2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 3

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Tributes

Mel Couvelier

M. Coell

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Raminder Singh Thind

D. Hayer

Introductions by Members

Statements

Aboriginal History Month

J. Rustad

Tributes

Raminder Singh Thind

H. Bains

Introductions by Members

Tributes

CHEK-TV

I. Chong

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — Species at Risk Protection Act, 2011

R. Fleming

Bill M212 — Access to Prostate Screening Act, 2011

S. Hammell

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Community of Silverdale

M. Dalton

HIV/AIDS and Dr. Peter Centre

S. Chandra Herbert

World Partnership Walk

D. Horne

Bella Bella community festival and environment

G. Coons

Army engineers

R. Sultan

Dan Hamhuis and hockey in rural B.C.

D. Donaldson

Oral Questions

Services for developmentally disabled persons

A. Dix

Hon. C. Clark

M. Karagianis

Wait times for residential care beds

K. Conroy

Hon. M. de Jong

Diversion of water from Williston reservoir

B. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Public consultation on Williston reservoir water diversion

B. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Oversight of oil and gas industry impact on water resources

V. Huntington

Hon. R. Coleman

Government action on wildfire prevention

N. Macdonald

Hon. S. Thomson

Staffing levels for sheriffs

K. Corrigan

Hon. B. Penner

Petitions

G. Hogg

Tabling Documents

Statement of 2009-2010 borrowings

Proclamation

Beef Day

Hon. D. McRae

L. Popham

Tabling Documents

B.C. Assessment Authority, service plan, 2010

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2011

Hon. B. Penner

C. Trevena

N. Macdonald

L. Krog

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011

B. Ralston

Reporting of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act ( No. 4)

Hon. I. Chong

H. Lali

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011

G. Coons

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 11 — Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act

S. Fraser

Hon. M. Polak

B. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier

Hon. C. Clark

A. Dix

J. Horgan

Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Coleman

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

C. Trevena

Hon. M. McNeil

Estimates: Ministry of Social Development (continued)

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

H. Bains

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General (continued)

L. Krog

Hon. B. Penner

Estimates: Other Appropriations

[ Page 7743 ]

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

MEL COUVELIER

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with sadness to inform the House of the passing of our colleague and friend Mel Couvelier. Mel was MLA for Saanich North and the Islands from 1986 to 1991 and was Minister of Finance during those years.

Mel had many successes in both private and elected life. He was an alderman and mayor of Saanich. He was the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, president of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities and president of the Liberal Party of B.C.

[1335]

He was committed to community service his entire life and still sat on the board of the Horticultural Centre of the Pacific, which he helped found in the 1980s, at the time of his death.

Mel leaves behind his much-loved wife, Millie; their sons, Rod and Rick; daughter, Melissa; and their families. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you, on behalf of all members of this House, send condolences to Mel's family.

Hon. C. Clark: I also rise today to mark the passing of Mel Couvelier. He was a distinguished member of this Legislature and a distinguished citizen as well as a distinguished Finance Minister.

Provincial politics was one stop in a lifetime, though, for Mel Couvelier of political and public service. He was on the municipality of Saanich. He was a longtime mayor. He did countless good works until his passing. Most importantly, all of his life he demonstrated the value of public engagement. He demonstrated that you can bring people together in a noble way.

Mel Couvelier was a gentleman. I had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Couvelier a month after I became Premier. He came to visit me in my office here. He told me he was honoured to come meet with me when, in fact, it was me who was honoured to meet with him. He generously spent that time with me a few weeks ago, offering me the three best pieces of advice I've gotten since I became Premier.

I will miss his advice. I believe all British Columbians will miss his contributions. He was a great British Columbian. He cared deeply about this province, and he gave us all we could ever have asked of him.

A. Dix: I'd just like to join, on behalf of the official opposition, in the remarks made by the Premier. Mel Couvelier was a remarkable guy. He was a great spirit in our province. I think it reflects how much he meant, in the sort of partisan nature of B.C. politics, that he was appointed, in fact, by the NDP government to important posts after he left the provincial cabinet with the Social Credit Party. He was respected all over British Columbia, and all of us will miss him.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: I have one introduction to make. A dear friend and constituent is here visiting Victoria, first time in the Legislature of British Columbia. We had lunch with him today in the legislative dining room. He's an old crony of an officer of the Legislature, a former RCMP colleague of our Sergeant-at-Arms, so it was wonderful to sit in and listen. They were regaling me as an observer with some past stories of their time together in the RCMP.

Now he's here. Peter Boddy is here visiting us from Richmond-Steveston. He's a great friend, and professionally, he's moved on from the RCMP and currently is employed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS. Would the House please give a warm welcome to Peter Boddy.

D. Routley: Isn't the best part of our job to welcome school groups here? I know that it is the best part of my experience here. You get to speak with these young people about what happens here, and I always tell them what Mr. MacMinn told a high school student that I brought. He said: "We teach you in school to work cooperatively and productively. This isn't that kind of place." And he says: "There's anger and passion in this chamber for a good reason, so that there isn't riot in our streets." So I remind them of that and then ask them to forgive what they're about to witness in question period.

That being said, I'd like the House to help me welcome the students from Ecole Davis Road in Ladysmith, along with their teacher and some parents.

I have one other introduction. Yesterday I had the pleasure of introducing my CAs. Our constituency assistants do their work most productively by building relationships. They do it within government and throughout the province. They even do it with tourists in the building.

[1340]

Yesterday my constituency assistant Patty McNamara met Diane and Ricardo Bembella. They're visiting us from Santa Barbara. Diane is a nurse, and Ricardo is an accountant. They were impressed by the building and the difference in our systems. I'd like the House to help us welcome our visitors from Santa Barbara, the Bembellas.

Hon. I. Chong: I am pleased to, first and foremost, welcome a former colleague of ours back to the Legislature.

[ Page 7744 ]

She's on the floor of the House here. Olga Ilich served as MLA for Richmond Centre from 2005 to 2009. She served, as well, as the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts and Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. I know from time to time she does come back and visit. Being that this is our last week here, I think she wanted to observe how question period has changed for the better since her departure.

During her time in retirement, though, she has continued to contribute to her community while still engaged in business life. I understand she has volunteered on a number of boards, and those that she is most passionate about are in the arts and culture field. I would ask the House to please make her very welcome.

V. Huntington: It is a pleasure to introduce today a good, longtime friend of mine and one of Victoria's and indeed Canada's distinguished authors, poets and educators. Will the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Doug Beardsley to this place.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today we have Colin Smith, professional engineer. Recently Colin was awarded the meritorious service award among all the engineering organizations in Canada — Engineers Canada. On a long and distinguished resumé he can note he was president of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., president of Engineers Canada, former head of Forest Renewal B.C., former head of Crown Lands, an ADM of forestry under Claude Richmond, involved as an engineer on the Millennium Line as well as the convention centre, currently serving on the Victoria Airport Authority.

He's a distinguished engineer. He's a distinguished former civil servant, and he's a distinguished British Columbian. Would the House please welcome Colin Smith.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like the House to welcome Kelly Newhook and John Cooke from Victoria's Together Against Poverty Society. Please thank them for their work for our society's most vulnerable, and please make them very welcome to this House.

Hon. D. McRae: This morning I met with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. They were ably represented by Judy Guichon, Ron Buchanan, Mark Grafton, John Kochel and Kevin Boon, and they are here joining us today. So let the House please make them welcome.

L. Popham: I have two visitors in the House today from Saanich South, Greta Wappett and Jean Kapel. Please make them welcome.

P. Pimm: I had the great opportunity this morning of meeting with a delegation from the Canadian Kailuan Dehua Mines Co. Ltd. I would like the House to help me welcome Hua Pei, Nie Baozhong, Vincent Yang and Judy Matkaluk. I apologize for the way I've pronounced those names. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Horgan: It's one of those rare opportunities to gaze up at the gallery and see a familiar face, someone who was in this place working for the former member for Nelson-Creston, the irrepressible Corky Evans. Joining us in the gallery is Anne Fraser. Why in the world she came back is a mystery, but welcome.

J. van Dongen: I am very pleased to introduce Miss Geneviève Tellier. She's a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, and she's here visiting, doing interviews on the functioning of one of our legislative committees. I ask the House to please make her very welcome.

[1345]

B. Simpson: I have the distinct pleasure of introducing Walker Morrow, a 19-year-old political blogger and political columnist for the Vancouver Examiner. He hails from the Cowichan Valley, and he's down here today to find out how the press gallery works — or doesn't. My hope is that they don't corrupt him too much.

He just tweeted thanks to my office, because he showed up in attire that wasn't befitting standing in a scrum, and he thanked my staff for making sure that he was suitably attired. Welcome, Walker, to the gallery.

D. Hayer: I have four special guests, and one sad announcement to make. First, the four special guests. Gurdev Singh Sidhu is the IAS officer and Deputy Minister of Punjab. He's the Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayats in Punjab, India. He is a past deputy commissioner of Ferozepur.

He's with his wife Harbrinder Kaur Sidhu. He's also with his brother, our community leader, Dharam Sidhu, chief engineer at the Vancouver Renaissance Hotel, who holds two professional engineering degrees and helps the community with many events. He's also hosted with my wife Isabelle Hayer.

Tributes

RAMINDER SINGH THIND

D. Hayer: The sad news is that one of the Punjabi journalists, Raminder Singh Thind, passed away on May 29, 2011, due to a heart attack. He was editor of the Vancouver edition of the Parvasi newspaper, a Punjabi newspaper published from Toronto. Raminder had also worked as a host on B.C. radio programs, and he was a great singer and stage player and helped the community.

[ Page 7745 ]

His funeral service will be held on Sunday, June 5 at 12:30 at the Five Rivers Funeral Home in Delta. I would ask the House to send a letter of condolences on behalf of all the MLAs. Also, if any MLAs are able, please attend the funeral services.

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: I also want to extend a warm welcome to Kelly Newhook. She is a dear friend of both my fiancé and me, and I look forward to celebrating our wedding with her this summer.

Statements

Aboriginal History Month

J. Rustad: June was declared Aboriginal History Month by parliament in 2009, and National Aboriginal Day is marked annually on June 21. The Assembly of First Nations Chief Shawn Atleo today launched an initiative to make June 2011 a month of First Nations advocacy, awareness and action, with the goal being greater understanding between First Nations and all Canadians. I would ask all MLAs to join me in recognizing this here today.

Tributes

RAMINDER SINGH THIND

H. Bains: I would also like to join with my colleague from Surrey-Tynehead to offer our condolences and sympathy to the family of Raminder Thind. He was a very respected journalist. He was a great activist in the community, a good friend, and he will be missed. I would also ask all of the members of the House to please join with me to offer our condolences and sympathy to the family of Raminder Singh Thind.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: It's not often I get to welcome people here from the beautiful riding of Prince George–Mackenzie, but I'm very pleased today to be able to welcome two friends, Mark and Laura Grafton, who are ranchers. They manage the Bar K Ranch just outside of Prince George, and Laura is a faithful Scrabble partner of my wife. Welcome to Mark and Laura.

S. Hammell: I'd like the House to welcome Larry Shaw. He's a member from my constituency and an outstanding member of the Surrey prostate cancer support group that operates out of Surrey Memorial Hospital. They do amazing work in supporting individuals with this cancer, and I'd like the House to make him welcome.

L. Reid: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Tracy Harper. Not only does she take wonderful care of us here in these buildings, but she's also a glorious photographer — It's You Photography. I know the member for Nanaimo and I will both look wondrous once she has completed her photographs.

[1350]

Tributes

CHEK-TV

Hon. I. Chong: I make the following introduction with some trepidation and caution because I don't want it to be perceived as a personal bias, but today I would like to acknowledge one of our local news stations, CHEK news, which celebrated the recognition and perseverance of the hard work of all the employees who managed to keep this station alive. Today they celebrated at noon.

I was joined by my colleagues the MLAs for Victoria–Beacon Hill and Esquimalt–Royal Roads to say that their hard work has really paid off. They've now purchased their building. It means they will be a viable operation here in greater Victoria. So I just wanted, on behalf of everyone here, to send out congratulations to all the employees who are also owners of their own news studio.

Introductions by Members

D. Donaldson: Visiting the precinct today as part of the Beef Day celebrations that we just enjoyed is an old friend of mine, Harold Aljam, president of the First Nations Agricultural Association. I'd ask the members to welcome him here today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes — again.

J. Rustad: I can't resist, Mr. Speaker, with the great beef that we've had.

A couple of people have come down from Nechako Lakes, as well, who haven't been introduced yet. Along with John Kotchel, his good wife came down, Karen Kotchel, as well as Larry Garnet. I'd like the House to please make them welcome as well.

Mr. Speaker: If by chance your MLA failed to introduce you, welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — Species at Risk

Protection Act, 2011

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Species at Risk Protection Act, 2011.

[ Page 7746 ]

R. Fleming: I move that the act be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: Introduction of this bill enables British Columbia to join eight provinces in Canada that currently have stand-alone legislation protecting the critical habitat for endangered species at risk of extinction.

B.C. has far and away most of Canada's biodiversity. We are host to 76 percent of Canada's bird species, 70 percent of freshwater fish species and 60 percent of conifer species. Yet currently our province lacks an explicit legislative framework that ensures B.C.'s unique and rich habitat is not lost forever from human impacts, including climate change, that can be better managed and adapted to.

According to the B.C. government's own data, some 1,600 species of plants and animals in our province are in decline and may be lost because so few have recovery strategies in place. Only 4 percent of B.C.'s species at risk currently are protected by B.C. law and policy. The provincial government is aware from recent reports that the level of endangerment for wildlife includes orca whales.

This bill will fill some of the huge gaps in the narrow jurisdictional protections offered by the federal Species at Risk Act. It will enable independent scientists from respected bodies like the Royal Society of Canada to identify species and recovery plans. The legislation will promote voluntary stewardship activities, and in determining and implementing necessary actions, government will benefit from the best scientific knowledge available and be able to balance long-term protective measures with economic and social considerations.

To create a sustainable B.C., this legislation intends to strengthen the conservation agreements we already have in place, to help our ecosystems adapt to climate change, and to recover and restore the health of species from decline and extirpation.

Our province hosts some of the most varied and intact ecosystems remaining in the world. We need legislative tools to guide our action. This bill offers our province a means to protect species at risk and the rich biodiversity of our province for future generations to come.

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 M211, Species at Risk Protection Act, 2011, 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.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members that when introducing bills, it's two minutes.

Bill M212 — Access to Prostate

Screening Act, 2011

S. Hammell presented a bill intituled Access to Prostate Screening Act, 2011.

S. Hammell: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Hammell: The effects of prostate cancer have a significant negative impact on British Columbians. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. This year alone 3,100 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in British Columbia, and 570 will die from it.

[1355]

In recognition that early detection is a primary element in the fight against prostate cancer, this act aims to promote prostate cancer screening in British Columbia. With early detection and treatment, many lives can be saved.

It is the consensus of medical experts that prescreening should be available for asymptomatic men of a particular age group, accompanied by active surveillance. This act will ensure that the prescreening exams for asymptomatic men in this age group will be covered by the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia. The primary goal of this act is to implement preventative health care in an area that has been severely lacking.

Hon. Speaker, 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 M212, Access to Prostate Screening Act, 2011, 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)

COMMUNITY OF SILVERDALE

M. Dalton: I'm pleased today to talk about a little- known jewel in British Columbia, the community of Silverdale situated by the scenic Silvermere Lake. Silverdale is part of the district of Mission. It was largely settled by Italian families in the 1870s, and some of the pioneering families still reside in the community today. Families like the Donatellis, Gaglardis, Manzers, Horans and Charlocks have seen Silverdale develop from a small fishing, farming and logging community to a growing suburb of the Fraser Valley.

Perhaps one of Silverdale's biggest claims to fame is that it was the site of Canada's first train robbery.

[ Page 7747 ]

On September 10, 1904, 60-year-old Bill Miner, the Gentleman Bandit, led two accomplices in the holdup of CPR No. 1 train. They stole nearly $7,000 worth of gold dust, $914 in cash and a $50,000 bond. It was on this train that Miner is believed to have been the first to use the phrase "Hands up." Also, in keeping with this Gentleman Bandit persona, when leaving the scene of the crime, he was purported to have said: "Good night, boys. Sorry to have troubled you."

Over the years the community has produced some people of note. Eden Donatelli, Olympic and World Cup medalist in speed skating, calls Silverdale home. So, too, did Flying Phil Gaglardi, the Minister of Highways under W.A.C. Bennett and recipient of more than a few speeding tickets.

A few weeks ago Mike Scudder, Mission councillor and president of Silverdale Community Centre, invited me to the 60th anniversary of the building. It was a pleasure talking with many of its longtime residents. I'd like to encourage everyone to come and visit and experience firsthand the beauty of Silverdale.

HIV/AIDS AND DR. PETER CENTRE

S. Chandra Herbert: This Sunday, June 5, marks 30 years after the first reported cases of what is now known as HIV/AIDS. The early years of this horrible disease tested our province, tested our communities and tested British Columbians. It was a time of leadership by example where citizens stepped forward where governments would not. They put their lives on the line as the need was so great and the resources so few.

In the 30 years since, British Columbians have become leaders in the global fight to take on HIV/AIDS with cutting-edge research, treatment, care and support. I stand here to honour one of those leaders, Dr. Peter, and to note the tremendous work of the Dr. Peter Centre in my constituency of Vancouver–West End. It's an organization that leads by example in the fight against HIV/AIDS and for the comfort of those afflicted with it.

The centre is, of course, the legacy of Dr. Peter Jepson-Young, a gay physician who was diagnosed with the disease in 1986. He died in 1992, just four years before the advent of life-saving drug therapies, but his legacy lives on.

One of the province's greatest challenges is, of course, getting HIV treatment to our most vulnerable citizens, whose HIV/AIDS is often on top of longstanding issues of mental illness, addiction, poverty and homelessness. The Dr. Peter Centre takes on this challenge head-on, providing care and support to over 350 British Columbians and providing 24-hour nursing care to over 50 individuals annually.

[1400]

I particularly commend Dr. Peter Centre's work in getting a supervised injection site set up there in their centre 18 months, believe it or not, before Insite even opened. They've shown that it saves lives. They've shown it's good health care.

As Dr. Peter affirmed in his personal affirmation, and the centre demonstrates to this day: "From these elements I have come and to these elements I shall return, but the energy that is me will not be lost."

Dr. Peter, your energy has not been lost. Thank you very much.

WORLD PARTNERSHIP WALK

D. Horne: This past Sunday I joined thousands of others for the 27th annual World Partnership Walk in Stanley Park. The World Partnership Walk, which was founded in British Columbia, has raised more than $60 million since its inception. Now more than 40,000 people participate in walks in ten cities across Canada each year.

The walk is in support of the Aga Khan Foundation's support to eliminate global poverty. Their global projects focus on improvements of core values that recognize and bring real tangible meaning to the saying: give a person a fish, and you feed them for a day; teach a person to fish, and you feed them for a lifetime.

And 100 percent of the funds raised from the walk go directly to international projects that focus on infrastructure, skill development, literacy and entrepreneurship. Special attention is also given to women and girls to ensure that they can succeed and the traditional barriers are lowered, and hopefully, eventually removed.

It takes a huge team of volunteers to organize and deliver such a large annual event, so a special thank you for the tireless efforts of Karim Salemohamed, convener of the Vancouver walk, and Shellina Lakhdir, the regional campaign manager for the British Columbia Aga Khan Foundation. I would also be remiss not to mention Dave Macfarlane, who is one of the walk's key organizers and someone who I've known since my time at McGee in high school.

I invite the rest of the members of the House to join me in applauding their great work.

BELLA BELLA COMMUNITY FESTIVAL

AND ENVIRONMENT

G. Coons: This past May long weekend I was invited to spend my holiday in Bella Bella, a beautiful and remote community in the constituency I represent. Bella Bella is situated on Denny Island, which is in the Great Bear rain forest. The primary reason for spending my time here was to attend a festival hosted by engaged youth in the area.

During my visit I participated in the Gathering Coastal Voices Festival, an event hosted by the Bella Bella Community School and many other partners. The

[ Page 7748 ]

purpose of the festival was to celebrate the beauty and integrity of the region and to create a space where First Nations can discuss their values and perspectives around ocean resources.

The weekend hosted a variety of creative events, such as a film festival, a prayer flag march and musical performances by Phillip and Matt Gallant. Perhaps one of the most impressive performances was by ten-year-old Ta'Kaiya Blaney from the Sliammon First Nation in the Vancouver area. Ta'Kaiya sang her song Shallow Waters , a song written to raise awareness about a proposed oil pipeline planned between the Alberta tar sands and Kitimat.

The screening of SPOIL, a film produced by EP Films and the International League of Conservation Photographers was another event that stirred up discussion amongst attendees. The film tells a story of threats facing the Great Bear rain forest and the efforts of First Nation communities and conservation groups to preserve it.

The Great Bear rain forest remains the world's largest remaining intact coastal temperate rain forest. The forest is not only home to the spirit bear and a host of other diverse creatures but also home to several First Nations communities. There are 27 First Nations whose traditional territory can be found within the Great Bear. Most of these communities are inaccessible by road, and their economy and way of life depends heavily on the region's resources.

I was proud to spend a weekend with the people who live in this region and are generous enough to share their incredible home with myself and others in the province.

ARMY ENGINEERS

R. Sultan: I recently attended the 100th anniversary of the 6 Engineer Squadron, Canadian army, in North Vancouver. Organized by J.P. Fell, these lads marched to war in 1914. Of over 3,600 engineers sent by this unit to France, 210 stayed there in their graves. During World War II, members also died on Juno Beach. They've served in Egypt, Israel, Germany, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Croatia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and even against the Soviets in Siberia.

Army engineers are called sappers. They built the Rideau Canal, thwarting American plans to seize Canada. They built the Cariboo Trail, extending our sovereign reach into territory overrun by American gold seekers. They operated from barracks in Sapperton in New Westminster.

Two weeks ago I watched about 100 of these army engineers march past, rifles ready, preceded by the J.P. Fell Pipe Band. They were smartly followed by army, air force and navy cadets, vintage Bren-gun carriers and artillery tractors.

[1405]

Army engineers build bridges, clear away obstructions and defuse dangers, man-made or natural. Sounds like what's needed in the aftermath of an earthquake or tsunami. Should their services be needed, this squadron stands ready, but our closest Canadian army base of regulars is in Edmonton.

The Canadian army doesn't have a permanent base in B.C. How did this happen? It seems a previous Premier did not much care for things military and acquiesced when the folks in Ottawa shut down Chilliwack.

Should emergencies arise, let us hope that our new government in Ottawa will understand British Columbia's vulnerabilities and our need for permanent field- engineering units right here, both in war and in peace.

We salute the 6 Engineer Squadron for their 100th birthday.

DAN HAMHUIS AND

HOCKEY IN RURAL B.C.

D. Donaldson: Long drives in the dark in blowing snow, hoping you don't run into a moose, just to get your son or daughter to a game in a neighbouring town that, if you're lucky, is only an hour or two away. Kids playing hockey in some rinks where it's colder inside the building than outside — that'd be Hazelton — and young players dreaming of starring in an NHL Stanley Cup. That's not some stereotype from the TV ad on Tim Hortons. That's real life in rural B.C. in the minor hockey world.

The bit about young players dreaming of starring in an NHL Stanley Cup final — well, that's real life too, because Dan Hamhuis will be there when the puck drops tonight in game 1. He's the only B.C.-born player starring for the Vancouver Canucks against the Boston Bruins, born in Smithers in my constituency of Stikine where his parents still live.

Dan's father, Marty, says they were always on the road travelling to games. Late in his Smithers Storm minor hockey days, Hamhuis was injured. His dad says it was a turning point because he missed the major junior hockey draft event as he recovered. Dan persevered. Undrafted, he was listed by the Prince George Cougars of the Western Hockey League, made the team and began playing for them at 15 — so a true product of the B.C. hockey system from minor days through to his major junior career.

Our Stikine MLA offices ran an awareness contest for teens called Don't Let Gangs Score. Dan partnered with us so that his fame as an NHL star could be used to improve life for young people in rural communities. That speaks volumes about his character.

These are intangible future benefits of having ice arenas in small towns, and this is why people in Smithers and Hazelton are working hard to see new facilities built in each of those communities.

[ Page 7749 ]

To the Hammer, as he was known in his younger days, who spent a bit of time on outdoor rinks in Smithers: good luck tonight. You've made a difference.

Go, Canucks, go!

Mr. Speaker: I was just checking to see whether the Minister of Transportation had said that. [Laughter.]

D. Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Barnett: I am very privileged today to have a class from one of the great schools in the community of Williams Lake, Kwaleen Elementary. I have 26 students; their teacher, Mr. Wilson, who has come for four years with students from this school; and eight chaperones. Will the House please help me welcome these students and teachers here today.

Oral Questions

SERVICES FOR

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

A. Dix: My question's to the Premier. Seven years ago, during her brief but eventful tenure as Minister of Children and Family Development, she introduced legislation creating Community Living B.C. She said it will give "British Columbians with developmental disabilities and their families better options and more opportunities in their communities. They'll be able to look forward to a safer, healthier and better quality of life."

However, the government has achieved the opposite and is now proposing $22 million in cuts to the services for people with developmental disabilities. So the question to the Premier is: those families — are they included in her families-first agenda?

[1410]

Hon. C. Clark: First, I should note, although I had the privilege of introducing that legislation as Minister for Children and Families in 2004, it was the hard work with the community that represents families who have a member who may be living with a disability….

It was the member for Surrey–White Rock who spent hours and hours and hours bringing this legislation to life so that people who are living with a disability or who are living with a disability in their family network have support and are able to make many of those decisions themselves. I think he deserves the honour for having introduced CLBC, which has been a dramatic and necessary change in how we deal with, how we connect with and engage with people who are struggling with a disability.

You know, since then the budget for that area of the ministry has gone up every single year. The budget is now $701 million. It went up from last year almost $9 million. It's taken on more clients this year than last, and the budget has continued to increase.

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

A. Dix: The Premier was talking to those families. She knows that they believe hope is fading away. This government, since last fall, has closed 55 group homes in British Columbia — 55. That has an impact on people, surely. Per-client funding has been cut by almost $6,000 since 2006.

My question to the Premier: is she going to do anything about that? Is she going to address the issues that the groups involved and the families involved are expressing every single day? Do they have any place in her families-first agenda?

Hon. C. Clark: I was talking to some folks outside today as we were all enjoying the gifts of the farm families that were provided to us, and someone stopped me and said that he was delighted that for the first time in decades he hears people in government talking about families. It wasn't something that the New Democrats talked about all through the 1990s, because it wasn't something, apparently, that they valued.

I recognize that it is an incredible challenge for any family to have a member that lives with a disability. It's an incredibly challenging place to be, and our government does our best to try and support them. We don't always get it perfectly right, and we need to make sure that we are doing, always, the best that we can.

We will continue to work with the families who face challenges. Part of that is making sure that we're continuing to grow the budget for this area of the ministry. Those needs continue to grow as the client population continues to age and the numbers of people who need help are signed on to the programs.

We need to make sure we're there for those families, and we will make sure we're there for those families.

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

A. Dix: While the Premier talks about families, the actual families involved are seeing their services cut off. While the Premier talks about families, she and her government are closing 55 group homes in British Columbia. While she talks about families, she's cutting per-family funding.

[ Page 7750 ]

The question is — it's a very straightforward question: will she put a stop to the closing of group homes, and will she…?

Interjection.

A. Dix: Oh, I know the Minister of Finance is very interested in this.

Will she end, for example, the government's HST advertising and use some of that money to keep group homes open?

Hon. C. Clark: We are continuing to add new clients…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …to the rolls of people who are helped at CLBC. We're continuing to add almost $9 million to the budget for that area of the ministry, and we're working with those families.

[1415]

There is a substantial difference, though, in the way that our government approaches the provision of services and the way that their government approached it. We believe that the only way you can continue to provide services for the people who need them in British Columbia — and we've continued to grow these budgets for services that families depend on — is if you grow the economy, if you make sure that there are jobs, that there is economic growth and that there is revenue growth.

If the Leader of the Opposition had his way, we would go back to a province where 50,000 people had to leave because they couldn't find jobs — 50,000 people who didn't pay taxes and 50,000 people whose taxes weren't going to support the incredibly important services that people with disabilities depend on us to provide.

I think that our recipe, on this side of the House, for prosperity is the way that we can make sure that families are looked after in the long term.

M. Karagianis: Colleen Matthews has been trying to get orthotics for her adult daughter Melissa. I'm sure the Premier is familiar with this story. It's been in the press.

Ministry staff, who are struggling without adequate resources, have told her that they cannot provide these for Melissa. In fact, a staff member called Colleen to say: "I'm at a loss. The ministry cannot afford to pay unless Melissa has open sores on her feet." Their advice to Colleen was to reapply and make sure that her physician stated on the form that there's a risk of amputation.

Now, Colleen is a very honest woman and is stunned by this message that she should be dishonest in filling out this form. So I'd like to ask the Premier, under families first, if this is an appropriate way to treat a family with a need like this.

Hon. C. Clark: We are putting families first in this government. We are putting families first. We are focusing on job creation, and we are focusing on opening up government and listening to people. So if the member wants to know if we are interested in listening to people, absolutely we are.

I think the thing that we all need to remember in challenging economic times is that if we want to be able to continue the high levels of service and improved service that we provide for people who rely on government, as we should, then we need to make sure we're continuing to grow our economy.

We need to make sure that we are fulfilling both sides of our obligation, growing the economy, growing the amount of revenue to government and, therefore, being able to continue to grow budgets for ministries, as we have done for areas of ministries like CLBC, which has grown by almost $9 million this year over last.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, I'm sure Colleen Matthews will be really happy to hear you're listening. She'd actually like you to take action, though.

Caroline Mavridis is another constituent of mine who has two boys, twins, who suffer from Down syndrome. Their services have been cut to the point where she can no longer work outside the house to provide support for them. She knows that in two years when they graduate from school, they will receive a mere 12 hours a week in services. This does not allow her to go out and support her family, and in fact, her boys will be at risk.

Again, to the Premier: I'd like to know how, under her families-first agenda, she addresses the needs of either one of these two constituents of mine.

Hon. C. Clark: We have a deep commitment on this side of the House to doing the absolute best we can for families that depend on government to provide services, and that's why we've seen the budgets from almost all of the service provision ministries grow so much since 2001.

You've certainly seen the Health Ministry budget grow. We have seen the Education budget grow. We have seen the budget for CLBC grow as well, and the member comes up with all of these questions about how we will do these things.

[1420]

My answer, I guess, should be: how would they do any of these things? How is it that the NDP would manage to be able to provide services for the people in British Columbia who so desperately need them when their

[ Page 7751 ]

plan is to shrink the economy, when their plan is to put people all across the province out of work, when their plan is to reduce the amount of revenue that's available to government to pay for these services? Because if that's their plan, I don't think that's the plan British Columbians want.

I think British Columbians want to know we'll grow revenue and be able to continue to provide those very necessary services.

WAIT TIMES FOR

RESIDENTIAL CARE BEDS

K. Conroy: A Williams Lake family has been told that they can expect up to a three-year wait for residential care for their father. John Tuerlings has been in Kamloops Hospital since last October, over three hours away from his family. In March he was designated as a long-term-care patient. They were told in April that he would be moved and again in May that he would be moved, and now probably not until the fall. In reality, there could be up to a three-year wait for a long-term-care bed need for him.

Mr. Tuerling is the unfortunate victim of the B.C. Liberal government that has abandoned its commitment to seniors. This is what happens when a government closes residential beds at a time when needs are growing and does not adequately replace them. What happened to the B.C. Liberals' commitment to ensure seniors were treated with dignity?

Hon. M. de Jong: As always, I am interested in pursuing individual cases to ascertain what the particular circumstances are. But in general — and the member knows this from the lengthy conversation we engaged in just a few days ago in the estimates debate — the average wait time for seniors obtaining residential care in this province over the last ten years has been reduced dramatically. That is as a result of the construction of thousands upon thousands of new beds, new homes, new facilities to care properly for seniors so that they can have a dignified end-of-life situation where they live.

There has been a tremendous amount of work done. There is more work taking place. But as always, I am happy to take information from the member and explore whether an individual case requires additional attention.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: In fact, Mr. Tuerlings' daughter Kimberley has been pleading with anyone who will listen to get service for her father. She's been sending letters to the Minister of Health, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the member for Cariboo North, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, the member from Kamloops North and hasn't been getting anything. She's trying to figure out how the government could be so callous.

In fact, Kim writes: "I'm sharing this story to encourage the government to make the changes necessary so that other families do not have to feel the disappointment that our family has experienced with the current health care crisis."

My question is simple. When will the Health Minister ensure people like Mr. Tuerlings get the services they deserve and need?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I want to emphasize to the member, to the House and to British Columbians generally that the importance that the government attaches to ensuring that there are proper, comfortable facilities available for seniors as they move towards their end of life is reflected in the fact that there are over 6,000 new beds that have been constructed and a total of over 12,500 that have been refurbished. In an aging demographic, this is obviously an important need that communities across British Columbia have. We have addressed that need in a significant and a dramatic way.

[1425]

There are, I am advised, additional factors that the member hasn't disclosed in this question. But I'm happy to look at the situation, as always, to ensure that the needs of all families and all individuals are properly addressed.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members to keep your questions to the point and answers to the point.

DIVERSION OF WATER

FROM WILLISTON RESERVOIR

B. Simpson: I am uncertain as to which minister to direct this question to. Would the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations or the Minister of Energy please inform this House if approval has been given to Talisman Energy and Canbriam Energy for the diversion and pipeline removal of 7.3 billion litres of water out of the Williston reservoir behind the W.A.C. Bennett dam.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll take the question on notice, and I'll get back to the member.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON

WILLISTON RESERVOIR WATER DIVERSION

B. Simpson: That withdrawal is actually up on webpages. It is the worst-kept secret in the South Peace. The question from that region is: what is the public

[ Page 7752 ]

consultation process for a water withdrawal of that magnitude? Both First Nations and the general public would like to know, from whatever minister that's appropriate for this: what is the process that the public can be engaged in, in the diversion and pipeline withdrawal of 7.3 billion litres per annum from the Williston reservoir behind the W.A.C. Bennett dam?

An Hon. Member: Bring in the Stickman.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to, first of all, assure the House, hon. Speaker, that I charged no royalties for my modelling for the Stickman.

There will be an extensive process of public consultation, discussion and negotiations with First Nations before anything would go ahead.

OVERSIGHT OF OIL AND GAS

INDUSTRY IMPACT ON WATER RESOURCES

V. Huntington: I'd like to say that hundreds and hundreds of temporary water licences have been issued in the Peace region by the Oil and Gas Commission with no First Nation consultation, and still more large water-volume licences are today being issued — again, with no public consultation.

Has any ministry conducted a baseline assessment of groundwater and surface water in the Peace region, and does any ministry track the cumulative withdrawal of water from all sources and for all reasons?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am advised that there are some studies ongoing that are going to deal with the volumes of water.

I know that the member and I actually had a debate on radio — or she spoke, she had a visit, and I had a radio shortly after her — on Sunday. We are looking at the water extraction, and I can tell the member that the reusing of water is way more substantial than the member, actually, has said publicly that it is — the recycling of the water.

Actually, the management of waste at all our well sites is quite remarkable. In actual fact, hon. Member, if we could take some of the scientific application of how we handle waste and water recycling at well sites, we could use it domestically in other places in British Columbia for the environment as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: The fact is that the wastewater is being recycled to some extent, but the bulk of it ends up on the surface, and there is no water treatment being handled at this point.

The simple fact is that the government does not have baseline data for water in this region, and no one agency tracks cumulative water demand, let alone reports out on this critical resource.

[1430]

Similarly, the government does not have data for the total toxic wastewater created by the industry, the greenhouse gas implications of shale gas development or the cumulative health and safety impacts of oil and gas development.

I would like to ask the Premier if she will commit today to doing what other jurisdictions have done and take a comprehensive look at the development of this resource by striking a special committee of this Legislature.

Hon. R. Coleman: In British Columbia about ten years ago we had about ten years' supply of natural gas. Today we have over a hundred-year supply of natural gas to help feed our economy — create investment, create jobs, create dollars for health care and education — because of the innovation and the environmentally very friendly and very disciplined work done by our oil and gas sector in British Columbia for the future of the province of British Columbia. I'm actually very proud of the fact that we may be the only jurisdiction that actually understands shale gas at the level we do and the job that we do with it and how we do it environmentally friendly.

As we go forward, we will continue to investigate and to learn more to make sure that we protect the environment while actually at the same time develop a very significant resource for the people of the province of British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

WILDFIRE PREVENTION

N. Macdonald: In Golden and other B.C. border communities there are fundraisers to help families displaced by the recent firestorm in Slave Lake, Alberta. As the wildfire season in British Columbia gets underway, we are reminded of how vulnerable our communities are. In early 2004 recommendations on interface fuel management were made to reduce the risk of wildfire to our communities.

To the minister responsible: is it acceptable to the minister that after seven years only 2 percent of the interface area identified for fuel management has been treated?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. It does provide me the opportunity, firstly, to recognize

[ Page 7753 ]

the great work of our firefighters, the men and women of our firefighting service. Over 600 of our firefighters are working in Alberta, working in rotation. We've also just deployed a crew into the Yukon and Alaska to help out our neighbours. This is great work being done by our firefighter service.

We take the issue of wildfire threat very, very seriously. That's why I was very pleased recently to be able to announce $25 million additional support for the community wildfire mitigation program. That's $25 million over two years for communities in British Columbia, in partnership through UBCM.

We'll continue to work very closely with local governments and with First Nations in addressing the wildfire threat to our communities.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Just so members of the House understand, $50 million was spent over seven years to get 2 percent of the work done, and I think all members would understand that an additional $25 million is not going to complete the job.

These are serious issues. We saw similar devastation from wildfire in Kelowna. That was eight years ago. At that time Gary Filmon was requested by the government to promptly provide a report with recommendations intended to mitigate risks to communities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: The government promised that these recommendations would be implemented immediately. The government has a responsibility to protect communities at risk from wildfire. Treatment that has been done to date has not even begun to protect those communities.

To the minister: will he commit to a new strategy and a new sense of urgency to deal with fuel management in the interface forest?

Hon. S. Thomson: Under the community wildfire management program, as the member opposite referenced, $37 million to communities, in partnership with communities. That's leveraged investment in the communities. Mr. Speaker, 240 communities and First Nations have got plans that are in place or are being implemented, with the additional funding, $25 million over two years, working in partnership with local communities, with First Nations. We will continue to work with them in the wildfire management program.

[1435]

In addition, our wildfire management branch works with communities in terms of training. We provided support through the job opportunities fund in partnership with the federal government in terms of providing additional training and support. We provided support for purchase of infrastructure protection devices. We'll continue to work very closely with local governments as we protect families and First Nation communities in British Columbia.

STAFFING LEVELS FOR SHERIFFS

K. Corrigan: We already know that there is a critical shortage of judges, prosecutors and sheriffs in our justice system, yet this past Friday the B.C. Liberal government cut 28 full-time auxiliary sheriffs. An additional 24 deputy sheriffs have had their hours cut down to 75 percent, for a net loss of 34 full-time positions. This is despite warnings by judges that they cannot operate potentially dangerous and volatile courtrooms without security. We know the result will be more cases thrown out of court and that more accused will get off.

My question to the Attorney General: why on earth are dozens of sheriffs being cut from a court system which is already dangerously understaffed?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is referring to auxiliary sheriffs. It's true. A number of changes were announced last week in terms of our staffing complement. Our number one priority remains the safety and security of our courtrooms and our court facilities, but we are also living within a budget — something that might be a novel concept to the members of the opposition, certainly based on my experience when I was here and saw how they operated in the 1990s.

Every single day of the week these members stand up and say: "Just spend more money." It doesn't matter what the issue is; just spend more money. Then they turn around and say they're campaigning to go back to a 12 percent PST-GST, which will not only be worse for consumers but will deprive government revenues of $3 billion in the next couple of years.

Tell me, Mr. Speaker, how they would fund additional services of every kind that they always mention with $3 billion less to spend.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, they were auxiliary sheriffs as well as deputy sheriffs. They were both. Most of those auxiliary sheriffs were hired in January. They received weeks of training, paid for by the taxpayers. Now, after a few short months, that training is completely wasted.

Thirty-four fewer sheriffs, and trials being thrown out. Two courtrooms in Kelowna were shut down because no sheriff was able to provide security or escort prisoners.

[ Page 7754 ]

Another eight families that were waiting to seek access to their children had to wait for court delays because of sheriff shortages.

To the Attorney General: how do these cuts aid our ailing judicial system?

Hon. B. Penner: I dispute the member's characterization that training and education is a waste. I think that's completely inappropriate. What we have informed those staff that the member refers to, and it's a number of them, is that they will not be getting as much work in the future as they were most recently. We will still utilize them when we're able to.

The member hasn't answered the question, which is: how would you hire more sheriffs, spend more on health care, more on education, more on roads, reduce ferry fares, reduce camping fees and do anything else in the public service with $3 billion less to spend? That is what they're campaigning for right now. Right now that's what they're campaigning for, a 12 percent PST and GST, while on this side of the House we want a 10 percent single HST.

[1440]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

G. Hogg: I rise to present a petition signed by 630 residents of Surrey seeking remedies for the severe overcrowding in some of the schools in Surrey.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2009-10.

Proclamation

Beef Day

Hon. D. McRae: In honour of the ranchers present with us today, it is my pleasure to read the following proclamation:

"Whereas B.C.'s grasslands produce some of the world's highest quality cattle; and

whereas B.C.'s beef producers are renowned for the way in which their cattle are raised in a healthy environment and ecologically sustainable manner; and

whereas B.C. cattle are part of an integrated Canadian beef production system that is the third-largest exporter of beef worldwide and well respected for having a high-quality finished product; and

whereas ranching in B.C. has the advantage of proximity to markets and the drive to move ahead in a competitive world; and

whereas the ranching industry supports B.C.'s economy through more than $250 million in cattle sales and more than 8,700 jobs; and

whereas the Ranching Task Force has a goal to increase the profile of ranching in British Columbia to the public and government; and

whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased…to proclaim and declare that June 1, 2011, shall be known as Beef Day in the province of British Columbia."

L. Popham: On behalf of our side of the House, I would like to join the Minister of Agriculture in congratulating our B.C. ranchers on B.C. Beef Day.

The history of this industry is a large part of our B.C. history. The challenges have been great, but as with many sectors in agriculture, our B.C. ranchers are resilient and as tough as nails.

We're encouraged by the initiatives ranchers are taking with programs like FRISP, a program designed to help provincial agriculture producers to protect and enhance water quality, to protect and enhance riparian vegetation, and to prevent and mitigate agricultural impacts on streams and lakes.

Initiatives like this help to maintain and strengthen the sustainability of the B.C. beef industry, and we thank you for that.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Chong: I am here to table a report — the 2010 annual service plan report for B.C. Assessment.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, as a courtesy, I wish to inform the House that tomorrow morning at approximately 10:05 there will be a small, 15-minute addition to the courtesy House business

schedule I circulated yesterday. This brief insertion in the

schedule will be to discuss Motion 15.

In the House this afternoon we will be doing second reading of Bill 13. We will be doing committee stage of Bill 2, second reading of Bill 15, committee stage of Bill 14 and committee stage of Bill 11, according to the

schedule I circulated yesterday.

In

section A in the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will be doing the estimates this afternoon for the Office of the Premier, followed by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and, from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., the conclusion of the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Attorney General, Social Development, and Transportation and Infrastructure.

Point of Order

J. Horgan: I heard the Government House Leader say "courtesy calendar." As I view the Votes and Proceedings from Tuesday, May 31, it has Standing Order 81.1 amending our standing orders and a

schedule attached.

[ Page 7755 ]

Nowhere does it say it's a courtesy schedule. In fact, we have been in lockstep with this as a result of the motion passed arbitrarily by the Government House Leader yesterday.

I'm wondering, hon. Chair, if you could clarify for us if this is a calendar that we must follow or one that can be changed at the whim of any member of the Legislature, or just the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I'll take it under advisement.

This House stands in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: I know that during introductions my colleague the Education Minister and myself noticed a mutual acquaintance who has since left the gallery, but I would like the House to recognize the presence of Mr. Angus Hereford, who's been in the precincts today observing the proceedings.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2011

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, now be read a second time. Bill 13 amends a number of statutes. I summarized this very briefly in first reading. I'll elaborate just a bit more now in second reading.

Minor amendments to the Milk Industry Act will allow for changes to the milk industry standards regulation to facilitate interprovincial and international trade. These amendments will update

definitions to current industry standards and amend regulation-making powers to enable assignment of certain responsibilities.

Amendments to the Law and Equity Act will protect the interest that many strata property owners have in their parking spaces and storage lockers. In some strata developments the allocation of parking and storage spaces is based on long-term lease arrangements that could be subject to attack under the common-law rule of certainty. This amendment will exempt leases from that rule, validating the lease arrangements, resolving uncertainty and avoiding costly litigation. The amendment will be retroactive to exempt agreements already in existence and to validate the expectations of the parties who entered into them.

Amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act will allow the courts to transfer the permanent legal custody of a vulnerable child who is living with a trusted family member or friend to that person. This creates an alternative to bringing children into foster care and will provide continuity and permanency for both children and their caregivers. The amendment also includes safeguards to ensure that permanent transfers only occur when they are in the best interests of the child while ensuring that due process is in place before parental rights are severed.

Amendments to the Clean Energy Act will extend the legislated deadline for the submission of B.C. Hydro's first integrated resource plan by one year to 30 months. The panel reviewing B.C. Hydro and the impact of hydro rate increases on British Columbia families will present its recommendations by June 30. This amendment ensures that B.C. Hydro has the time and flexibility to include any new direction from the review in their integrated resource plan. It will also give B.C. Hydro adequate time to consult with industry stakeholders, communities, First Nations and families across the province.

Amendments to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act will expand the types of housing initiatives for which the earnings of the housing endowment fund may be used. This will allow the province to invest in a wider range of affordable-housing solutions for people in greatest need. Earnings from the housing endowment fund will contribute to new supportive housing, including those that are currently being developed in eight communities across the province. The fund has already contributed $25 million to 52 projects across B.C., bringing unique housing solutions to low-income seniors, working families, youth and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Changes to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will amend the boundary description of Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park to remove 10.5 hectares to allow for the construction of a segment of the northwest transmission line. The western route of the northwest transmission line requires the use of lands in Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park. The Nisga'a Lisims Government supports the western route and has consented to amending the boundary of the park to facilitate construction of the northwest transmission line. For the purposes of

section 103 of

chapter 3 of the Nisga'a final agreement, this represents British Columbia's agreement to not continue the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park to the extent of the amendment.

A minor amendment to the Environment and Land Use Act will better reflect current practices of appointing non-cabinet MLAs to sit as members on the environment and land use committee.

[1455]

[ Page 7756 ]

This bill also makes a number of amendments to the Forest Act. First, the Forest Act is amended to make large tenure holders ineligible to apply for or hold a woodlot licence. Woodlot licence opportunities are intended for individuals, First Nations and small companies that want to participate in small-scale forestry. The amendment will help maintain the intent of the woodlot licence program as it is expanded.

Further amendments to the Forest Act will provide that a non-lumber producer can only transfer a receiving licence to another non-lumber producer. This will help support the bioenergy, pulp and paper, and value-added industries by providing security of supply for lower-quality fibre needed by the non-lumber sector.

Amendments are made to the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, and the Ministry of Forests and Range Act to replace references to decision-makers such as "regional manager or district manager" with "minister." This will enable the minister to delegate powers and duties to officials in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations as needed to optimize decision-making and improve efficiency.

Amendments to the Medicare Protection Act will create authority to require adult British Columbians to re-enrol in the province's Medical Services Plan by updating proof of their identity to a higher level of assurance. These amendments will support the introduction of a more secure photo card, which would replace the current CareCard.

Amendments to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act will provide for the continued authority of the Speaker under that act between the time a general election is called to when a subsequent parliament elects a new Speaker. This eliminates the need for additional legislation to continue the Speaker through that period.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will provide that golf carts and certain industrial utility vehicles no longer require registration, licensing or insurance through ICBC to operate in parking lots or for incidental highway use in specific situations, such as crossing a public roadway between two areas of a golf course.

Further amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act are made in compliance with the North American Free Trade Agreement. These amendments will establish a designation code for use on the drivers' licences of commercial drivers who are ineligible to drive in the U.S. owing to specific medical conditions, such as epilepsy, insulin-dependent diabetes or certain hearing deficiencies. Other changes to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow holders of foreign drivers' licences to keep their existing licence so that they can practise before taking a B.C. road test. Previously foreign licence holders had to surrender their driver's licence when applying for a B.C. driver's licence.

Finally, this bill contains a number of confirming, validating, housekeeping and consequential amendments.

C. Trevena: I am speaking to Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

I'm going to be talking about the

section which deals with the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, but I'd like to preface my remarks by talking about the absurd situation which we're in, which is with the calendar that was introduced and that we learned earlier this afternoon was there as a courtesy. It wasn't a change to the standing orders; it is just a courtesy.

It's supposed to close this debate in about one minute, when there are a number of speakers on this side of the House, because this bill affects a number of areas which we are trying to find answers to and to try and ensure that government is acting appropriately. We are really having to watch the clock, which is an absurd situation in a democratic House, in a place where we are, as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, supposed to scrutinize, talk about and discuss matters of legislation.

I think we are being forced, really, into a pretty farcical situation where we are watching the clock rather than having the ability to talk as we would like to talk, which is for a full half-hour on our different subject areas. I want to talk about the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the amendments to it, the things that I think are very positive in it and my cautions. I know I have colleagues who want to talk about the forestry bill, and we have people who would want to talk about other parts of this bill — the Clean Energy Act, which is an amendment to something that was closed by guillotine.

Madam Speaker, I do know that we are, in this nice way, working. We're having a courtesy extra 15 minutes, which is…. I don't know how that's going to affect other bills later on when we are working to such a tight time frame because democracy has been shut down in this place yet again.

[1500]

However, I would like to address my remarks to the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. On the whole, this side of the House does support the amendment. From our discussions with the people who are involved in child and family services, people who work with the ministry and people who watch the ministry, there is a sense that it does make sense to have this amendment.

Ultimately, people don't want to see children go into the care of the ministry. Hopefully, if this amendment is used appropriately, it will keep the court system out of play and allow families to keep looking after children without having to bring in the courts.

It will create the least disturbance. I think that is why it has been welcomed. It's been welcomed by a number of people. It has been welcomed by the Representative

[ Page 7757 ]

for Children and Youth, who has said that it is a positive move. It's been welcomed by the Federation of Community Social Services. People do see that there is a positive to this.

The way that this amendment works is that, as I understand it…. I'm hoping that if we manage to have courtesy extensions to time allocation, we can have a longer discussion about this in the committee stage. I believe we've given an hour for the whole Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which is very full. It just covers a number of ministries.

We have found in previous miscellaneous bills, when we do go through the committee stage, things that we have missed just in reading it and missed in discussions with people. We actually pick up some very salient points that are very controversial and very worrying.

So we would hope that we get a lot of time to be able to go through this bill, literally for each ministry, and have a full discussion with the various ministers and their staff to ensure that what we are passing here in this House is done with due consideration and with the thought that should go into creating, discussing, debating and passing legislation — that we are not working against the clock.

Unfortunately, I fear that we are stuck with this very tight time frame. As of five o'clock tomorrow afternoon we are going to be asked to vacate these premises until goodness knows when. It's been — what? — four weeks in the last year. Maybe we'll get a bit longer next year, but I'm not very hopeful, if this government is still in place. I'm more hopeful that we will not have this government in place. Then we can get on with the business of running B.C. in the interests of the people of B.C.

On Bill 13 and its amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. As I say, we are pretty supportive of it. The Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who I think everybody in this province has huge respect for because of her work, has actually said that she is pleased with it and is quoted as saying: "It begins to really pin down our desire to have children not come into care but…be in safe relationships and strong, good placements."

I think that is really what everybody wants — that children can be in very supportive placements with family wherever possible and have that nurturing.

I know, Madam Speaker, you're very, very concerned yourself about our young people and children and would really welcome any way that we can ensure that they are kept safe in nurturing environments.

I have a few cautions about this. I think that the amendment, which is very fulsome and does add a large

section to the Child, Family and Community Service Act and changes the Family Relations Act also…. I do hope that we will have that time to discuss fully in the committee stage what those changes are going to be.

I have a few cautions that I will be raising then and that I'd like to highlight now. One is the extended family program and the government's shift from Child in the Home of a Relative to the extended family program.

[1505]

There is still screening for the extended family program. There is money available for families who are involved in it. But there are, I think, some real concerns about the way it's working and about the way it's not working.

One of the questions that keep coming up is that there are at the moment just 350 children in the extended family program, and there are several thousand in the Child in the Home of a Relative program. There is concern about what is happening to those children, whether they're aging out, whether the families have moved on — just what is happening.

There is the sense, without anybody saying it…. Are children falling through the gaps? Are families falling through the gaps? I hope this bill doesn't allow that to happen and that there is a close watch and a close continuum.

The other concern that is there — and I think is always there when we're looking at families and how we look after vulnerable families and vulnerable children — is the financial support.

There is no question that the best way for children to be looked after is in a supportive, nurturing family. So in many cases what we see is a grandparent taking over the responsibility for the child, has all the love, all the willingness to look after that child or maybe one or two, maybe the siblings, wants to do the best and, therefore, instead of keeping the ministry involved, decides to have guardianship so they have the full responsibility themselves.

Unfortunately, when that happens, the grandparents lose any financial support. We have a vast range of ages of grandparents. I think we've seen in this House the number of people who stand up and say: "We're now grandparents."

Grandparents can start young, but they can also get to be quite old. They are often at an age where they are ready to retire, and they're finding that they're going to have to carry on working to look after their grandchildren, or they are still working themselves, but they have their own financial pressures. Not everybody can afford to continue looking after a second generation, and I think this is very troubling because it does add to the pressures on the families.

The other thing that…. In taking the courts out of the system…. I think people, on the whole, really welcomed this — the fact that the courts will be out of the system — but I think we have to recognize as well that there are times when it's good to have that third eye, the checks and balances and the scrutiny of a judge to ensure that nobody's being overzealous, that everything is working appropriately, and that while the child's rights are being

[ Page 7758 ]

protected and we are looking after the child and doing everything in the best interests of the child, we are also working in the best interests of the parent.

Madam Speaker, I'm going to end my remarks there. I could speak a great deal longer about this. I know other colleagues also want to speak about the bill.

As I say, it talks about many different government ministries. There are many areas that I think we have concern about, and we really would like a courtesy extension of our debate beyond the extra 15 minutes we've had. However, I have the sense that we're not going to get that in this House, which I think sadly…. Unfortunately, there are no children here to watch democracy die in B.C.

N. Macdonald: Just to speak for the short time that's available on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2). Bill 13 has a number of provisions, almost 70, related to forestry. In my capacity as the critic, along with my co-critic from the Cowichan Valley, we need to be looking at this piece of legislation to make sure that these are what the minister has indicated that they are for the most part, which is housekeeping of existing bills.

I think it's important to remember that in my time here since 2005, one of the most controversial measures was hidden in a miscellaneous statutes act, and that's related to IPPs and the removal of local control, as members will know —

section 55, Bill 33, the Ashlu river section.

It's important to be able to go through even pieces of legislation that are described as innocuous to make sure they are. The term the member from Cowichan Valley always uses is "jiggery-pokery," which means, of course, looking for things nefarious or misleading in descriptions. This act, however, does seem certainly to be innocuous, and with regard to the forestry sections, it does seem to be pretty clearly, housekeeping for the most part.

[1510]

I just want to thank the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and his staff for setting up a briefing for members of the opposition.

Most of the sections, from

section 35 to 107, change specific titles to a minister delegation model. The ministry has been significantly reorganized, and the language seems to be changed to match the reality of that reorganization.

There's also a

section which clarifies that a tenure holder cannot go after the woodlot tenures. There's also a

section clarifying restricted forest licences.

The amendments certainly seem innocuous and largely housekeeping, but my co-critic and I will put on record the explanations from the minister responsible for the proposed changes during the committee stage, which we should get to either later today or tomorrow.

With that, I'll turn it over to the other critics that deal with this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, I'm conscious of the fact that we will get a whole hour tomorrow to deal with committee stage in this bill — a whole hour. Today we have had basically a little over 15 minutes for the opposition to actually speak in second reading.

There's a line from Shakespeare: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." If there was ever a farce, it is the suggestion that the amount of time allocated to this bill — or, indeed, many of the pieces of legislation — in this House is adequate. It's truly farcical. That line comes from As You Like It . I can assure the members opposite that this is anything but something that the opposition likes.

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has a job to do within our parliamentary system, and that job is to criticize. It is to question, to advocate and to speak on behalf of British Columbians. It is not to speak on behalf of the government. It is to hold the government to account. To hold its feet to the fire is the cliché most commonly used.

We have a bill before us of 38 pages, nine parts and 137 sections — nine parts reflecting the fact that these all relate to different ministries. It is inconceivable that one could say, even if they had the brains of an Einstein, within such a short period of time, anything intelligent about the importance of this legislation or its impact, nor to raise issues that one would hope would bring attention to what the government is trying to do with this bill.

If what we do in this place has any meaning whatsoever and Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), is to receive the scrutiny it should, then you can't do it in the time allotted. It is a shocking example of a government that has claimed to be open and transparent, to be listening, to care about what British Columbians think.

Indeed, we have listened to the Minister of Finance, on more than one occasion in the last few days, talk about the wonderful consultation process around the HST. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians consulted by telephone, apparently. Well, hundreds of thousands of British Columbians don't have an opportunity to speak in this place. Only 85 members do.

Only 85 members, and the majority of those are on the other side, and they're not speaking to this bill. They don't care. Their Whip tells them what to do. They get up; they come in; they vote; they go out.

It's the job of the opposition to be critical. It's the job of the opposition to raise issues. It's the job of the opposition to ask the kinds of questions that give voice to the people.

[ Page 7759 ]

It is impossible for us to do it, hon. Speaker. I see I've received the nod. I will take my place with great reluctance in these circumstances, protesting as well as I possibly can the farce that is this process.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the time is now allocated.

[1515]

Second reading of Bill 13 approved on division.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 13 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, 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. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 2, intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 2; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:17 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

B. Ralston: This is the substantive

section amending the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. It proposes an amendment adding a new subsection.

Can the minister explain the purpose of this section? I gather that there has been, and have noted, a major reorganization of government ministries, and some ministries, such as that of the Minister of State for Climate Action, seem to have been subsumed in other ministries. I assume that this is related to those changes in ministerial structure, but could the minister please explain the purpose of the amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: This amendment, Member, is there to enhance ministerial accountability by ensuring the expected effects of any reallocations that are made under Vote 44, which is the capital funding appropriation. Where you have more than one minister that may be responsible within that vote and some reallocation is being done of capital dollars, there is an ability to reallocate in a manner that ensures that you're still going to have appropriate accountabilities with respect to the individual ministers under the BBMAA act.

B. Ralston: The proposed amendment refers to "the minister." I take it, just for clarity, that that's the minister who is assuming responsibility for the subsumed department. In other words, if there's a merger, the minister who takes over is obliged to make public this statement that's required under this proposed amendment. Is that correct?

[1520]

Hon. K. Falcon: That refers to the minister responsible for the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act — in other words, the Minister of Finance.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise which government ministries or secretaries or ministers of state will be affected by this proposed amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is the ministers with responsibilities under Vote 44, capital funding, which includes the Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance.

B. Ralston: The reference here is a reallocation of spending authority, which occurs during a fiscal year. That means that the main estimates have not been altered, but that there's simply an alteration in the responsibility for the main estimates, which are unchanged. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct, Member. It does not change the actual vote. It is just allowing for reallocations within the vote.

B. Ralston: Is there any different application to supplementary estimates? Or is that simply a timing issue, where ordinarily these changes might be made, reported out, and the supplementary estimates would be dealt with by the minister responsible for the reconfigured ministry?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it does not have anything to do with supplementary estimates. This is specific to votes that contain multiministerial responsibilities as, for example, Vote 44 in the capital funding side.

B. Ralston: The legislation or the act itself, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, refers to, in part, in

section 4, "achieving collective responsibilities," and then, in

section 5, "achieving individual responsibilities."

[ Page 7760 ]

Given that this reallocation recognizes that the configuration of ministries may change and that, indeed, ministers who may have been assigned what this act deems individual responsibilities may disappear or re-emerge in a reconfigured ministry, can the minister advise how this amendment would work in tandem with, particularly,

section 5 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act?

[1525]

Hon. K. Falcon: This section, I'm advised, has nothing to do with the reorganization. This is a

section that applies uniquely to Vote 44 which, as I say, contains multiministerial responsibilities that allow, within the vote, to have some moving around within the vote to ensure that we can still have ministerial accountability even if there's shifting of dollars within the vote.

With respect to the larger question, I'm advised that with the reorganization that takes place in government, wherever the different pieces of the reorganization go, the obligation follows. In other words, the obligations under the BBMA will follow whichever minister inherits whichever portion of a previous portfolio that would have had accountabilities alongside it.

B. Ralston: Just following up on the minister's response. If there are multiple ministries responsible for Vote 44, and there's a change in the spending by each responsible minister, what…? Given that the intent of the legislation, presumably, is to encourage accountability, how does one ensure accountability if the numbers can be moved?

One could imagine a situation — although I'm not suggesting that this happened or has happened — where accountability might be shifted in order to save a minister who might be in danger of running over the allocated estimates and therefore incurring some responsibility under this act. Of course, there is resort to legislation, and notoriously the government has resorted to separate legislation under the Ministerial Accountability Bases Act to fix up any overruns each year. But in theory, that might arise. So I'm just wondering how this legislation works to prevent such a reallocation.

Hon. K. Falcon: The changes that we're talking about would be changes that would have to be done ahead of time under the direction of Treasury Board. Treasury Board would have to have a plan that's brought to Treasury Board to say: "We want to reallocate or make changes within the vote with respect to the capital spend." It would be Treasury Board that would be making that decision, and then the accountability would follow.

However Treasury Board decided to make a decision based on a predetermined plan, then the accountabilities would still follow. It would not be something where after the fact, which I think is really what the member is getting at, you would try and move things around in the vote to cover off somebody on the capital spending side.

It would have to be something that would be a plan brought forward to Treasury Board and considered by Treasury Board. Treasury Board direction would then follow, which would result in the capital moving within the vote and the accountabilities following the movements that take place within the vote.

B. Ralston: I understand the minister's explanation. That's quite clear. However, the language of the proposed amendment doesn't limit it to something in advance of the fiscal year. It says: "If a reallocation of spending authority in relation to operating expenses occurs during a fiscal year…." So there's no limit. It could occur in the first month of the fiscal year or the 11th month of the fiscal year, given the wording that's there.

[1530]

Again, I appreciate that this may be a hypothesis, but would the minister not agree that despite what he said, there's nothing in the wording of this amendment that would prohibit that sort of step being taken very late in the fiscal year?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member's legal background, actually. It gives him the capability of pointing out these kinds of issues, and correctly. Theoretically, yes, the member would be correct, but I think, practically speaking, that wouldn't be the case.

As chair of Treasury Board, I can certainly assure you that if there is going to be a change within the vote, it will be as a result of a plan being brought forward to Treasury Board. And as chair of Treasury Board, working to ensure that's a plan Treasury Board signs off on, with then subsequent direction being provided to ministers…. It is not the intent, nor will it be the practice, to treat the movement of dollars and the accountabilities within this vote in any other way.

B. Ralston: The proposed amendment also refers to a statement of information in relation to the fiscal year. Where would that be filed? Would that be tabled here in the House, or would that be pursuant to some other statutory reporting mechanism? If one were interested in following this, where would an interested member of the public find it?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. It would be tabled in the House. If the House isn't sitting, it would be tabled with the Clerk. It would also be made available on the Ministry of Finance website.

B. Ralston: Maybe the minister can advise us prospectively. Is it proposed to file such a statement of information, assuming this amendment passes, which I would say is highly likely, for the current fiscal year?

[ Page 7761 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that in fiscal 2010-2011 there was one filed already. I understand that that reallocation was done in September, which was a reallocation from Finance to Education in a

schedule F, No. 2, which is the ministerial accountability schedule. It was filed with the Clerk and added to the ministry website.

Section 2 approved.

B. Ralston: We're now dealing with the Carbon Tax Act, and there's a proposed amendment to add some new

definitions, one of biomethane and biomethane credit.

Section 3 of the bill that's before us says an amendment proposed to subsection 1(1)….

[1535]

The Chair: Member, one moment, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to add

section 2.1. Thank you, by the way, for the forbearance of the critic.

Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to add

section 2.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day. The amendment clarifies the distinction between the main estimates and revised estimates with respect to the dates that main estimates are required to be presented to the Legislative Assembly.

[SECTION 2.1, by adding the following section:

Budget Transparency and Accountability Act

2.1

Section 6 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 23, is amended by adding the following subsection:

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply with respect to a replacement of or revision to the main estimates presented after the dates referred to in those subsections.]

On the amendment.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, explain further? I have

section 6 of the act before me. Can the minister explain the purpose of the amendment? It proposes to amend

section 6 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act by adding the following subsection, which is section (3). If my copy of the legislation, which I took from the legislative website earlier today, is accurate, there is already a section (3), so this is an amendment proposed to section (3). Could the minister explain it?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member is aware, the main estimates must be presented on the third Tuesday in February. There are exceptions under 6(2) like, for example, a general election. What this allows is flexibility to undertake what we essentially did this year, which is that we introduced revised estimates on May 3. It allows that to take place, because right now there is under the language of the law just that estimates must be presented on the third Tuesday in February.

So this allows for, essentially, what took place this year.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, then, this is legislation with retrospective effect. In other words, it's designed to make lawful the changes that took place this year given that there was one set of estimates tabled with the budget on February 15, 2011, and another set of estimates tabled with the budget update, if I can put it that way, on May 3. Is that what this is designed to do?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes.

Amendment approved.

Section 2.1 approved.

section 3.

B. Ralston: I've already posed part of my question, but just to recapitulate, this is dealing with the proposed amendment to the Carbon Tax Act,

section 1(1), adding two

definitions, "biomethane" and "biomethane credit."

Can the minister explain…? I know he dealt with this very briefly in his very

summary remarks at second reading, but perhaps he could expand upon the purpose for adding these

definitions of "biomethane" and "biomethane credit," and there's a subsequent amendment that also follows upon adding this definition.

So could he explain the purpose of that?

[1540]

Hon. K. Falcon: As I get my education on biomethane…. The amendments to the

definitions are required as part of the clarification of the tax treatment of biomethane. The second

part is to allow for the providing of a credit for biomethane purchased under qualifying contracts. These

definitions, I understand, I'm advised, are necessary to allow both of those things to take place.

B. Ralston: The definition speaks of "methane produced from biomass" and, I guess, hence biomethane. Can the minister explain the difference, for those who may not understand it, between methane produced from biomass and methane that would, I suppose, be a by-product or a desired product of conventional gas extraction?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll do my best here. Biomethane is, as I am advised, produced from organic waste, which would be a landfill, agricultural waste — that kind of thing. Conventional natural gas from a conventional natural gas well is considered fossil fuel. Although it is almost completely methane, it is considered a fossil fuel.

I don't know if that helps the member, but that's what I'm advised.

[ Page 7762 ]

B. Ralston: If I have the right document here…. I've got the

definitions

section in

part 1 of the Carbon Tax Act. Under the definition of "fuel," (

c) says: "methane produced by waste in a landfill."

I'm wondering why the necessity to redefine it as biomethane. Is that simply a more current term? The minister did make reference to methane produced by waste in a landfill, so I'm wondering if "produced from biomass" is simply a broader definition than "produced by waste in a landfill." Is that more encompassing or more restrictive? I'm not sure.

[1545]

Hon. K. Falcon: As I'm advised, apparently the previous description of "methane produced by waste in a landfill" is considered now too narrow. So what we're trying to do is expand that exclusion to include all types of biomethane, not just biomethane that comes from a landfill. As I understand it, biomethane can be produced from other organic wastes, including agricultural waste and others, and we want to make sure that those are captured and that it's not just narrowly defined as waste in a landfill.

B. Ralston: Then defining it as a broader exclusion means in principle that it wouldn't be subject to the tax. Is that right?

Hon. K. Falcon: It would not be taxable unless it was subject to

section 13.1. Otherwise it would not be taxable except for the limited exceptions under

section 13.1.

B. Ralston: I understand we'll get to

section 13.1 as the next proposed amendment.

I had a further question, then. In subparagraph (

b) it's repealing paragraph (

b) in the definition of "fuel." Paragraph (

b) reads "biodiesel and other biofuels" and then reads: "substituting…(

b) subject to

section 13.1, biomethane." Again, just to understand or attempt to understand — I probably should qualify it — the definition that's being put in place here is that biomethane is a broader definition that includes biodiesel and other biofuels. It's meant to be a more encompassing and, I would assume, clearer definition, subject to the exception that we'll deal with shortly in proposed

section 13.1.

Hon. K. Falcon: The Minister of Finance is thinking to himself: why isn't the Minister of Environment answering these questions? Nevertheless, I find myself here dealing with this fascinating subject, and I'm doing my best to keep up.

As best I can understand from the explanation provided me, biomethane means any methane produced from biomass. Now, biodiesel apparently is different. We no longer exempt biodiesel. So biomethane under this definition, meaning methane produced from biomass, is a much broader definition, subject, of course, to

section 13.1, with respect to some limited exclusions which will now apply with respect to biomethane.

I hope that was helpful.

[1550]

B. Ralston: I think I'm a little further ahead with that explanation. Biodiesel, then, the minister said, is being added to the definition of fuel and, therefore, would be, in theory, subject to the tax. That's a substantive amendment that appears to operate by virtue of getting rid of the present subsection (b).

Can the minister explain the reasoning behind that? Why is it being decided or why is it being proposed that biodiesel now be no longer exempt from the definition of fuel and be included and, therefore, subject to the tax? There is a definition of "biodiesel" further up, so I don't think you need to go into that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I understand that the biodiesel change was made in Budget '09, so last January. That change has taken care of biodiesel. This is just strictly dealing with biomethane, which is methane produced from biomass.

B. Ralston: There was a famous expression about parliamentary government which once described it as amateurs advised by professionals, so perhaps that applies in this case to both the minister and myself. But I certainly commend the staff person there for providing some assistance on these

definitions.

Then is there in the definition of "fuel," under (a)…? Ethanol and methanol are produced from biomass, but they don't appear to be included in the definition of fuel. So are we dealing with a situation where — I suppose we'll deal with this in 13.1 — there's a blended fuel which contains some biomethane and then some conventional gasoline and therefore —

section 13.1 — this new definition is designed to deal with what I think is increasingly a reality in fuel that's conventionally available?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that ethanol was dealt with in the budget update in September 2009. So it became taxable, but the carbon tax rate dropped to reflect the renewable fuel content. This section, though, is not dealing with ethanol.

[1555]

We will, I think in

section 13.1, be dealing with the whole issue of the blending of biomethane with other conventional fuels.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

[ Page 7763 ]

B. Ralston: I'll give the minister an opportunity just to continue the response that he was beginning there.

This amendment appears to deal with how the tax is calculated, where there is a mixture of the newly defined biomethane and other fuels. I suppose it would follow the definition of "fuel" set out in the act, obviously.

I'm just wondering the purpose of the section. It appears on first reading that if it can't be discerned what the combined elements are, they are taxed at the same rate as, I suppose, the fuel that contains more carbon. I'm wondering if the minister can explain how this is consistent with the direction of the legislation and what is, I think, increasingly more evident — such mixtures being sold and conventionally available even to ordinary purchasers of gasoline at the gas station.

Hon. K. Falcon: The existing

section 13, I am advised, deals with when you know what the blends are. What 13.1 is dealing with is when you're dealing with the unknown blends. You don't know what the blend is between the biomethane and other conventional fuels. In other words, you're not sure what that allocation is.

The new

section provides the new rules setting out the application of tax when the fuel and the biomethane are blended but the actual amounts of each are not known. So in a blend of a fuel and a biomethane where the amounts of each are unknown, the biomethane is deemed to be that fuel, and the entire volume is taxable at the tax rate for the fuel. Natural gas and biomethane would be one example.

In a blend of a fuel, natural gas and biomethane, where the amounts of each are unknown, the entire volume is deemed to be natural gas and is taxable at the tax rate for natural gas — for example, gas liquids, natural gas and biomethane.

How's that for an answer?

B. Ralston: Is the purpose of the legislation, then, to discourage retailers or wholesalers from creating such combinations where the respective elements can't be discerned? It would appear that if the biomethane is excluded as a fuel, then it would not be subject to the tax. Yet if it's mixed with natural gas or whatever, then it is subject to the tax.

If you can't discern the difference, is that to discourage people from doing that or to only do it and calculate in a reliable way the respective elements? Is that the purpose of this section?

[1600]

Hon. K. Falcon: This, I'm advised, is to ensure that we provide certainty to fuel sellers and to purchasers so they know what they're paying tax on. I understand the act was silent on what taxation would apply to unknown blends, so this is to try and alleviate that uncertainty that was out there and to provide some certainty, as I say, to both fuel sellers and purchasers.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm looking at the present

section 13. It does explain, "If a mixture or blend is composed of one or both of the following combinations…" and sets out several alternatives. It does explain the method by which the tax is to be calculated. It does say in the concluding…. I'm looking at

section 13(1)(b), at the very end: "…by multiplying the rate of tax…under the applicable provision of this Act by the amount of that fuel or combustible in the mixture or blend."

So this amendment… That particular

section didn't deal with the situation where the seller doesn't know what the combination is. Therefore, they wouldn't be able to calculate the tax. Is that what it's designed to remedy?

Hon. K. Falcon: You can't do that calculation without knowing the amount, which is why that section,

section 13, deals only with known blends, because in that case, of course, they know what the blends are, so they can do that calculation.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The issue we're dealing with here under 13.1 is unknown blends. That's where we're trying to provide some clarity so that sellers and purchasers understand how they are to deal with the issue of unknown blends.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

B. Ralston: This is a slightly more substantive amendment under division 2, "Biomethane Credit." I'm assuming that it follows upon the…. Given the amendment in 13.1, this is a method by which it would be calculated, and the credits would be conveyed to retail dealers. But can the minister just explain the purpose of 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to recap here, purchases of 100 percent biomethane are exempt from carbon tax because biomethane, which is methane produced from biomass, is a carbon-neutral fuel. The biomethane of a blend where the amount of the biomethane in the blend is known is also exempt because it is a carbon-neutral fuel.

Terasen Gas, which is now FortisBC, has received permission from the B.C. Utilities Commission to offer a biomethane program whereby purchasers who sign up for the program will make a notional purchase of a specified amount of biomethane, which would be as a

[ Page 7764 ]

percentage or as a set amount of the total natural gas received.

[1605]

The program is based on notional sales of biomethane because once injected into the pipelines, it would not be possible for Terasen to track the actual amount of biomethane any given purchaser would receive.

The credit ensures that purchasers who sign up for this program or a similar program offered by other natural gas retailers do not pay carbon tax on the amount of biomethane that's specified in the contract.

The benefit is structured as a credit rather than an exemption to ensure that the benefit can be properly administered and that the refund FortisBC or other natural gas sellers that may provide a similar program receive is limited to the amount of biomethane they actually inject into the system if they inject less biomethane than they notionally sell under the contracts.

B. Ralston: Thank you for that explanation. Then is the credit calculated on the actual purchase of the biomethane before it's injected into the natural gas distribution system? Is that how it works?

Hon. K. Falcon: The credit is based on what is specified in the contract. If the contract specifies that there is 10 percent biomethane deemed to be part of the contract, then that would invite a 10 percent credit.

B. Ralston: Presumably, this is subject to audit or some form of at least notionally regulatory control in order to make sure that that is followed through on?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes, it would be subject to the same kind of auditing that is undertaken on any other types of credit or rebate programs that involve the private sector and utilize the benefit of the tax system.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

B. Ralston: The plain reading of this

section would suggest to me it's simply there to authorize the director to refund an amount, and perhaps that authorization…. At least it clearly wasn't there in the legislation before. Is that the purpose of this proposed amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that this is to deal with a drafting oversight and to include retail dealers of natural gas. I understand the other fuels are essentially dealt with, with collectors; I believe that's the term they use.

[1610]

In this case, it is ensuring that retail dealers of natural gas also can benefit from the same principle that applies to collectors. For example, if there's an accounting error that was made, they are able to deal with that. It unintentionally excluded retail dealers of natural gas.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

B. Ralston: I'm assuming, based on a reading of this, that this is perhaps a similar drafting error. It's under

section 56, which is entitled "Appeal to minister," and the proposal is to add a refund of tax paid or remitted. One presumably couldn't have an appeal unless there was something of substance to make an appeal about. I'm assuming that's the purpose of this proposed amendment.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. It essentially will provide regulatory authority for current administrative practices.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

B. Ralston: This appears to deal with the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, to make regulations, and these are consequential amendments following on the new definition of "biomethane" and "biomethane credits." Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. You're correct.

Section 10 approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to add

section 10.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day. The amendment expands the

definitions of "estimates" and "vote" to incorporate the concept of revisions to the main estimates during the period from the day they are initially presented to when the final supply act is put before the House.

[SECTION 10.1, by adding the following section:

Financial Administration Act

10.1

Section 1 of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 138, is amended by repealing the

definitions of “estimates” and “vote” and substituting the following:

“estimates” means the estimates of revenue and expenditure for a fiscal year presented to the Legislative Assembly, being

(

a) the main estimates presented annually, and

(

b) any supplementary estimates for the fiscal year,

and includes any replacement of or revision to the estimates made before passage by the Legislative Assembly of the final Supply Act that relates to those estimates;

“vote” means an appropriation under a Supply Act identified in the estimates as a vote.]

On the amendment.

B. Ralston: I think it's fairly straightforward, but can the minister just confirm that these revisions are

[ Page 7765 ]

proposed to deal with the situation that arose this budget year, where one set of estimates was tabled and a replacement or revised set of estimates was tabled in May this year. So the disparity between what was tabled in February 2011 and what was tabled in May 2011 — this is designed to deal with that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes.

Amendment approved.

Section 10.1 approved.

section 11.

B. Ralston: I notice one of the member's capable staff people departing. I'm wondering if there's another one about to join him, or are we to continue? Perhaps I'll just wait a minute, then, if I might, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We'll take a two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

B. Ralston: The proposed two revisions appear to simply give discretion to the minister to exempt property held by a health authority from taxation. That seems to be the combined effect of the two proposed amendments — give the cabinet the opportunity under

section 12, the proposed amendment to

section 21(2), "to limit the exemption from property taxation…or to impose conditions on that exemption."

So is that the purpose — just to provide a bit more flexibility given the particular circumstances of any piece of property?

Hon. K. Falcon: Generally, a health authority property is exempt from taxation. So the amendments here are clarifying that health authority property must be used by or on behalf of the regional health board to qualify for a property tax exemption under the act.

[1620]

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

B. Ralston: This initiates a new

section of proposed amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act, and they appear to be dealing in some considerable detail with a relatively narrow situation that I suppose has arisen, thus requiring the amendment. So can the minister just explain the purpose of the proposed

section 17?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that sometimes homeowner grants are claimed in error. In other words, individuals claim a homeowner grant when they're not entitled to one. So this requires and makes clear, because apparently it was not explicit before, that they must be repaid back to the Minister of Finance and be repaid with interest. So where there was lack of clarity, this makes it explicit.

B. Ralston: I understand the remedial effect that's being intended here, but can the minister advise just how many situations there are where the government has attempted to reclaim a homeowner grant that was paid in error and has not been able to do so?

Hon. K. Falcon: Last year we issued 1,280 notices of disentitlement, which is referring to individuals that have incorrectly claimed the homeowner grant and were not entitled to it.

B. Ralston: And is the minister able to put a dollar value on that and also advise: is it such that, given the state of the legislation, none of those could be reclaimed by the government through any legal process?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have a dollar amount for the member, but I understand we can get that amount to the member if the member wishes. The amendments…. There are remedies in place for someone that does not pay back…. If someone is disentitled and they do not pay back that amount to government, then there are remedies that we do have available, and apparently some of these amendments also touch on some of those remedies.

[1625]

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

B. Ralston: I would have perhaps appreciated the minister's offer to provide the dollar amount, if that's easily calculated. I would think it would be.

I only have five minutes remaining to deal with this bill before the guillotine comes down and cuts off debate.

I did want to ask some questions about proposed

section 14, amendments to the International Business Activity Act. These appear to follow upon a report prepared by the Vancouver International Financial Sector Steering Committee and made some recommendations about rates of taxation to draw the financial institutions to British Columbia.

Page 11 of that report, the international income tax rate. Just so that I have it clear…. This is, I think, something that was being advocated by the report. There are some comparisons about the international income tax

[ Page 7766 ]

rate after these proposed amendments came into place, and there are some comparators.

If this were a corporation carrying on qualifying international activities from a base in B.C…. It also assumes the preferred tax rate for financial institutions. So in Vancouver it would be 16.2 percent; in Beijing, 25 percent; Hong Kong, 17.5 percent; Seoul, 35 percent; Singapore, 18 percent; and New York, 39.9 percent.

Is that the effective rate of taxation that will be in place for the appropriate qualifying activity, and are those international comparisons accurate?

Hon. K. Falcon: The federal rate is 16.5, as the member knows. That is going down on January 1, 1.5 percent. The other income tax rates shown there are based in 2008. So I am going to presume that they are still the same, but I can't confirm that for the member because those are a few years out of date.

B. Ralston: Then just clarify it for the…. It seems to be the point of the presentation that was made here that in order to attract international financial institutions to British Columbia — and I think it's really the relative figures — it was felt necessary, as a matter of policy, that British Columbia's rate for these types of institutions should be lower than that of Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore and New York.

That was the policy direction that's been recommended, and that's the policy direction that this minister supports. Is that correct?

[1630]

Hon. K. Falcon: Chair, I actually think that's a very good and relevant question, and as the member would know, I have a motion tabled with the Clerk to allow us to bring this in force by regulation. One of the reasons was I wanted to have an opportunity as a new minister inheriting this program to be able to take a look at and get more up-to-date information on what exactly this means and what incremental benefits I can be certain will result from this.

That includes exactly what the member said, too, about a comparison of what the international income tax rate competitive situation is. Because, for me, it's not just about who has the lowest rate that is going to necessarily attract additional investment. It will also be what incremental additional benefits I can be given some comfort will genuinely accrue as a result of this.

I think it is important to recognize that this program, when it was initially introduced back in the late '80s…. We were in a whole different environment as a country. I'm getting the notice. Anyhow, we can talk off line about that a little more if you want, Member, but all I would say is our tax situation is much different today than it was back in the late '80s and, certainly, something that I am looking at very carefully.

The Chair: Pursuant to the

schedule tabled in the House, the committee will now conclude its consideration of Bill 2.

Sections 14 to 33 inclusive approved on division.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move the amendments to the commencement table standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Section 34, the amendments provide for the commencement of sections 2.1 and 10.1 at the beginning of this fiscal year and changes the commencement of sections 14 to 22 from a fixed date to implementation by regulation.

[SECTION 34, by adding the following items to the table:

Item Column 1 Provisions of Act Column 2 Commencement 2.1

Section 2.1 April 1, 2011 3.1

Section 10.1 April 1, 2011]

[SECTION 34, by deleting item 5 of the table and substituting the following as indicated:

Item Column 1 Provisions of Act Column 2 Commencement 5 Sections 14 to 22 By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which may be made to bring sections 14 to 22 into force on or after April 1, 2011]

The Chair: Minister, we'll deal with them sequentially.

Section 34, amendment to commencement of sections 2.1 and 10.1 approved on division.

Section 34, amendment to commencement of sections 14 to 22 inclusive approved on division.

Section 34 as amended approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 4:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2011

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. S