and bring consistency to the fees under the Partnership Act. Amendments will increase consistency across the statutes, remove impediments to business and increase administrative efficiencies for corporate registry filings.

This bill also contains amendments to the Financial Institutions Act and Pension Benefits Standards Act. Currently the statutory responsibilities of the public servant who runs the Financial Institutions Commission are assigned by multiple processes. The current processes make the assignment of responsibilities needlessly complex. These amendments streamline the process, enhance accountability and ensure consistency with other commissions.

Finally, the bill will revise the enabling statutes of a number of government organizations to expressly recognize and clarify the Auditor General's authority in relation to those organizations.

When the Auditor General Act was replaced in 2003, time constraints prevented the completion of consequential amendments to the enabling legislation of all the government organizations that were affected by the new act. The enabling legislation of many government organizations contains language that conflicts with the new legislation. The language provides for auditor appointment without expressly providing the possibility that the auditor is the Auditor General as provided for in the Auditor General Act. These amendments, supported by the Auditor General, will recognize the authority of the Auditor General as laid out in the act and remove any conflicting language.

I move second reading of Bill 23.

B. Ralston: This bill has some fairly uncontroversial aspects to it, but the part that I wish to address…. I don't know whether it's particularly controversial, but it certainly is novel and an innovation. I know that the member for Surrey–White Rock has spoken to some degree on this issue, and I know other colleagues are interested in the creation of what is called a community contribution company.

Many people have recognized the growth of what's called social enterprise, which is an effort in an organizational way to match the business acumen and business skills of those in the corporate world with the social objectives of those in the non-profit and charity world and bring a higher degree of business skill to the goal of achieving real benefits for non-profits and charities.

So it perhaps has a tinge of idealism to it in the sense that people hope to achieve the best of both worlds in one organizational form. That may not be possible. But certainly, a community contribution company is one way — it's not the only way — that this might be achieved.

The definition of a community contribution company is set out in the act and really requires that the company has to, in its notice of articles, have a statement that is set out further down in the statute.

"A company is a community contribution company if its notice of articles contains the following statement: This company is a community contribution company, and, as such, has purposes beneficial to society. This company is restricted, in accordance with

Part 2.2 of the Business Corporations Act, in its ability to pay dividends and to distribute its assets on dissolution or otherwise."

[1510]

There is notice, and this becomes important when drawing articles of a company. These have immense consequences down the road. If, for example, a non–community contribution company wanted to become publicly listed, the articles of the company can make that easier or can make that difficult, so including it formally in the articles is an important legal step.

But the debate around a social enterprise is one that has, as I've said, taken place over the last number of years. This former company will be obliged to devote a portion of its profits to community purposes. It will have restrictions placed on the distributions of its profits, and thirdly, it will be subject to greater public accountability through a publication of an annual report detailing its spending on community benefits.

[ Page 10656 ]

Now, the trend, certainly, in the world of corporate law and the revisions of the Business Corporations Act has been to reduce the formal requirements, sometimes called regulatory requirements. Whether this will be sufficient scrutiny of this type of organization, I suppose we'll wait and see.

I notice that although this proposal has received generally fairly positive support, broadly speaking, one group, Tradeworks Training Society of B.C., says:

"Bill 23 is on line, but the amendments to the B.C. corporations act are a little cryptic. As the release emphasizes, the model is likely best suited to innovative social enterprises…. Details will be easier understood when related regulations are published.

"Overall, the onus will be on shareholders and other stakeholders to monitor actions vigilantly. The provision for government regulation is light.

"Similar initiatives have been introduced in the U.K. and some states in the U.S. The activity in these jurisdictions has varied, and in the U.K. complementary tax policies and grant programs make for a larger-scale rollout. In B.C. a lot will depend on how foundations and venture philanthropists view the model when and if it is enacted."

Certainly, the provision for three directors is a substantial change from a single director, and the obligation to publish a report that chronicles and sets out the activity of the community contribution company will ensure a measure of scrutiny.

I suppose Tradeworks is saying that they will monitor this publicly as we go along and see where we go — whether the model is a successful one or not.

So we're supporting this proposal. Particularly, I want to note, as I did earlier, and commend the member for Surrey–White Rock for his interest in this issue. I know he has not only, I'm sure, briefed his colleagues on the government side, but he's also spoken to those of us on the opposition side and drawn this to our attention.

The other amendments that are proposed are relatively straightforward. The B.C. Co-operative Association, I understand, is fully supportive of the amendments proposed to the cooperative legislation.

The Auditor General Act. Often the possibility of using the Auditor General as the auditor of record of companies or organizations in the government reporting entity or outside is one that is chosen. If the language is clarified to make that crystal-clear, then that's a good thing, and that seems to be reflected in the support that the Auditor General has expressed for the bill.

The Financial Institutions Commission. That's something that I'll propose to address at committee stage. I'm not entirely clear from the notes that I have reviewed just what is intended there. I heard what the minister said, but I will reserve judgment until we have a more detailed discussion on that aspect of this bill.

The changes to the Partnership Act. Again, those are best dealt with, I think, at the committee stage. They appear to be uncontroversial as well.

[1515]

There is an amendment proposed to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. It provides that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint a public servant as superintendent of pensions and removes reference to the title of chief administrative officer in relation to the superintendent. Those appear to be administrative changes, but I will reserve judgment until we have an opportunity to discuss that further.

With those brief comments, I will conclude my remarks.

Hon. S. Cadieux: It's a pleasure to speak in the House today about Bill 23, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act. I am in support of this for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I believe that with Bill 23, we are demonstrating government's commitment to social enterprise. With the bill, we're leading the country in social entrepreneurship opportunities and providing for social innovation's growth in British Columbia. As a government, this is one of the things we can do to support social entrepreneurship and innovation in our province.

The member for Surrey-Whalley, in his comments, is correct. A community contribution company is not the only way to achieve this. It is simply one more way. Indeed, there are a number of successful organizations that are operating social enterprises in the province today that have not required this structure. But the amendments do and will provide one more choice for non-profits.

The community contribution company is a new corporate structure option that combines the traditional benefits of a corporation with social enterprise components that include provisions allowing for an asset lock and dividend cap, which make it possible to brand this new hybrid corporation as a social purpose venture. The social purpose branding structure makes it easier for these new hybrid corporations to attract social finance investment, in which there is a great deal of money waiting to be invested.

A community contribution company will be readily recognizable by both social investors and customers who want to use their purchasing dollars to support a good cause. It clearly signals that non-profits are producing highly valuable goods and services that people want to purchase and support.

I also believe that these amendments will support some of the amazing work that's already taking place here in British Columbia. We all benefit from the innovative non-profit organizations and businesses that are stepping up to solve some of society's most difficult challenges — challenges that no one organization, no one ministry and no one government can solve on its own.

This new entrepreneurial spirit is something that we certainly need to encourage. For example, this past summer I attended the opening of Quest Food Exchange in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

Over 20 years ago Quest Food Exchange began as a

[ Page 10657 ]

group of people handing out sandwiches to people in need. After years of building and expanding on their work, they opened a low-cost grocery store this past summer. The low-cost grocery store means that people with low incomes now have better access to healthy food. People can volunteer and give back to their community in the operation. The non-profit has refined its innovative social enterprise model to become B.C.'s largest food-exchange program.

Bill 23 will open new opportunities for this organization and others like it to continue to innovate and succeed. The amendments will create a new kind of company that will be able to provide socially focused investments and benefits while also distributing profits, although more modest, to investors.

I am pleased that these amendments will open new options for non-profits and those organizations and will support those who are driving innovation in our province.

In November the Premier hosted British Columbia's first Non-Profit Partnerships Summit in Vancouver. This summit brought together over 400 leaders in B.C., from non-profits to businesses to local governments, all who were there to explore how they could be a part of social innovation. It was inspiring, definitely, to see so many people from different sectors all wanting to learn more about what they could do to make a difference in their communities and, in many cases, to hear what they were doing that was already making that difference.

It's important for government to create the space for conversation and for planning and then to take the next step and introduce legislation that sets a framework for implementation. I'm proud of the passion and incredible work carried out by the non-profit sector in our province, and I'm pleased that we're going to be able to support their work through this bill.

I'm not the only one, though, and I'd like to share a few quotes from others in the community.

From Janet Austin, the CEO of the YWCA in Vancouver: "I'm delighted to support this move to allow the creation of community contribution companies. This new corporate structure combines social and financial objectives and will provide much-needed flexibility in the emerging area of social entrepreneurship and innovation."

[1520]

Margaret Mason, who is a partner with Bull Housser and Tupper and a member of B.C.'s Advisory Council on Social Entrepreneurship, is a respected and recognized national expert in non-profit and charity law. Margaret says: "I commend the province for introducing this legislation. British Columbia leads Canada in considering the creation of hybrid structures that we hope will stimulate social enterprise in the province and increase the availability of creative capital willing to invest in enterprises and looking to create lasting change."

Jim Fletcher, who is the managing director of Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital and a leading social financier in British Columbia and in Canada, is also a member of the council. Jim says: "I'm very supportive of this bill as a first step to bringing B.C. in line with a global trend towards more socially responsible business structures. Traditional structures are all about maximizing profit, which is a good thing in its own right, but a whole bunch of other principles and stakeholders who are important are left out. Enshrining this in legislation is a good thing."

Social innovation is about change. It helps to meet social and economic challenges and takes advantage of new opportunities.

It's not enough to cling to solutions that have worked in the past. We need to build on our past success but look for new ways to work together to meet our future demands. The old attitude of expecting solutions to come from the top down has definitely got to change in order for us to truly be able to address the challenges that face society as a whole.

We know that the best solutions come when collaboration and engagement with one another occur. Enduring social innovations involve all stakeholders in their creation. They involve individuals, families, businesses, non-profits and governments. I have been an advocate for social innovation since my time at the B.C. Paraplegic Association. Together, I believe we can raise social consciousness in B.C. and put our province at the forefront of social innovation.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity this afternoon to speak.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand in my place and speak to Bill 23, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012. In particular, I do want to address my comments to the community contribution company aspect of this legislation.

At the core of it, I would say at the outset that I think it's a good initiative for this legislation to create the structure and the framework for social enterprise, to create more clarity around social enterprise and about what the expectations of government are around how social enterprise will work and operate in our province and how it will be defined differently from more conventional enterprise in British Columbia.

As others have noted, I do believe the work that created Bill 23 comes not entirely but in large part from the work that has been spearheaded by the member for Surrey–White Rock around social innovation. I know I've had the opportunity on a number of occasions to speak with the member around this issue, and we've shared some good debate and very positive debate around this.

We as a caucus have had the opportunity to be briefed by the member — a number of caucus members — as we've also had the opportunity to meet with some of the community leaders who have been part of the advisory

[ Page 10658 ]

group around the work that's being done around social innovation and who, I know, will carry that work forward, including some fairly eminent people like Al Etmanski and Jennifer Charlesworth.

I think the work that's being done there is work that is timely. It's work that is important. I do also think it's work that requires clarity. I know that the Minister of Social Development spoke about the summit that was held a number of months ago, and I did have the opportunity to attend most of that session and found it quite interesting in terms of the comments made by a number of the participants there who are very prominent in their field.

When I spoke to a number of people at that time, they were saying: "We like the sense of this, but we don't entirely understand where it's going." I do think that Bill 23 helps a little bit in terms of providing some of that clarity. I know, again, the member for Surrey–White Rock…. In my conversations with him, he also, I think, appreciated that increased clarity was necessary.

[1525]

I think more is being brought to this question of what social innovation means in the context of British Columbia and in the context of these efforts and what community contribution companies will mean in that context as well.

Probably my first experience with social enterprise and with these kinds of efforts would go back to 1967, 1968, as a teenager growing up in Raymur housing project in the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver. I know at that time many of the single-parent moms there created the Ray-Cam Cooperative.

A big piece of the success of that was the creation of the co-op store in the basement of a public housing project there. That store was very, very effective in providing food and employment opportunities, mostly through what was then the volunteer incentive program that was available at that time. It created opportunities for people who were on welfare, as it was called at the time, to earn a little bit more money and, at the same time, to be able to purchase food at essentially cost–plus very little.

It was a social enterprise. It did pay its bills. It obviously received support from what was B.C. Housing at the time, in terms of a very generous support around the space. But it did pay its bills, it did do its business, and it did it fairly successfully for quite a long period of time. That led, actually, to the establishment of the Ray-Cam Cooperative Centre, which is now a fairly important multipurpose community facility in East Vancouver.

That was my first experience as a teenager of what social enterprise might mean at that time. I've had the opportunity, through work in the community economic development field and the cooperative field, to work around the province with a whole range of different enterprises or concepts or ideas that would certainly fall within the context of social enterprise or of community economic development, which would be easily defined as social innovation in some way, shape or form.

The principle we have here, I think, is good. What we need to be cautious about, and this reflects not so much on this bill, is the level of….

It's not a high anxiety, by any means, I don't think, but there is a modest level of anxiety in the community, that social innovation and the notion of social enterprise and encouraging what are sometimes significant community organizations, charitable organizations, to engage in social enterprise as a method of creating new revenue streams to support their programs and initiatives, among other things, may lead at some point to a reduction in public support for the activities of those organizations.

I've heard nothing that indicates that, and I'm not suggesting that that's anybody's intention to do that. But it's a reaction that is there, and it's a real reaction: is this a download, of some sort, of additional responsibilities on those agencies, on those organizations, to begin to meet their own revenue needs through these avenues rather than having an expectation that there would be levels of public support for their programs and initiatives?

I certainly would encourage the government and the minister to provide the assurances that the government is prepared to provide, that that is not the intention and that there isn't a correlation there. It does sit out there, and it sits out there with organizations that have seen increased pressures on their funding levels and concern themselves with that.

As we look at the kinds of initiatives that fall into the context of social enterprise, of what would be community contribution companies, potentially, we see a number of different options there. Most of them have, in some form, what we would call a triple bottom line. They have an approach that looks at social, economic and environmental concerns.

[1530]

They do look at community concerns. They do look at a criteria, generally, that looks at having to be successful, absolutely, as a business, and being able to be viable as an enterprise. That viability has to come in terms of their ability to generate profits and then to be able to make determinations about where those profits go. Sometimes the priority may be the creation of employment opportunities for people who find less opportunity to get into the employment areas in more conventional or traditional employment. This may create employment opportunities as well.

So there are a couple of ways that you could see profit or benefit there. But the criteria, as a consequence, needs to look at…. To be successful, these companies need to be considering community benefit and what community benefit means. I believe the success of these kinds of social enterprises, of what will be community contribution companies, also require, as much as possible — and it's not always going to be the case — the engagement of citizen initiative and having citizens play a significant role in what occurs.

[ Page 10659 ]

It's so that decisions are not made solely on the basis of capital and money, that they are participatory in nature, that they do have a foundation in community, that they do engage community in ways that are more broad-based, certainly, than conventional companies and, of course — as the legislation, I know, talks about — that they limit the distribution of profit and ensure that those funds, to the greatest degree possible, go back into ensuring the viability of the company and back into the community as well.

So they need to be viable. They need to have social aims that, I think, are effective. I would hope that we will see that. That will be around job creation, I would hope.

I hope that for many of these companies they'll see job creation — again, for those who, for any number of reasons, may find it challenging to get into the workforce. They'll look at opportunities that may be around training, as well as creation of jobs, but training opportunities to move people into more conventional jobs at some point, that they'll look at how they support or enhance the provision of what might be local or community-based services — and that can be quite a broad

interpretation and definition of those community and local services — but that they'll support those as they move forward in the community.

To the greatest degree possible, I would hope that community contribution companies would see themselves as having a role in building capacity in a community in the way that they support initiatives in the community. Those are all context, I think, around social ownership and social enterprise.

I think, on the face of it, this legislation takes us down the road in a good direction in terms of providing clarity about what this kind of entity might look like. The comment that I guess I would make…. I know that when I look at the legislation that there's a fair amount of what happens here that happens in regulation. I accept that, and I understand that, and I think that that's probably appropriate.

The details around what the regulatory regime looks like become very, very important, I believe, to the success of this initiative, Bill 23: to its success both in terms of meeting the objectives of what is seen as social enterprise and what is defined and accepted as social enterprise in general terms and also in terms of the acceptance and credibility of the initiatives envisioned in Bill 23 in terms of the community and being accepted as a model that makes sense in the community — a model that people looking at developing social enterprise or that the community sector broadly, the community development movement, the CED movement, might see as moving forward on, that they see this as a real tool and a vehicle they can use that will enhance their work and their efforts and that has the kinds of safeguards around it that ensure it will continue to do the good work that it was initially intended to do.

That's going to come in the regulatory regime.

[1535]

I would hope, and I know that the principles…. I've spoken about the member for Surrey–White Rock, and I know that the member for Surrey–White Rock is keenly aware of the importance of engagement of the broader community in terms of the success of this.

Again, I've had the opportunity to attend a couple of sessions. I know he's brought some very interesting players, some of the individuals that I talked about. I know the Sauder School of Business have engaged in this as well. He's brought some very interesting players and engaged them in this process and in a conversation. That conversation, I think, needs to continue in the development of the regulatory regime for these companies under Bill 23.

It would be my hope that there will be a commitment made here by the government, by the Minister of Finance, to look at ways to produce…. I'm not sure what the proper terminology is, whether it's a White Paper or it's a discussion document. What form that takes around the regulatory challenges and the regulatory issues that are in front of making this bill as effective as it can be while meeting its legislative objectives and will allow that to go out….

Whether it's taken forward by the minister or whether those responsibilities are given to the member for Surrey–White Rock and tasked to the work that he's doing around social innovation to have those conversations to ensure that the regulatory discussion, before it's adopted, actually has an opportunity to go out in some more formal or structured or engaging fashion for a real conversation in the community with people who have a very important stake and sincere interest in this — to make sure that those regulations, to the greatest degree possible, are refined and developed in a way that works for the community, because the success of this to some degree will come by the ownership that the community chooses to take of this model.

I would hope that that will occur because I think that the framework makes good sense around these, but the detail will be in the regulatory initiative and the regulatory regime that's put in place. For that to be accepted….

What I would hate to see is a regulatory process that was less open and produced a set of regulations that could be the best-intentioned regulations in the world, but when they're seen by the community and the people on the ground on the front line that do this work, they identify a whole array or range of concerns with that that may or may not have been seen by the people who drafted the regulation and may not have been seen by the people who make the decisions in approving the regulation. It would be a shame if that was to occur and diminish the value of this legislation and the potential value of these companies.

I would hope that there would be a commitment to do that to the greatest degree possible. That may take a little bit of time, and I think that's just fine. Then the

[ Page 10660 ]

regulations can get put in place, because I do believe that it's important to get it right and to do this right and to take a little bit of time, if it's necessary, and make sure that works.

If that occurs, I think this has the potential to be an important and a good tool in terms of the notion of social enterprise, of social innovation, to create opportunities for those entities in the community or groups in the community or neighbourhoods or other organizations who see the opportunity to move forward with viable business opportunities that are based on supporting community values and community interests while still being viable as an enterprise.

We have a great opportunity maybe here to do this. I hope that it gets done right on the regulatory side. Other than that, I do look forward maybe to having the opportunity to discuss that a little bit in committee stage. Other than that, I would say that I do support the legislation.

G. Hogg: I think the successes that we've had in terms of being able to come together with a piece of legislation which sets the values and the principles by which we want to be able to address the delivery of services, looking at and managing the values of both the entrepreneurial nature of the marketplace as well as the service delivery models of the non-profits, is as a result of an active integration and discussions and consultation with a number of the non-profits and a number of the businesses.

[1540]

In fact, in many ways, the social entrepreneurs of British Columbia have led this government to this point in time. They've led Canada in a number of the initiatives that we're taking. One of the media outlets referred to the Lower Mainland of British Columbia as the Silicon Valley for Social Innovation in Canada.

We have led the world in many cases and, as my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway commented, there have been a number of world leaders that have been here.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: My apologies — Vancouver-Hastings.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: Surrey-Whalley, SW. Thank you very much.

What was I talking about other than Surrey-Whalley, or something equally as relevant?

As all of my good friends have made reference to, there are a number of people who have come from other parts of the world: Christian Bason from Denmark, Peter Shergold from Australia, Charlie Leadbeater from England, Geoff Mulgan from England and, out of Italy, Ezio Manzini. All of these people are looking at what's happening here and saying that we actually are in many ways leading the world in a combined piece of action and legislation.

This is the first piece of legislation like this in Canada. There are pieces that are somewhat analogous in different parts of the United States, but the steps that we are taking are providing that platform. I just want to firstly acknowledge the social entrepreneurs and innovators from across Canada who participated in this, and from around the world, but particularly those in British Columbia who have done so much in terms of the consultation.

I think the reason that we've been able to get here is because we have listened to them. We have listened to them, and they have been actively involved with the Ministry of Finance in terms of the drafting of this. They've been a reference point for those. So while comments were made with respect to the regulations, we have got to this point because we've had that active dialogue, integration of thought, that has led us to this point in time. I think the successes that we can have in the future are going to be dependent upon us having that same type of engagement and participation.

I also want to acknowledge the participation of the opposition. We've had the opportunity to meet with members of the opposition I think on three or four different occasions. I've met with a number of them individually.

I know the Innovation Council came and met with them as well, and this has been a process which I think has been based on the values of how we better provide an opportunity for services in a time where people are starting to recognize the value of having government, the marketplace and the social providers together working at what they can provide for strengths together, and we've been able to do that in a pretty unique way.

Ontario has been asking the same types of questions. Ontario is anxious to move forward. They've asked: "How do we support more innovative, effective and sustainable approaches to addressing community challenges by enabling community organizations to combine with businesses their use of methods of entrepreneurship to attract new capital and generate revenues?"

This is just a platform that starts to provide us that, but there are significant challenges that come forward as well. We want to have, analogous to this, to help us to leverage funding into it…. I believe there has to be a change to the Venture Capital Act so that it starts to define some of the initiatives that will tell us what qualifies as a community contribution corporation.

In terms of the qualification, meeting with a number of the non-profits a year and a half ago, they were very concerned about the debate that might take place, whether or not they should give up their non-profit status and move into this. Since that period of time, they've held a number of workshops through the community and social services agencies looking at that. A number of them have now come to the conclusion that this would be a better process for them, but clearly not all of them.

We have over 26,000 non-profits in the province, and probably under 1,000 have staff and reasoned budgets.

[ Page 10661 ]

Those are the ones that are starting to look at whether or not this makes sense to them. But certainly no one will be forced to move into this. Their entity as they exist can remain, or they can make a decision to shift into this. I think that, as my colleagues have commented, unless we have regulations that support that and that make sense to them, we will not find as many interested in doing that.

The Venture Capital Act will provide an opportunity for there to be leveraging of funds coming into it. It will allow for flow-through tax credits for that to occur. So this provides the entity, but then by allowing it to fit under that, it will allow us to have the funds which we think will help leverage this.

[1545]

There was reference made to what the criteria are.

Well, the criteria that currently are being proposed by the Innovation Council are a provision of home care to the disabled and/or seniors and health care services to the broader community; education of individuals who otherwise experience difficulty accessing education; services to assist individuals experiencing employment challenges and to gain employment; providing affordable housing to income-challenged members of society; promoting social inclusion by facilitating individuals' physical or mental health, age, demographic or other challenges to be self-sufficient, productive and happy members of society; and delivery of essential social, cultural and environmental services to the community.

I think that covers broadly the number of references that have been made with respect to this.

I am excited that we've come this far, but my excitement will be tempered if we're not able to move forward with the regulations that make it as effective as I think it can be and that give permission to the community to do the things that they want to do. We have to bring the next piece of change, the Venture Capital Act, to allow us to have the funding that allows this platform to work most effectively.

In closing, I just want to again extend my appreciation to the Ministry of Finance people who worked so well with the Social Innovation Council from across the province in getting us to this point in time, to the many social service providers who have been so passionate about this and the opportunities that it provides, and to the opposition for their constructive criticism and help in getting us to this point in time.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the thoughtful comments that various members have put forward with respect to the community contribution company initiative. I do want to particularly recognize the member for Surrey–White Rock for his efforts in really raising awareness and leading the initiative to bring forward what is, by any measure, certainly an innovative response to a belief that there is a way to harness some of the social benefits and the desire out there to have corporations invest in the greater social good and to prepare and design a vehicle that will help bring about that reality.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think certainly the Finance critic, in his comments, pointed out the importance of getting it right, and I would agree with that. It is the opportunity of all interested members as we move to committee stage debate to be able to have that discussion. The recommendations that we've put forward, we hope, will address legitimate and constructive concerns that people might have around a community contribution company arrangement.

Of course, we will be looking forward to the input of all members as to whether that meets the needs and protects the interests of taxpayers and ensures that we achieve the social benefits we believe can arise from such an amendment.

With that, I move the second reading of Bill 23.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 23, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Polak: I call second reading of Bill 26, intituled Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, 2012.

BILL 26 — FORESTS, LANDS AND

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2012

Hon. S. Thomson: I move the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act be read a second time.

This act updates a number of resource-related statutes improving both industrial and recreational opportunities in British Columbia forests. On the recreational front, we're proposing changes that will have a positive effect, keeping more resource roads open.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

There are over 450,000 kilometres of resource roads in B.C., the equivalent in length of 56 Trans-Canada Highways. These roads are used for a variety of recreational

[ Page 10662 ]

and industrial opportunities throughout the province.

Currently, due to third-party liability concerns, both the Crown and the company responsible for road maintenance are influenced to close resource roads after their active use ends. The proposed Occupiers Liability Act amendments will establish that any person using a resource road of their own accord does so substantially at their own risk.

This sends a clear message that the government has listened to road users who clearly favour open roads subject to use at your own risk over the current liability regime. Roads that would have ordinarily been closed but now remain open would be those with low environmental risk.

[1550]

While we're making an effort to keep the resource roads open to the public, when they do have to close, it is important the proper notification is provided. Currently legislation requires that notification can be done in one of two ways: either through officially gazetting the change or publication in local newspapers. This limitation is increasingly dated in the modern world. While these options will remain available, other options could include Internet posting, signage on site or a notice board — all of which could be more successful and more cost-effective.

We're also bringing in amendments to the Forest Act which will protect the integrity of the tenure award process by requiring applicants for tenures to submit complete and accurate information. In addition, the provisions of the act which allow government or licensees to adjust stumpage rates that were based on inaccurate information have been updated to allow changes to be made in a wider range of circumstances.

We're also amending the Wildfire Act to provide additional clarity on obligations to reduce potential fire hazards when a post-harvest fibre recovery tenure is issued, typically for the bioenergy sector. Forest companies have an obligation to abate fire hazards by reducing the buildup of post-harvest debris. Previous changes have created an opportunity for secondary tenure to be issued that will allow a different company to recover this debris. This amendment ensures a continuous obligation for reducing fire hazards in these circumstances, encouraging a smooth transition between tenure holders.

This will help to increase the use of post-harvest debris for bioenergy purposes such as conversion to wood pellets. Practically nonexistent a decade ago, B.C.'s fast-growing wood pellet industry now contributes about $185 million annually to the provincial economy. Encouraging this industry will help generate local jobs, improve air quality by discouraging slash burning, and reduce fire hazards.

This bill will also make amendments to the Forestry Service Providers Protection Act and the Personal Property Security Act to facilitate the implementation of the Forestry Service Providers Protection Act. Specifically, amendments to the fee

schedule of the Personal Property Security Act will allow for the collection of fees for the registration and tracking of Forestry Service Providers Protection Act liens and charges on accounts.

These fees will be nominal and similar to those charged for other registrations under the Personal Property Security Act. For instance, a typical registration fee under the act is $5 per year plus a $10 processing fee, which is what will be charged to register and track liens.

Additional amendments are proposed to ensure that the priority of existing liens on timber transported by tugboats is retained.

Together, these amendments improve key pieces of resource management legislation, supporting our integrated approach to natural resource operations and to enhancing the forest sector in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing Columbia River–Revelstoke. [Applause.]

N. Macdonald: A half-hearted attempt, I'd say. Well, okay, thank you very much.

So Bill 26, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Statutes Amendment Act, is before us. For the most part, it is trying to fix problems that the government has created. As well, there are some sections that serve as a precursor to the Resource Road Act. So it is certainly a fairly benign piece of legislation on the surface.

I want to say to the minister, as well, that my experience with all ministers has been an openness to briefings. This minister is particularly good at providing briefings and has to my colleagues and I, as well as to the independent members, on this bill and has consistently done so. In fact, the ministry has arranged, following the instructions of the minister, two briefings today alone.

I just want to say that while it is common practice and has been for a long time, certainly, this minister does a very good job making sure that the opposition has an opportunity to fully understand these bills before we move into this section. Thank you very much for the briefing.

We have, then, within this bill a number of changes to existing legislation. We have, within sections 1 to 4, amendments to the Forest Act.

Section 1, then, fixes language to close a loophole in rules related to stumpage. This comes from a court case where the existing legislation was found to be wanting. As a whole, we have to be clear that compliance and enforcement have a whole number of shortcomings.

[1555]

In 2002 — and there were some members that were here in 2002, when the changes were made — you basically had major licensees literally writing their own rules for managing the land. The government that they supported financially put those rules into legislation with promises that the new rules would remove red tape and lead to more jobs. The language around it in 2002 was

[ Page 10663 ]

very much