2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, November 16, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 2

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Vancouver Island Raiders

R. Cantelon

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Surrey Business Excellence Awards

D. Hayer

Oceanside residents' call for health care facility

S. Fraser

Kali Braukmann

G. Hogg

Restorative justice organization in Tri-Cities area

M. Farnworth

Burnaby Business Excellence Awards

R. Lee

Anti-poverty organization in Prince Rupert

G. Coons

Oral Questions

Impact of harmonized sales tax on school districts

R. Austin

Hon. C. Hansen

N. Macdonald

B. Ralston

Comptroller general report on TransLink and B.C. Ferries

H. Bains

Hon. C. Hansen

G. Coons

Comments by David Hahn on comptroller general report

G. Coons

Hon. C. Hansen

M. Karagianis

M. Farnworth

Crisis line for northern B.C.

B. Simpson

Hon. K. Falcon

Crisis lines on Vancouver Island

S. Fraser

Hon. K. Falcon

Petitions

R. Cantelon

N. Macdonald

V. Huntington

R. Chouhan

A. Dix

K. Corrigan

Motions Without Notice

Position of Joy Illington in Office of Merit Commissioner

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009

Hon. M. de Jong

L. Krog

J. Horgan

S. Simpson

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 18 — Assistance to Shelter Act

Hon. R. Coleman

S. Simpson

P. Pimm

J. Kwan

D. Horne

S. Herbert

N. Letnick

D. Routley

R. Cantelon

H. Lali

D. McRae

G. Coons

M. Sather

B. Routley

Hon. R. Coleman

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment

Hon. B. Penner

R. Fleming

M. Sather

V. Huntington

G. Gentner

C. Trevena

S. Fraser

[ Page 2337 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: I rise in the House today to introduce a constituent of mine by the name of Susan Beiderwieden and a group of students from the University of Victoria here to watch question period and augment their understanding of politics and health care. Please make them welcome.

R. Cantelon: Eight members of the Federation of Oceanside Residents Associations braved wind and storm to come here today. Marlys Diamond, Pat Jacobson, Carol Nicol Dowe, Iris Paige, Dr. Peter Quily, Duane Quily, Tom Davies, Nestor Gayowsky and Dr. Fred Dowe are all here in support of the Oceanside health centre — in support of my efforts as my number one priority to create one — but also to keep an eye on me to make sure I do my job.

[1335]

Tributes

VANCOUVER ISLAND RAIDERS

R. Cantelon: If I may, on another note — on Saturday the Vancouver Island Raiders for the third time in four years have won the Canadian junior football championships in Nanaimo.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a former constituent of mine who is now a resident here in the city of Victoria. His name is Graham Nichol. Would the House please make him most welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I'd like to welcome a very good friend of mine, Mary Tasi, who is also a school trustee in the district of North Vancouver and who also is married to the esteemed Wade Baker, who is a very esteemed aboriginal artist.

Welcome, Mary.

N. Letnick: Up in the gallery today we have my PhD adviser, the professor, Dr. Craig Mitton. He's with the faculty of medicine at UBC, right in Vancouver. I'd like the House to make him feel welcome.

Hon. B. Stewart: At exactly 7:19 a.m. on November 11, 2009, my daughter Lane and her husband Jan welcomed Ruby Annalena Dobbener into the world. I'd like the House to recognize and welcome them.

I'd also like to introduce two guests joining us here today from the public affairs bureau graphic design department. They both have a broad range of experience in projects such as brochures, booklets, policy documents, event displays, official signing documents, certificates and anything involving government identity and branding.

Cal Jones is the senior graphic designer. He has created work for many of the Walt Disney Company's computer software titles as well as his illustration and award-winning design for the province of British Columbia.

Please make them welcome here today.

R. Fleming: I would like to introduce a guest with us today in the gallery. Alfred Okot Ochen, who is from Kampala, Uganda, is a student at Royal Roads University. He has just completed his master's in conflict analysis and dispute resolution. Alfred has lived in Canada now for six years. Shortly, in the new year, he looks forward to becoming a Canadian citizen. This is his first time to the Legislature, and I'd ask the House to please make him feel welcome.

Hon. J. Yap: During the lunch hour today 56 grade 4 students from Brentwood Elementary School came here to participate and to learn from the wonderful AquaVan program, which put on a display here. This is an initiative of the Vancouver Aquarium that brings the whole world of our west coast sea life to the entire province, to schools throughout the province of British Columbia. Today we had the opportunity to have the AquaVan display right here in the rotunda of the Legislature, where these grade 4 youngsters could play and learn about critters like starfish and crabs and all manner of sea life.

Joining them were Dr. John Nightingale, who is the president of the Vancouver Aquarium, as well as, representing one of the main sponsors for the AquaVan program, British Columbia Transmission Corporation, Mr. Julius Pataky. I'd like the House to make all these youngsters and Dr. Nightingale and Mr. Pataky welcome.

[1340]

S. Herbert: I just rise today to thank the motion picture industry of B.C., as it is motion picture industry association week, and congratulate them on all the great work they do for bringing B.C. stories to the public and for the many jobs that they provide our province. I look forward to working with them in the future.

[ Page 2338 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SURREY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

D. Hayer: Each year I speak of the success of business and the recognition that success receives in Surrey. Last week the annual Surrey Board of Trade Business Excellence Awards were held. There are so many businesses within Surrey that just to achieve nomination status is a victory itself.

Therefore, the 2009 Surrey Business Excellence Award winners and nominees are…. For student entrepreneur, Glen Chua and MLiTE Productions and runners-up Jason Bergunder and Julio Nicoletti and Ashish Gurung. For businesses with one to five employees, the winners were Uptown Giftbox Company and runners-up Stride Business Coaching, EH Florist, Tom the Tire Guy, Mehfil Magazine and Printfastic.

For businesses with six to 20 employees, the Honeybee Centre and runners-up the Organic Grocer, Stage 5 Powder Coating and Surrey Eagles. For businesses with more than 21 employees, the winner is Analytic Systems Ware Ltd. and runners-up Nando's Chicken, Fraser Downs, Eaglequest golf course in Coyote Creek; Allegro Imperial Place, Barnes Wheaton in Surrey, Mainland Civic Works and Nanak Foods.

For not-for-profits under $500,000 a year, the association winner is Art Council of Surrey and runners-up Just Beginnings Flowers and Students in Free Enterprise Simon Fraser. For not-for-profits over $500,000 a year the association winner is Surrey Food Bank and runners-up Quest, Tong Louie Family YMCA, Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, Semiahmoo House Society and Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation.

For new business of the year, the winner is Breakwater Marine, and the runners-up are Koi Day Spa, It's Your Move, Keylime Design and Marketing, MLiTE Productions, Static Glass Creations and Nu Experience Design.

For the businessperson of the year the winner is Chuck Keeling of Fraser Downs, and the runners-up are Ken MacKenzie, Gary Dhaliwal and Arvinder Bubber.

I would ask the House to please welcome everybody and say thank you to all the winners.

OCEANSIDE RESIDENTS' CALL FOR

HEALTH CARE FACILITY

S. Fraser: The Oceanside area of Vancouver Island includes the communities of Parksville, Qualicum Beach, Dashwood, Bowser, Deep Bay, Coombs, Errington and Whiskey Creek. They have been standing as one in their push for quality public health care — a facility in the area.

The region has some of the oldest demographics in the country and a catchment area of some 50,000 people, yet there is no hospital. Nanaimo, Comox and Port Alberni are all 40 minutes away. The residents were promised in 2001 a public health centre, and they are rightly holding all of us in this House to account.

Here is what the public facility must include. Urgent care — for the treatment of unexpected illness and injury. Primary care — we need a group of family physicians, nurses and support staff providing a wide range of care over extended hours of operation. Ambulatory care — we need skilled practitioners providing for heart health, pulmonary and asthma, diabetes education, women's health and hypertension.

Fourth, we need diagnostic treatment. This is clinics for palliative care, medical day care, cancer programs, modern diagnostic radiology and on-site laboratory facilities. We need in-patient services with care provided by family physicians for short-stay assessments, convalescence and palliative care.

The Federation of Oceanside Residents Associations has identified their health care needs, which will provide the people of the region with the services that they deserve under the public health care system. It will save lives and make a more efficient system that takes a load off the already overstressed hospitals in the surrounding area.

Representatives are in the audience. They have been waiting eight long years. Let us all in this House ensure that Oceanside residents finally get the public health centre that they deserve.

KALI BRAUKMANN

G. Hogg: Kali Braukmann is a uniquely focused 13-year-old South Surrey resident who is committed to making a difference in our province. She has always had an interest in and a passion for our natural environment, for systems balance and for nature. She has taken two scientist-guided ecotours of the Great Bear rain forest, and she has been inspired.

[1345]

Her experiences, her research and her conversations with leaders and thinkers have led her to take action. She makes presentations to school classes throughout the Lower Mainland, and in August she spoke to over 1,000 people in Whistler at a special event profiling important issues facing our world. She has been interviewed and quoted several times by various media outlets. Her presentations highlight her readings and her experiences.

She talks about her first encounter with a grizzly bear and how that became a life-altering experience. She talks about her concern for the very low salmon runs and how they have affected the grizzly bear population.

Kali is a formidable force who eloquently expresses her opposition to grizzly bear hunting, and she has garnered both attention and support. Kali is confident that she will one day see the end of grizzly bear hunting, and she is a wonderful example to all British Columbians.

[ Page 2339 ]

She got involved, she is raising awareness, she is informed, she is creating forums, she is challenging beliefs, and she is making a difference. She is focused on ending grizzly bear hunting, and I commend her for her energy and her effort. She is helping to make B.C. more aware, more interactive and more compassionate.

Thank you, Kali.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE ORGANIZATION

IN TRI-CITIES AREA

M. Farnworth: November 15 to November 22 is Restorative Justice Week in B.C. With an emphasis on healing, accountability and the involvement of the community, restorative justice provides us with an opportunity to motivate and assist young offenders and help to prevent many first-time criminals from becoming repeat offenders.

From the first offence to more serious crimes, restorative justice also represents a change in how we punish a criminal act. CERA, which stands for Communities Embracing Restorative Action, offers restorative justice services to my community in Port Coquitlam as well as to the communities of Anmore, Belcarra, Coquitlam, New Westminster and Port Moody.

By promoting mediation between victims and offenders, CERA has helped to create a stronger community-based approach to treating criminal offences. A non-profit organization since 1999, CERA values the role and participation of many committed volunteers serving in a myriad of ways as administrators, researchers, teachers and facilitators.

CERA grew out of the strategic planning of the Tri-Cities Family Court and Youth Justice Committee. With a focus on youth diversion programs and other alternatives to the youth criminal justice system, CERA has provided a unique approach in dealing with young offenders in the Tri-Cities area. From its early formation, CERA has served our community successfully for the last ten years. The program is delivered by a small dedicated staff and volunteer facilitators.

I want to acknowledge and thank the staff and volunteers at CERA for all the hard work that they do.

BURNABY BUSINESS EXCELLENCE AWARDS

R. Lee: On November 4 the Burnaby Board of Trade presented their Business Excellence Awards. My city of Burnaby is home to many dynamic and vibrant companies, and this year many of them were nominated for recognition in a variety of categories.

I would like to take a moment to recognize this year's winners. Costco Wholesale Ltd. was the winner of the Burnaby Community Spirit Award. The Environmental Sustainability award went to Hemlock Printers Ltd. Soyaworld Inc. was named business of the year. Glentel Inc. was also inducted into the hall of fame.

I am pleased to note that the business community in my riding of Burnaby North was well represented amongst this year's winners. The business innovation award went to INSINC, a new media company which is the leader in on-line video delivery in Canada.

GigaLuma Technologies Inc. won the Entrepreneurial Spirit award. GigaLuma specializes in designing interactive and engaging e-learning courses and e-information programs.

In the category of Not-For-Profit Organization of the Year, Cameray Child and Family Services took home top honours. It's great to see this community-based organization — which has provided specialized counselling services to children, youth and families in Burnaby and New Westminster since 1972 — receive this recognition.

Cioffi's Meat Market and Deli, known for its quality meats and cheeses and other fine ingredients, was named Small Business of the Year, and Jack Kuyer of the Valley Bakery Ltd. was named Business Person of the Year. His European bakery is celebrating its 51st anniversary this year as well as this award.

I ask that this House join me in recognizing this year's winners of the Burnaby Business Excellence Awards.

[1350]

ANTI-POVERTY ORGANIZATION IN

PRINCE RUPERT

G. Coons: I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about a very valuable and instrumental organization in Prince Rupert: KAPS, the Kaien Anti Poverty Society.

Now, KAPS started a long time ago, but I remember about seven or eight years ago sitting down with a group of people and repurposing the organization to help develop a mission statement.

It has progressed tremendously over the years, with a free store that's open six days per week and a small-scale family support service that operates off the side of a desk — a program that's always looking for a funding source.

The after-school drop-in programs provide recreation and social opportunities for children five to eight years old and an evening program for teens. There are always healthy snacks available, as a majority of kids that come to the programs are always hungry.

The downtown businesses have been extremely generous, and Brian Munson from our local Overwaitea has been their year-round Santa. The KAPS summer camp programs continue to be a huge success, with camping trips and fun for all.

A key project that is currently in the works is a community garden where one can rent a plot of land or be sponsored if one can't afford it. It's hoped that the community garden will evolve into a sustainable entity that grows and sells the produce to maintain itself or ultimately produces and hands out the harvest to those in need.

[ Page 2340 ]

Many thanks go to gardening gurus Andree Fawcett, Ken Shaw, Joe Viscount and Jack Hoekstra for their many hours of dedicated volunteer work. Future plans for the community garden include a basketball court and a surrounding play and picnic area for families and seniors to enjoy.

Come spring 2010, KAPS' hard-working board members Sunflower Porter, Simona Ionita, Isabelle Howard, Erin Yeager, Lianna Faust and manager Colleen Hermanson look forward to their own community economic development project that will ultimately make a difference and have a significant impact in our community.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

ON SCHOOL DISTRICTS

R. Austin: Throughout the election campaign, the B.C. Liberals pledged not to bring in the HST. As soon as it was over, they announced this new tax without consultation or analysis of the impact.

Now a report by the B.C. Association of School Business Officials says the HST will force school districts to pay $24 million more a year. I quote: "B.C.'s K-to-12 sector will face significant cost increases due to the HST." The HST will hit our schools hard at a time when the B.C. Liberals have inflicted cut after cut on our education system, despite their election promise to protect education.

To the Minister of Finance: how does he expect the already cash-strapped school districts to come up with an additional $24 million for the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that, as the member knows, most of Canada's leading economists point to the introduction of the HST as the single most important thing that the province can do to stimulate jobs and energize the economy.

We have made it very clear that, for those entities that are funded through the provincial government budget process, we will acknowledge that there is some increased cost that they may be incurring as a result of the introduction of HST. We will take that into consideration as part of the budget process leading up to the budget that will be tabled next March 2.

R. Austin: Some increased costs. Let's see. School supplies, maintenance, student transportation — these are just some of the things school districts will pay more for under the HST, just when they are struggling to cope with higher MSP costs, downloaded costs to deal with H1N1, unfunded salary increases, cuts to school sports, cuts to annual facilities grants, fewer supports for kids and thousands of overcrowded classrooms. The cuts and cost pressures keep growing, despite the B.C. Liberals' campaign promise to protect the fundamentals.

Now this extra $24 million from the HST will hurt our education system even more, when it can least afford it. Again to the minister…. Either the minister didn't get my earlier question, or he certainly hasn't answered it. My question is simple. Can he explain how he expects school districts to come up with another $24 million for the HST when they are already facing record cuts and downloaded costs?

[1355]

Hon. C. Hansen: Quite frankly, the member is wrong, because we have the highest level of education budget ever in the history of this province. At a time when there is declining enrolment….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: At a time when we have declining enrolment around the province, we have the highest per-student contribution coming from the province of British Columbia to school districts around the province.

When we look at that member's riding in Skeena, where we have seen enrolment drop significantly…. Why? Because of the decline in the forest sector in British Columbia. What the forest industry has said to us is that the single biggest thing that we can do to help the forest sector to generate jobs and to support families in that member's constituency in Skeena is the introduction of the harmonized sales tax.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

R. Austin: I don't think the school trustees in this province are wrong. I don't think the PAC presidents in this province are wrong. They're right, and so are we on this side.

Here's just one example of how the HST will hurt our already cash-strapped school system. For the Prince George school district alone, it will cost over $900,000. In a letter to the government the school district said that the impact of the HST combined with massive funding cuts and downloaded costs has led to "confusion, frustration and despair."

My question again to the Minister of Finance. Communities like Prince George are already seeing the consequences of this government's cuts to education. So will he tell them how exactly they're supposed to come up with millions of dollars more for the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, we have record levels of funding for education at a time when

[ Page 2341 ]

enrolment is declining around the province. As we have said very clearly to school boards, as we have said very clearly to other sectors, every year, as part of the budget process, we look at cost pressures that they're facing, and we will reflect that in the budget that will be tabled on March 2.

We are certainly looking forward to getting more information from the financial officers association. We are doing our own analysis, and we look forward to getting more information in terms of what they've based their numbers on, and that will become part of our budget deliberations.

N. Macdonald: I think most British Columbians would join me in thinking that the assertion that the minister makes here is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that for him to stand up and suggest that there is going to be any certainty or any added funds coming out of this is ridiculous in light of the fact that we have PAC funds that were cut. We have annual facility grants that were supposed to be dependable. They were cut. We have B.C. sports cut. There has been cut after cut after cut.

We have school districts, boards of education, forced by this government to make cuts that no reasonable person would make. We have reduced janitorial services. We have cuts to special education. We have oversized classes. We have cancelled sports programs and — guaranteed — more degradation to come with the HST: $24 million for the HST alone. Where does the Minister of Finance suggest the boards of educations cut? Because they will cut. Surely they will cut. Where does he suggest they make those cuts?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm surprised that the member is jumping to conclusions as to what may or may not be in the Ministry of Education's budget for school districts in the budget that will be tabled next March 2. Every year we have a process of looking at cost pressures that school districts are facing, and every year we develop a budget that helps to reflect what those cost pressures are. Every year we increase the budget in the Ministry of Education.

The greatest benefit for the school district in that member's riding is to make sure that there is a strong forest sector and that there's a strong mining sector in that part of British Columbia.

[1400]

That's what will support families. That's what will stabilize communities, and that's what will ensure that the declining student population in that member's riding can be reversed as we start to build those communities back up because of a dynamic industry base in that community, which is exactly what will happen as a result of the shift to the HST.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: You can tell how desperate a minister is when they go to forestry as a defence. Twenty-five thousand jobs lost. If there was ever a sign of complete B.C. Liberal incompetence, it's B.C. forest policy.

A close second comes with their education policy — a close second. The minister suggests that there is going to be money, and I think we just have to look in the context of what we've heard so far. To get elected, B.C. Liberals promised a $400 million deficit. We came nowhere close to that — did we? It was not true.

To get elected, B.C. Liberals promised no HST. But that didn't happen — did it? B.C. Liberals promised that they would not force cut after cut to public education, but that's what we see. The question is simple. So $24 million is the cost of the HST. What does the Minister of Finance suggest those boards of education cut?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just wait, Minister. We've got a couple of other members that are asking questions back and forth.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is wrong when he talks about cuts in education. We have increased the budget for the Ministry of Education every single year.

We look forward to working with the financial officers in education with regard to the cost pressures that they're facing in the years to come. We all know that there are many of those, and we take all of those into consideration as we develop our budgets. This year will be no exception.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Finance spoke about a tax shift. It is a tax shift all right. It's a $2 billion tax shift onto consumers and small business in this province that many will find devastating in the short run and in the long run.

These costs that are talked about here are hard costs. They're real costs. They're compiled by a knowledgable group of school treasurers and business officials. So $24 million a year in operating costs, $14.7 million additional to the capital budget and a $111 million hit on the overall capital plan that they have before them.

Isn't it really simpler, rather than piling these costs onto school districts and damaging public education, to simply scrap the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: Quite frankly, when you recognize that most of the leading economists in Canada are saying that the shift to the HST is the single most important thing that we can do as a province to stimulate the economy and create jobs, it is absolutely the right thing for British Columbia to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[ Page 2342 ]

B. Ralston: The minister has come to a very late and false awakening as to the benefits of the HST. He didn't mention it in his budget in February. He didn't mention it in his election platform at all before the election last May.

My question is to the minister. Given the damage that this will do to the public education system and given the fact that this is a very knowledgable group, will the minister not agree that rather than inflict damage on the public education system, it would be better to simply get rid of the HST now?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we've heard from this opposition day in and day out is exaggeration and hyperbole. I think this is yet another example of that.

[1405]

Let's put this in perspective. We have a Ministry of Education budget of about $5.5 billion. Yes, we acknowledge that there may be some marginal increase in cost. We will take that into consideration as part of the budget process leading up to the budget that is tabled on March 2.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT

ON TRANSLINK AND B.C. FERRIES

H. Bains: Just over a week ago the comptroller general released a scathing report on B.C. Liberals' handling of TransLink and B.C. Ferries. The report raised serious questions about the lack of accountability at both organizations under the new structure set up by the previous minister. It has been less than two years since the B.C. Liberals made a power grab by replacing the elected representatives on TransLink with an appointed board.

Now, the comptroller general is saying that TransLink needs to be more accountable and that local government, the mayors, be allowed to directly hire and fire and set up the compensation levels of the board members. It's serious stuff.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier ensure that all recommendations by the comptroller general are acted upon immediately?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the report and the analysis that were done by the comptroller general were very constructive and helpful. But let's actually look at where that initiative came from. It was this government and this Minister of Transportation that actually asked that that review of governance be undertaken.

I think that what the comptroller general has pointed out is that in both those organizations, certainly, the governance structure is better than it was before. But there are obviously still some improvements that can be made, and I know that the Minister of Transportation is looking very seriously at the recommendations that the comptroller general has delivered.

H. Bains: The new minister asking to review the work of the previous minister — so much for the confidence of one minister over the other.

This government has allowed both organizations to run wild, and the ratepayers and the taxpayers are paying the price. The comptroller general's report says: "We consider the number of executives in TransLink and its subsidiaries, at 28, excessive."

We also learned through this report that Canada Line may lose $14 million to $21 million per year until 2025. If it weren't for this report, the cost of this secretive P3 contract may never have come to the public attention.

My question again is to the Premier. Will the Premier ensure that all TransLink contracts are made public today, and will the Premier ensure that TransLink and B.C. Ferries are fully accountable and immediately act on all of the recommendations of this report?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, the review that was done by the comptroller general was exactly to accomplish that — to look at areas of governance and accountability. As I mentioned earlier, the recommendations and the report that she has delivered are very constructive, and I know that the Minister of Transportation will be looking at those, going forward.

Let's look at the Canada Line for a minute. The Canada Line — they were hoping that they would actually have ridership in excess of 100,000 passengers a day by 2012. They have already achieved that target.

I've had the pleasure of using the Canada Line. It's a great facility, and the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians that have had the chance to ride it, I think, recognize that it is a great project, great infrastructure. The province of British Columbia is pleased to have been a part of making that happen.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]

G. Coons: There's no denying it: the minister is wrong. The fact is that to clean up TransLink, to clean up B.C. Ferries, this government must clean up their own legislation.

The report clearly blasts B.C. Ferries for the outrageous at-the-trough salaries, inherent conflict of interest within the authority and the board of directors, a failure to look at the interests of the public and the customers, and a complete lack of accountability and transparency.

In opposition in 1998 the Premier, in a letter to the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, wrote: "The fundamental principle must be this: government information belongs to the people not to the government." Will the Premier immediately act on the comptroller's recommendation to make B.C. Ferries subject to the Freedom of Information Act?

[ Page 2343 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as the member probably knows — because I assume he has now read the report — actually the comptroller general was quite complimentary about the management and administration of B.C. Ferries and, in fact, says: "We found the B.C. Ferry Service operations to be well managed and reasonably effective."

I think, as the member knows, the comptroller general has made several recommendations of things that we should consider in making it an even more effective organization. I know that the Minister of Transportation is looking seriously at all of the recommendations and has complimented the comptroller general on the quality of the report.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

COMMENTS BY DAVID HAHN ON

COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT

G. Coons: Obviously the spin over there is worse than a washing machine. The comptroller general said "appropriate…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second. Member, take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

G. Coons: If the minister had read the report…. It mentioned "appropriate financial and management controls," "reasonably well-run," "generally uses sound" process and controls. [Applause.]

I wouldn't be clapping too loud when you have a million-dollar man at the helm. The million-dollar man at the helm of this government's failed privatization model dismissed the comptroller general's report and called it "biased," "nonsense," "craziness" and "dumb." He is an employee appointed by the Premier to run a government-controlled monopoly for British Columbians. Does the Premier agree with his CEO's insulting remarks to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, the comptroller general does find that the B.C. Ferries corporation is well run and that they have been effective in their administration, that they have kept costs down, that they have actually engaged in an appropriate capital program to build new ferries that are required for the coast of British Columbia. That's in pretty sharp contrast to the fast ferries that we saw built under an NDP government, which was an absolute, unmitigated waste of half a billion dollars.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: I have only one question to the Premier. Mr. Hahn is his appointee. He has said of the comptroller general's report that it is "biased," "nonsense," "craziness" and "dumb."

[1415]

Would the Premier please answer us today: does he agree with his CEO's evaluation of this report?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not correct. In fact, Mr. Hahn is appointed by the board of the B.C. Ferries corporation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: My question is very straightforward to the Premier of this province. Does he agree with Mr. Hahn's evaluation of the report?

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Hahn is obviously entitled to his opinions, and he expressed them. I think what is important is that the comptroller general in her report was very complimentary of the administration and direction of B.C. Ferries corporation. She has made some suggestions for improvement, and I know that the Minister of Transportation will be taking those recommendations seriously.

M. Farnworth: Mr. Hahn heads up B.C. Ferries, one of the most important corporations in the province of British Columbia. He is paid more than a million dollars a year to do that, and he has made comments around a comptroller general's report that are pretty damning and damaging.

My question is really clear to the Premier. Does he stand by the comments that Mr. Hahn made, and if he doesn't, will he repudiate them?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will stand by the comments of the comptroller general and the comments that are made in the report. I think that it's a very good piece of work, a very constructive analysis of the governance structure at both B.C. Ferry corporation and TransLink, and I think that the recommendations that have been put forward are worthy of careful consideration. That is exactly what the Minister of Transportation will undertake.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, if you're standing by the comptroller general's report, Minister, will you at least distance yourself from Mr. Hahn's comments and say that they were inappropriate and wrong and that you don't stand by them and that you don't support them one bit?

[ Page 2344 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the Minister of Transportation has met with the CEOs and the board chairs of both of the organizations. I know that she is looking forward to continuing a constructive dialogue with regard to the report and the recommendations contained therein.

CRISIS LINE FOR NORTHERN B.C.

B. Simpson: When we asked the Minister of Health to intervene and prevent the closure of six crisis lines on Vancouver Island, the minister pointed to the northern crisis line as a best practice. The northern crisis line is only open 14 hours. It closes between 11 p.m. and 9 a.m.

My question to the minister is this. Is this the new best practice for crisis line assistance in the province of British Columbia — 14 hours of service? Don't have your crisis in the wee hours?

Hon. K. Falcon: Every part of the province will deliver the service as they deem appropriate. I know that would be a surprise to the member opposite, but I think it actually makes some sense.

Apparently the member opposite is still making the argument that there ought to be six different crisis lines on Vancouver Island. They take great umbrage at the idea that you might have a single crisis line managing the entire Island, just as they do in the north and just as we do with the 811 NurseLine, HealthLink line, in British Columbia, which works very effectively for the people of this province.

I know that the members…. Anything you do to examine administrative overhead and duplication of service, they take great offence at. But I think the public recognizes that even with 20 percent health budget increases, we still need to ask our authorities to spend those dollars wisely. That's what they're doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

B. Simpson: If I understand the minister correctly, if you're in northern British Columbia and you have a crisis between the hours of 11 p.m. and 9 a.m., you're supposed to put it on hold and wait for that administrative timeframe of 9 a.m. in order to be able to get the service you need. That's what the minister is arguing. That's what he's arguing. An administrative decision — because this minister is underfunding crisis lines in this province — is: if you're in northern B.C., put your crisis on hold.

My question to the minister is very explicit. Will the minister intervene in this case and make sure that northern British Columbians have 24-hour crisis line service, not 14 hours — 24 hours?

Hon. K. Falcon: For the benefit of the viewing audience, this arises as a result of a series of questions we had a couple of weeks ago about the Vancouver Island Health Authority moving from six crisis lines to one crisis line to cover the entire Island.

Now the member wants to talk about Northern Health Authority. I'm happy to. If the folks in the north think there could be better service provided, they can certainly talk to the Northern Health Authority. I'm sure the Northern Health Authority would be happy to have that discussion with them.

But it does not take away from the fact that it was that same member opposite in the NDP opposition that, two weeks ago, was standing up saying that it was a terrible thing that the Vancouver Island Health Authority should think about avoiding duplication and administrative overhead throughout the Island by moving to a single line. That's what they did in the north. That's what we do across the province, and that's what they're doing on Vancouver Island.

CRISIS LINES ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Fraser: The minister's justification for closing six crisis lines on Vancouver Island was that the northern B.C. crisis line is covered by one centre. This comparison is not justifiable. Not only is the northern line not available from 11 p.m. until 9 a.m., it also relies on other crisis lines in the province for additional help, especially for suicide cases.

Additionally, the professionals from the northern crisis line themselves say that a single centre is not appropriate, and it's not an appropriate level of service for Vancouver Island because it has three times the population covered by northern crisis lines.

Will the minister go back and review his files, study them and support the six centres that have proven to be tremendously cost-effective on Vancouver Island and proven to save lives?

Hon. K. Falcon: We know that in the province of British Columbia, over the next three years the budget for health care is increasing almost 20 percent. Now, that increase means that there is an additional $2.4 billion being put into health care to cover operating costs.

We also know that in spite of that record level of increase, there are still pressures in the system. So we are asking all the health authorities to try and manage those dollars to make sure they maximize the benefit right across the province.

Now, the NDP oppose any change regardless of how much administrative duplication and copying of services there may be. We have pointed to experiences, including the 811 HealthLink line that provides a uniform service across the province 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in over 130 languages, which works very well. It can also work well on the Island. That's what they're trying to do.

[End of question period.]

[ Page 2345 ]

R. Cantelon: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

R. Cantelon: This is a petition from the Federation of Oceanside Residents. If I may, it includes the Chartwell Residents Association, Qualicum Beach Residents Association, Eaglecrest Residents Association, French Creek Residents Association, North Qualicum Beach Homeowners Association, Maple Bay Ratepayers Association, Oceanside and Oceanside strata plan number in Qualicum Beach, Craig Bay Residents Association, Oceanside Coalition for Strong Communities, Qualicum Beach Chamber of Commerce, Parksville-Qualicum-KAIROS, Qualicum Beach Waterfront Association and the Shorewood.

They've collected 6,000 signatures in support of the work of the task force, and I want to compliment Mayor Ed Mayne, Mayor Teunis Westbroek and Chairman Joe Stanhope and compliment the Vancouver Island Health Authority….

Mr. Speaker: Member, no props, please.

R. Cantelon: Oh. This is the petition. It was labelled clearly so I could identify it, Mr. Speaker. My apologies.

[1425]

The expressions of interest have gone out, and I'm pleased to report that the request for proposals should be out this fall. This petition is to support doing it now.

N. Macdonald: I just have a petition with 30 names. It is opposition to access proposed by the Minister of Transportation regarding access to and from the Trans-Canada Highway from the Donald and Dejorie roads. I present this.

V. Huntington: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

V. Huntington: The petition is from residents of Delta South requesting that the government of British Columbia not proceed with an agreement to implement the harmonized sales tax.

R. Chouhan: I would like to present a petition, please.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

R. Chouhan: I present to the House a petition signed by more than a thousand people opposing the HST.

A. Dix: I am pleased to present a petition of more than a thousand British Columbians in support of ambulance paramedics in British Columbia.

K. Corrigan: I'd like to present a petition here from around 1,000 people who are opposed to the HST.

Motions Without Notice

POSITION OF JOY ILLINGTON IN

OFFICE OF MERIT COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the following:

[That Joy Illington be authorized to provide an administrative role in the Office of the Merit Commissioner until such time as the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner has completed its work.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment — and in this chamber, second reading of Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2).

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 2), 2009

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 20 and move that it be read a second time now. As is the custom on a miscellaneous statutes amendment act of this sort, I will keep my comments brief and restricted to a description

summary of the various statutes that are impacted by the provisions of Bill 20 and a brief description of what those impacts are intended to be.

Beginning with the Animal Disease Control Act and Livestock identification Act, amendments will change the definition of "livestock dealer" in both of these acts so that Alberta farmers dealing with livestock within British Columbia are subject to the same licensing and record-keeping requirements as B.C. farmers.

Amendments to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act clarify that the requirement for safe exit or removal in the case of a fire applies to child day cares with eight or less children as well as to residential care facilities for adults and children.

Amendments to the Community Living Authority Act strengthen Community Living B.C.'s board of governance, bringing it in line with other provincial Crown corporations. These changes enable the selection of board members from a wider pool of individuals with experience managing complex organizations and who have the necessary skill sets to oversee Community Living B.C.

[1430]

[ Page 2346 ]

Amendments to the Criminal Records Review Act will require people in government-funded or -regulated jobs who work with vulnerable adults to undergo a criminal record review before they are hired and every five years thereafter.

With these amendments, British Columbia will become the first province in Canada to require criminal record reviews of employees who work with vulnerable adults. The changes will ensure that those adults who are elderly, frail or have mental or physical disabilities will be better protected from employees with a criminal history of abuse or financial exploitation.

An amendment to the Election Act ensures that campaign spending limits for candidates will apply to candidates in by-elections as well as general elections. Currently, as a result of an oversight, the limits apply only to candidates in general elections.

Amendments to the Forest Act will permit allowable annual cuts to be determined by the chief forester as needed, support recommendations from the Working Round Table on Forestry to make the stumpage system simpler and more transparent, provide a more streamlined process for wood residue export applications involving smaller quantities of residue and, finally, extend the deadline for the area-based allowable annual cut trial program to ensure there is sufficient time to monitor its effectiveness.

Amendments to the Forestry Revitalization Act will assist in the ongoing process of reallocating areas deleted from tree farm licences to first nations agreements, community forest agreements and woodlot licences.

Amendments to the Homeowner Protection Act will confirm that effective July 31, 2009, no new applications for financial assistance under the reconstruction program are being accepted or processed by the Homeowner Protection Office.

Changes to the Hydro and Power Authority Act will repeal outdated sections regarding public notice for tenders and opening tenders for the repair and construction of B.C. Hydro's power plants. Repealed sections are no longer consistent with requirements set out in TILMA — the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — and no longer reflect B.C. Hydro's needs or current utility industry practice.

Amendments to the Land Surveyors Act will mean that a majority rather than all of the voting shares in land surveying companies must be owned by practising land surveyors, making the companies more attractive to investors. Another amendment will mean that a majority rather than all of the directors of land surveying companies must be practising land surveyors.

In addition, up to two lay people will be permitted to sit on the Association of B.C. Land Surveyors management board. The changes will result in greater consistency between B.C. and Alberta legislation governing land surveyors.

Finally, the validation provision respecting the Motor Dealer Act will confirm and validate the collection and setting of fees set by the Motor Vehicle Sales Authority, which are used to cover administrative costs relating to the administration of the act.

Those are my brief comments with respect to the individual provisions and statutes that are covered by Bill 20. I know there will be interest in many if not all of the sections and that they will be canvassed in commentary during second reading and more specifically during the course of the committee debate that will follow.

L. Krog: It's always a pleasure to rise and speak to a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. I often refer to it as the potpourri of government legislation, where you get a little bit of this and a little bit of that all mixed together.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Sometimes, of course, there is the odd occasion where you have to compare it to the story of Helen of Troy and the sacking of Troy. There's sometimes something in there that's a little hidden, which the opposition might think not important because it's contained in a misc bill, as they're referred to.

In this particular case there are two particular aspects of this bill that raise great concern for the opposition. The first is around the changes to the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act. I know my friend the member for Juan de Fuca and the Energy critic will have something to say about that, quite specifically.

The opposition is always concerned when B.C. Hydro and the issue of hydro and public power come before this Legislature. Doing away with public notice for tenders and the requirement to have open tenders with open pricing, we think, may not in fact be good policy.

[1435]

This is clearly a bill where we expect the minister to provide appropriate explanation for the reasoning behind this and why it is in the public interest that these changes be made. Ultimately, B.C. Hydro is a Crown corporation — I think, arguably, the jewel of the Crown corporations — the corporation that delivers electricity to British Columbians without which our society could not function.

Obviously, the opposition views any changes to Hydro that cannot be demonstrated to be in the public interest and to ensure the viability of a Crown corporation and the viability of the most important Crown corporation, arguably…. That gives us concern.

The second aspect of this is around the issue relating to changes with community living. We appreciate that it brings it into compliance or — how shall I say? — into accordance with other provincial corporations. But again, that is an issue.

[ Page 2347 ]

One problem that I think is apparent, as well, is that the government has finally recognized something that I thought they would have corrected a long time ago. That is the amendment respecting spending limits in by-elections. Until now, until this proposed change was brought forward, it's frankly been a bit of a free-for-all, and that's not what British Columbians expect. Just because you have the fortune or misfortune to be a candidate in a by-election doesn't mean you should have some special privilege when it comes to the issue of spending.

As much as the changes to the Land Surveyors Act seem appropriate, the opposition has concern that perhaps not all of the appointees to various boards have in fact represented the best of talents. We are concerned about partisanship. And the land surveyors — I don't know that it was seen as a problem.

The fact is that it's nice to have consistency across the board, but it seems to me that the B.C. land surveyors haven't been a source of great complaint or concern in any constituency to my knowledge. Certainly during my time in this Legislature, I haven't noticed a great deal of complaint that would require some change to that.

Indeed, arguably, with respect to these changes around the voting shares that must be owned by practising land surveyors, it seems to open up the possibility that…. Instead of land surveyors being seen as somewhat independent, in fact, it's almost an encouragement to practise in larger, more businesslike and efficient groups. But that may not necessarily serve the public interest.

With respect to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act, those are obviously changes that apply now to all small community care facilities. I'm glad that the government is recognizing that many British Columbians aren't in significant facilities. They are in smaller facilities.

The Homeowner Protection Act I think is one of the more shocking things that this government has done. The amendments proposed here essentially allow the government to carry out the decision announced in August to scrap the loan program for owners of leaky condos. If there is an issue in British Columbia that affects tens of thousands of people very directly and very significantly, this is it.

It is one thing to bring forward a bill that bans the use of cell phones while driving. Good public policy. No one would disagree with that, and it will impact on thousands and thousands of British Columbians. But as more and more buildings are discovered that have leaky-condo syndrome….

This has been going on in this province for — what? — roughly 15 years or more. When the government scraps the loan program, what it does is put at risk the ability of literally thousands of British Columbians to retain their homes — literally thousands. Indeed, I think I can safely say without exaggeration that if the trends continue: tens of thousands of British Columbians. The stories these people tell you — unfortunately, there are several of these complexes in my constituency — are heart-wrenching.

[1440]

Retirees who bought their homes in many cases with the last of their savings had planned to live through retirement on their fixed incomes. The biggest budgeting item they had in the future was probably the increased cost of living and increasing strata fees. But when you're suddenly stuck with a $100,000 or $120,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 or $50,000 bill in order to retain your home, at a time of life when the possibility of returning to the workforce is exactly nil, that is devastating.

The loan program not only enabled people in those dreadful, difficult circumstances to retain their homes; it also created jobs, because if you could at least get the loan, you could hire contractors. Strata councils could hire the contractors, do the work, generate economic activity, retain a workforce, develop expertise. It had a positive side, if you will. But without the possibility of those loans, for many it will simply mean the abandonment.

It will mean that we will see facilities across this province that formally housed thousands of British Columbians potentially being abandoned and people being forced into bankruptcy. I think at the height of the recession in the United States it was one in ten homes that was in foreclosure in one of the major cities, the old industrial cities in Ohio.

I'm not suggesting, nor do I wish to suggest, that it may be that bad in British Columbia. But clearly, particularly in the urban areas where the condos are prevalent, this is what it means. I am, to say the least, disappointed and dismayed that the government has clearly affirmed its intent by proposing this legislation. It is clear that this government will — and it has — abandoned the condo owners of British Columbia, who face ruin in many cases.

It's one thing if you're a young purchaser and you've got some chance to recover. You can file for bankruptcy and move on. It's another thing when you're in your 40s or 50s with children, and it's another thing when you're in your 60s or 70s living on a fixed income. In those cases, the devastation to people's lives is incalculable.

For the cost to government, compared to the benefit to taxpayers in British Columbia and to condo owners, it just seems to me that on balance, it would have been a pretty easy decision for this government to say that they would continue to support the program.

You can't sustain an economy where people are terrified that if they purchase condos and there's a problem, they won't have access to moneys to do what are often major repairs. At the very time when in this House….

This morning we talked about the environment, we talked about sustainability, and we talked about everybody getting on board with reducing their carbon footprints and reducing the production of greenhouse

[ Page 2348 ]

gases. One of the main ways I think we're all in agreement to do that is to ensure that people live in condensed areas, that they don't spread their footprint out over the land — in short, that they live in condominiums. That's the legal vehicle by which they acquire property ownership — through condo owners, strata.

When the government fails to support those very people who may well be victimized by poor building practices, by shoddy construction, by poor building schemes, by a building code that maybe works or doesn't work…. When those people are victimized.... How can you possibly expect society to continue to invest in condominium ownership when they know there's a risk they might lose everything? They'll lose it in large groups and collectively. Strata units, hundred-unit holders — they all go down, because it has to be shared equally.

Regardless of whether your condominium is leaking…. That's the way it's structured, and that's the way it should be. But that has an enormous impact, and I would have thought that this government would have — in consideration of all of that, and in consideration of the fact that literally hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are living in condos now, are living in strata units — stepped back and said: "We cannot do this."

[1445]

For the savings that we achieve in comparison to the benefits of continuing that program, how can the government step back and do this?

Finally, with respect to the Criminal Records Review Act, through the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, I'm glad. I'm going to finish my remarks today on a semi-positive note. I'm glad the government is doing this. There is no question that in the modern world we have come to understand that it is not just children who get exploited in circumstances where there is a position of trust or where they're helpless or unable to defend themselves. It applies equally to vulnerable adults.

So the government has done the right thing here, and I think it's my duty as a member of the opposition, every once in a while, not too frequently, to compliment the government when they do the right thing. This is the right thing. Whether, in fact, this particular bill and the minutiae of the bill itself are appropriate will be a subject for committee stage, and the opposition will do its job.

Overall, in that section, in the concept of protecting vulnerable adults in British Columbia, that is a good thing. So I look forward to committee stage of this bill, when the opposition will have an opportunity to fully scrutinize what the government intends to do and why they're doing it, because that's our job. As much as they may try to slide a few things through in this misc bill, the opposition's going to do its job.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased to rise and speak at second-stage debate on Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009. It's one of those interesting bills, and my learned colleague from Nanaimo, the Attorney General critic, did a very good job of doing a summation of what government tries to achieve with miscellaneous amendments.

I just want to take a few moments in my responsibilities as opposition Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources critic to talk about

section 6 and

section 7 of this act and why it's important that we do spend time, most importantly at committee stage, at third reading of the bill. Also, it's important that we recognize that contained, as the member for Nanaimo so aptly said, in these misc bills are nuggets that the public really needs to be made aware of.

I can remember some years ago — I think it was 2007 — and my colleague the hon. Minister of Energy will remember this well. There was a miscellaneous statutes amendment act called Bill 30 at that time. Contained within that bill were provisions whereby regional districts and municipal entities were having their rights taken away in the interest of advocating and promoting independent power projects. The member at the time for Peace River South supported the opposition in opposing that bill. So there are often important nuggets contained within miscellaneous amendment acts, and this is, I believe, one of those times.

I would like to read, hon. Speaker, if I could, into the record what we are doing in

part 3,

section 6. It says simply the following: "Sections 14 and 15 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act…1996…are repealed." So that's what it says in the act. For the public at home, there is an explanatory note on the opposite page that tells us what's actually contained in sections 14 and 15 of the hydro act.

Rather than read the condensed version, I have the statutes here before me, and I'm going to just read out what it says. Tenders,

section 14:

"The authority" — that being B.C. Hydro — "must invite tenders by public advertisement, or when impracticable, then by public notice, for the construction and repair of all power plants, except in the case of pressing emergency, if a delay would be injurious to the public interest or if from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically done by the officers and servants of the authority.

So what this

section of the Hydro and Power Authority Act does is provide transparency for the public. It provides transparency for those who want to do business with B.C. Hydro. It states that if there's going to be work done on power plants…. And interestingly, as we move into an era of private sector plants and public sector plants, we don't get a definition in this new miscellaneous amendment whether that is referring explicitly to B.C. Hydro facilities or other facilities that the authority may well contract to.

[1450]

I'm hopeful that when the minister gets an opportunity to respond at third reading, he'll shed some light on

[ Page 2349 ]

these issues. But from my reading of this miscellaneous act and the repeal of

section 14 of the act, which calls for transparency…. So if I want to bid, my friend from Vancouver-Hastings wants to bid, the minister from Langley wants to bid on a project, it has to be publicly advertised. We all have an equal opportunity.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: The member from Langley says he's not interested, but we have two interested parties — my friend from Vancouver-Hastings and myself. We're notified in a public way that the work is going to be done, and we're invited to tender our services for that work. More importantly, once we've submitted our tenders, we are assured by the authority, by B.C. Hydro, that on a certain date they will open those tenders in public so that there can be no doubt that everyone has all of the information there on the table.

Why in the world, after laying that out for you as I have, would the government of British Columbia want to take away that piece of transparency? It's 2009. We're nuts about transparency, on both sides of the House. All members, I think, would agree that we want to ensure to the people of British Columbia that when we are doing public works, we're doing it in an open and a transparent fashion.

Section 14 of the Hydro and Power Authority Act provides for that. I've read it out to you.

Section 15 goes on to say that those prices must be made known. I'll read that to you. It says as follows: "Opening tenders…. The authority must open all tenders received in each case in public at a time and place stated in the advertisement or notice inviting the tenders, and the prices must then be made known." So that's what we're doing today. Someone bids on a power project — as I understand it, a project that's owned and operated by B.C. Hydro — and that tender must be made public. With this bill, we're taking away that transparency.

If somewhere else in this piece of legislation there was a replacement clause that would be providing more certainty and more transparency to the public than we have in the existing act, then I don't think we'd have a quarrel. Perhaps when the minister has an opportunity — he's signalling to the affirmative — to stand in this place and defend this section, I'm certain he'll have answers to those questions.

But at this time of great uncertainty…. I was in the Peace country — the member's neighbourhood — just last week, speaking to some of his constituents about concerns they have with the Site C project on the Peace River. It's a controversial subject. The minister and I have discussed it several times, and I've talked across the province about it, as has he, as have members of government and members of opposition. But in the past number of weeks the uncertainty has been increased, not decreased, in that region and right across B.C.

Some weeks ago the government issued what's called a special direction to the B.C. Utilities Commission on a Friday afternoon, when most good work is done by government. Friday afternoon is when, of course, we learned about the million-dollar man at B.C. Ferries. We learned about the complete fiasco that was governance at B.C. TransLink. These things happen on Friday afternoons. Well, four Fridays ago the government announced that they were issuing a special direction to the Utilities Commission instructing them on how they should view and interpret the work of B.C. Hydro.

On the Monday the Premier and the minister go and attend an independent power producers gabfest in Vancouver, and the Premier didn't want to be without something important to say, so he announced that within two months a special committee of cabinet, with advisory panels not yet known, with terms of reference not yet contemplated, will be turning our regulatory process on its head, upside down. One of the panels is going to be looking at that very issue. We've had a special direction on a Friday to the commission to review Hydro's materials with a certain view — the government's view, not an independent view, but the government's view.

On the Monday we're told that we're going to completely relook at the whole regulatory process, and that afternoon after the Premier made his announcement to his political backers and his financial supporters from the independent power community, we have Bill 20 tabled with these sections repealing transparency and openness with respect to tendering processes at B.C. Hydro.

I have great confidence in the minister that he'll be able to somehow explain to me and to this House and to British Columbians why it is, after this barrage of change with respect to how we operate our public utility here, in terms of how the Utilities Commission reviews the work…

[1455]

Gee, I can remember the Premier, as if it was yesterday, saying in the 1990s that if he were elected…. He was then the opposition leader, as you'll remember, hon. Speaker. He said at the time that he was going to restore the independence of the Utilities Commission. It rings in my ears. It was a mantra for the member from Point Grey. "That's what I'm going to do. Count on it. Take it to the bank. This is what I'm going to do."

Well, four weeks ago we had a special direction. This is after several special directions, of course, but the most recent one was just some weeks ago. Now we have a miscellaneous amendment in Bill 20 that will remove transparency in tendering and purchasing policy at B.C. Hydro.

No press release accompanied this. Quite often when government is doing something that they think is in the public interest, they like to blow their horn. I know my friend from Deer Lake has heard many horns blowing

[ Page 2350 ]

on the Olympic question. If there's ever a piece of good news, you'll get a press release on Monday morning, an update on Monday afternoon and then something just before you go to bed. But on this, not a word, not a peep, nothing.

I suppose if you're removing transparency from a process that has been in place for a number of years…. I mean, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act has been on the statute books for some considerable period of time. No other government saw the necessity of removing transparency from the tendering process. In fact, over the course of the past number of decades we've seen increased transparency in public activity, whether it be internal to government, whether it be directly from reporting entities or from Crown entities.

Yet here we are with Bill 20, as we've had with previous miscellaneous amendments, little nuggets — in this instance removing transparency from the tendering process for power plants in British Columbia.

I'm just concerned. Again, I will seek guidance from the minister at third reading, but I worry a great deal if we're removing transparency when we're talking about spending public money.

We've seen our B.C. Hydro rates go through the roof over the past eight years. The rates have been escalating and escalating and continue to escalate into the next year and the year after that because of B.C. Liberal policies. Now we're not going to be able to understand where those increased costs are coming for the utility and why they're passing those on to ratepayers.

With those brief comments, hon. Speaker…. I know you'd prefer that I go on a little bit longer, but I know that the House has other business they want to move to, so I'll give the floor to my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings.

S. Simpson: Bill 20, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, deals with a whole array of matters. I would like to direct just a couple of comments to one section. The member from Nanaimo reflected on these earlier: the Homeowner Protection Office and changes to that office.

Very specifically, what Bill 20 does is it puts some of the enabling pieces in place to put an end to a program that was commonly known as the leaky-condo loan program. What that program did, as many know, is it provided an opportunity, a loans program. It was an interest-free loans program for those people living in condominiums who are suffering from leaky condos, who have leaky condos and were in a tight box, to be able to pay for their loans, to be able to get loan money through this program, which was, incidentally, paid for by a $750-per-unit fee on new development.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

What's happened now is that the government has taken what I would consider a tragic and nonsensical decision to eliminate this loans program. What this means is that essentially the leaky-condo program has been killed. In justifying this, the Minister of Housing and Social Development, who has responsibility for the Homeowner Protection Office, has spoken about this being a ten-year program and that it has passed its ten-year period.

The minister is correct about that. But what we also know is that the level of demand for this program was significantly greater than, I think, anybody had projected at the time when the program was first put in place. That demand still continues today. The research and the analysis that have been done about the state of affairs suggests there's still a significant amount of units in the province that potentially could be facing the leaky-condo syndrome, for lack of a better term, and that require this assistance.

What we know is that this program is essential, as the member from Nanaimo talked about. There are all kinds of people who, obviously, have invested in their homes. Many people who are getting older, who have purchased condos for their retirement time have now found themselves in situations where they could have demands for assessments on them of up to $70,000 or $80,000 — money that they don't necessarily have or that isn't necessarily available to them.

[1500]

They have a very difficult time to figure out how they're going to pay for that, and the government now has eliminated a program that supported those people to ensure that they could in fact do the repairs on their homes and move forward.

We need to be clear here. This was not a grant program. It was a loan program. It was a program that ensured that people could access the dollars they required. The government provided those guarantees. They could access those dollars, and they could get the repairs done in a timely way.

What we know from speaking to people in the industry and in the sector is that the worst possible thing you can do is stall on getting those repairs done. You want to get them done as quickly as you can because it reduces the costs. It reduces the amount of damage. It allows you to move forward, hopefully — make successful repairs and do them in the most cost-effective way possible. That means moving forward as quickly as possible. But the government has killed that program, and it really makes no sense as to why they did that.

There's been some discussion about the nature of the program, but let's be clear here. It is a loan program. If the concern is about the interest-free nature of that, and there has been some discussion about that, then maybe there was room to have a discussion about whether some level of interest should have been charged to people who

[ Page 2351 ]

participated in the program. That would have been a reasonable discussion to have. But the government didn't have that discussion. Instead, they killed the program. There could have been some discussion.

I've heard the minister previously speak about a number of uses that this program was being used for, which were outside that original intent. If that's the case and if the government felt the program shouldn't have been used for repairs that were outside of what the original intention and purpose were, then make adjustments to tighten up the program to ensure that it gets used for the purposes it was originally intended. That would have been a reasonable thing to do.

The other thing around this program that we need to identify is that we've had a lot of discussion in the last year or so, with the change in the economy in the last year to 18 months, around stimulus and the need for stimulus. I can't imagine what possibly is a better plan than to have stimulus that puts people to work. There are a couple of thousand people in this province who, during the life of this program, made their living by doing these renovations and restoration work on condos.

It put people to work on loan programs, not grant programs, where people could go out and repair these homes. At the end of the day, the benefit is that people went to work. They had good jobs, especially at a time when we have seen some diminishing…. We had seen the construction sector in some trouble.

Put those people to work. Get them banging nails, doing what they do best. Have those jobs on the table. People get their homes repaired. It's a loan program. The money comes back to government.

It seems to me that it just makes sense as a stimulus program and what we need to do. But the government didn't choose to look at this as a stimulus program, didn't choose to say that we're going to make some adjustments to deal with some of the factors around the program that are difficult. Instead, they just killed the program, and Bill 20 provides some amendments that support the decision that was made.

It was a mistake. It's a mistake the government has made. It's like a number of programs that the government has dealt with certainly since the election, where we've seen dramatic changes in public policy — what seemed to be very reactive and shortsighted decisions by the government. Clearly, this decision to kill the leaky-condo program in its entirety is one of those decisions.

It's unfortunate the government didn't see fit to sit down with some of those organizations that work in this sector, whether it be in the building sector or the condominium homeowners sector, and look at ways to make the adjustments to the program that would allow it to continue for those people who required it for the purpose of leaky condos; to deal with the interest-free aspect of that, if that's a problem for the government; to make some adjustments there but make the money available or guarantee the loans in a way that would have ensured that we would continue to have units improved.

Those people who are living in condominiums — who have a difficult time being able to put this money on the table, being able to get these loans to be able to pay their share of assessments — would have the opportunity to be able to access money and access loans. Unfortunately, that hasn't occurred. So that is a

section of the bill that I think is very problematic.

It's not good for stimulus. It's not good for the people who live in these condos, and it certainly won't be good for confidence around condos, even with all the improvements that have been made around warranty programs.

[1505]

We may get to discuss this further when we get to committee stage. But for now, it's just an observation on my part that this is another area where the government has been seriously misguided in terms of doing what is good public policy, doing the kind of things that British Columbians expect and doing the kind of things that would actually help homeowners and the million-odd people who live in condos in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am again obliged to the members who offered their thoughts to the House around the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I also just want to say in passing….

I heard it from the member for Nanaimo and, I think, from the member for Juan de Fuca. I think, in the context of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act or maybe other pieces of legislation as well, they have asked precisely the right kind of question, and that is: what is the public policy that's being served? What is the rationale? What is the justification? Particularly with a bill of this sort, the committee stage debate is designed to provide that opportunity for the discussion.

For example, in the context with the sections dealing with B.C. Hydro and the public tendering, there will be an opportunity for the members to canvass that issue. I expect the minister will also reference some of the agreements that have been signed between the province of British Columbia and other jurisdictions — agreements like TILMA and others, which actually require the kind of transparency and openness in the procurement process that the member has alluded to and I know believes are very important.

There will be an opportunity to review that, and the minister will be happy to canvass that with the members. I was happy to hear some of the commentary around the single amendment to the Election Act to ensure that not just general elections but by-elections have provisions in place that cover the expenditure by candidates — expenses during those by-elections and general elections.

[ Page 2352 ]

The member for Nanaimo offered what I thought was fairly fulsome support on the part of the opposition around the provisions dealing with criminal record reviews for people who are working with seniors in the province. I understand there are issues that have been raised by the member for Vancouver-Hastings and, I think, the member for Nanaimo around the homeowner protection program. They too will be canvassed, I can assure the member, in committee stage.

Members of the House will have an opportunity to review with the minister the likely impacts from the government's point of view. Suffice to say, the government takes a significantly different view and perspective on what the impacts have been to date and what they are likely to be in the future, with particular reference to where interest rates are today compared to where they were when the program started. There will be an opportunity at committee stage for members to engage in that discussion.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll again thank members for their contribution, their thoughts and observations, and move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 20, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2009, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 18, Assistance to Shelter Act.

BILL 18 — ASSISTANCE TO SHELTER ACT

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 18 be read for a second time now.

This bill contains proposed legislation, the Assistance to Shelter Act. Last time I spoke about this bill in first reading, I spoke of a lady named Tracey in Vancouver who died by burning to death on the streets of Vancouver in a makeshift shelter trying to keep warm during a very severe cold weather event.

Outreach workers and police offered to help her through the night and take her to a shelter, but she refused to go, and she died. Now, we may have this afternoon…. I don't know what form the debate will take. I'm sure some are going to get up and rail and say that somebody is doing something for the Olympics. Someone is going to get up and rail about the human rights issues with regards to this.

[1510]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I respect both those opinions of the members opposite as they decide to debate this legislation this afternoon. I would like you, though, as you decide to debate this legislation, to consider whether somebody else should die in a cold-weather event in Vancouver or anywhere else in the province because we did nothing, because we didn't give a tool to somebody to at least take someone to the shelter door to see if we could get them in from the cold with a meal and some assistance to try and turn their lives around.

I will also ask you to think, as we debate this legislation, about the people today who were those outreach workers or police officers that actually tried to save that woman's life in Vancouver last December and who live with the fact today that they had no tool to even try. They live with that today. They live with that every day for the rest of their lives, knowing that maybe there was something they might have been able to do if somebody had said something.

I'd also like you to remember the comments of both the opposition and the government side and the public and the railing of the media at the time that something had to be done — that in a society like ours, how could we possibly not have at least a tool to do something or to try. So the commitment was made to see if we could try and do something.

I'd also like you to take into consideration, as you think about this, that this country goes around the world to help citizens less fortunate than us to turn their lives around in countries that are in all kinds of strife, and that sometimes there's strife in your own back yard that you should be dealing with as well.

Now, as we go through this discussion this afternoon, there are some things contextually, I think, that need to be put in place so people can have a legitimate debate about the issue. The first thing would be that in 2001 in British Columbia, there were about 730 shelter beds. None of them were 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Today there are over 1,500 shelter bed that are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

In addition to that, there are another 1,200 beds in just the Lower Mainland alone for cold weather strategy, and there are additional beds available when the weather gets more severe. That's way more than double the number of shelter beds that were there in 2001.

On the permanent ones and the others I refer to — frankly, hardly any of them existed in any form whatsoever because there was no strategy. While we were doing that, we also decided, as we built the shelter capacity, to increase the capacity for people to come off the streets and have their lives turned around.

We did that, first of all, by saying: "Let's go talk to them. Let's change our strategy of just saying it's bricks

[ Page 2353 ]

and mortar and cutting ribbons and having a celebration to say, 'Boy, we solved the problem today by opening a building,' by actually going and meeting the folks that need our help on our streets in our province, finding out what their issues are one by one with outreach workers, connecting them to housing with supports and helping them turn their lives around."

I know that in just the last three years 7,000 people that were previously homeless have been housed with supports in B.C. Not all of them are still housed, but 80 percent of them are. Some 80 percent of them are still housed today with supports in the system across B.C.

How did we accomplish that? First of all, it was 41 communities with outreach workers across B.C. so that they had people who could go out and connect into supports to actually be able to help those folks with things like literacy or connecting to medical appointments or some form of treatment or support in any type of facility, and by actually having facilities for them like the 46 buildings and properties that have been bought across B.C. — 23 of them being single-room-occupancy hotels in the city of Vancouver.

Some of them were the worst properties that the Vancouver city police had ever seen, including the Backpackers Inn, which received hundreds of phone calls and calls per month with regards to issues of violence and drugs in that particular facility. It was an absolute cesspool.

We bought it, we renovated it, we cleaned it up, and we put in full-time management and put in supports. Today it's supportive housing for people who are turning their lives around. I know that because I've actually met them and talked to them.

[1515]

As a matter of fact, I know that things are better on the streets of British Columbia. I know that in the Downtown Eastside, nobody…. You can argue and debate this afternoon and take your shots, and I welcome hearing that.

But I know because I go down and walk the streets every two to three weeks — and have been for three years — to see the difference that's being made; to see the changes that are happening; to see the new Lux; to see the Woodward's building, with 200-plus units in it; to see the new buildings we've built and the ones under construction, and all the renovations to the buildings that we've bought to change the lives of people and change the shelter capacity in that city and across the province.

I also know that as we've done this, each time I talk privately to a provider, they always say, "You know, there's got to be a way," and sometimes, in the severe situations, that we could go a big step further to maybe save a life.

I also know that we've learned. We've learned that we have folks down there that can't actually do well in supportive housing. They actually need more than that. So that's why the Minister of Health — the last two Ministers of Health — worked with us to do the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions so that folks can go to a longer, sustained treatment facility to deal with their mental illness and addictions. We can actually analyze what they need to be able to go forward in their lives.

We also recognize that we would need the facilities coming out the other end of that, and that's why we're at Riverview today doing renovations to add beds for people for longer-term stay — and in Mission and other communities across B.C. That's why we have things like Baldy Hughes outside of Prince George that's funded so that we can have a therapeutic community grow, which today has over 60 men in it — all doing very well, all building a therapeutic community around addictions and mental health.

As we do all of this, we have to continually find ways to take the next step if it's possible. While we do that, we have to do it for one reason. It's the reason we started the discussion. It's the reason we built Housing Matters B.C. in 2006, our housing strategy, and it's no different today. It's about the people. It's about the individual. It's about a person having the opportunity to turn their life around.

Now, the interesting thing about bringing a piece of legislation like this to a House is you get two points of view — very clear points of view. You have one group that'll say: "This is terrible because you're infringing on someone's human rights. It might not survive a Charter challenge, but by George, there's no way you should do this."

Then you have somebody else who will say: "Well, wait a second. What's the explanation if I oppose this legislation and it wasn't to pass and somebody died on the streets this winter and they looked at me and said, 'Well, you had a chance to do something, and you did nothing; you chose to ignore the fact that there might be an opportunity to save a life'?" That's the conundrum.

The conundrum, frankly, is just that. So you can choose. Do you try, or do you not try? Well, after talking to people in the Downtown Eastside and talking to people in the severe weather thing and after Tracey's death last winter, we said we'd try.

I remember — and I'm not going to pull out the quotes, some of which I have here — members of the opposition actually said: "They should do something about this." I'm sure today they won't want to do this about this. They'll actually oppose the legislation. They'll oppose it because they'll come up with excuses and reasons not to. "What if this were to happen, or what if that were to happen? Where are you going to put the cart?" — which we're already working on, by the way, Members, for the strategy for the winter. But you'll come up with all the excuses.

[ Page 2354 ]

At the end of the day, it will only be the conscience of the individual member to decide what the important thing to do here was. I know what drives me and drives my colleagues as we tried to develop this piece of legislation, and it wasn't easy, by the way. It was probably the toughest piece of legislation I've ever worked on in the almost nine years I've been a cabinet minister.

[1520]

As I came through it each time, as we hit each hurdle or somebody had a concern, I thought to myself: "What if Tracey was my sister? What if Tracey was my daughter and I knew somebody could have stepped up and tried to do something, or I should have?" Would my conscience allow me to do nothing? Or would my conscience say to me: "Try something"? I know there's no perfect solution to this, but I know that you have to at least try to get there, where you get to somewhere.

As we come through the issues with regards to this, people will bring up issues about the shelter providers and concern for their security. We're working with them now. What about the barriers? We're working on that. We've already proved that we can do low-barrier shelters in B.C. and that we've actually found a way to make them work. We'll continue to do it after this winter.

You know, it's an interesting thing when governments spend $56 million annually just on shelters and $400 million on housing annually for people who need it. Then we say to ourselves that even though we're spending it, we shouldn't let them know where it is or try and get them to go in.

One thing I found interesting when I've talked to people on the streets is this. I say: "If it was cold this winter, severely cold, and you had no place to go, would you know where to go?" A lot of people said: "No, I wouldn't." Severe cold weather strategies open up shelters during certain periods of time to help people in significantly tough difficulty situations.

"Do you know what you would get there if you went?" "No, I don't." "Well, maybe if you knew and you had help to get there and could take care of your belongings, would you go if somebody could get you there?" "Yeah, I think I would."

So what's the tool? The tool is being able to say to the person that's a little bit resistant: "Actually, Tracey, I can take you to the shelter, and I'm going to, because I care about you, and I don't want you to freeze out here tonight. When you get there, you can decide. You can make that decision whether you want to stay or not." I think that's important.

I know this is about giving a tool to police and communities. I know what it's about. I know it's about the public actually saying to government and to opposition last winter: "Do something about this. Give us a tool." We will invest more money in shelters in B.C. this year and this winter than at any time in history. While we're doing that, we've actually reduced the number of people that are homeless on the streets of B.C. with the programs we have.

As we do that, we also have to remember the people whose hearts go into this job every single day to try and help people's lives. I talked about the 7,000 people that have been connected to housing with supports through the 41 communities with outreach workers.

But earlier this year government increased the mandate to the Ministry of Housing and Social Development to put together an integration project where they could work with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Children and Families, where they would have the ability to go in and sit down in communities where there are duplications of services and say: "Look, for this cohort of our public, we need to be better integrated."

We need to try and add more seamless services for mental health and addictions. We need to be there for these folks who are really severely having difficult times so that we have the Burnaby Centre and we have Riverview and we have Mission and we have Baldy Hughes and we have the Campbell Valley Centre. We have all of these facilities actually integrated into a system where they can all work together.

We challenged a group of people led by a bureaucrat. Her name is Allison Bond. We said: "Allison, we want you to put together this integration project first, to start with, in five communities across B.C. because we want to see and measure whether the next step of what we need to do will work."

They were Victoria, Surrey, Vancouver, Kelowna and Prince George. We said to this team of people: "Let's get a hundred people additional to that 7,000, who are severely mentally ill and addicted, off our streets per month for the next 18 months, and let's push hard within government to see that the integration can work to deliver for those folks."

[1525]

Well, I've got to compliment my colleagues and ministries across government on this one, because the integration has been pretty phenomenal — whether it be Solicitor General, Ministry of Health, Children and Families, Housing and Social Development or health authorities across B.C.

We've only been at this for six months, not 18 months. We've said 1,800 in 18 months, and our stats at the end of the October? Another 1,700 severely mentally ill and addicted people have been connected with housing and supports because of the intervention program. That's making a difference.

As you make a difference, you try and give the tools to people so you can take it to the next level. So don't go off, in your mind, on something that you all asked for last year when Tracey died. Think about this. You asked, and you yelled, demanded, criticized government and actually talked to yourselves — both in opposition, media and in the community — that there be another

[ Page 2355 ]

tool so that maybe this winter there won't be another Tracey, because somebody had a tool. For me, that's a good enough reason to take the risk. It's a good enough reason to try.

I look forward to the other comments of the members opposite and on this side of the House, as well, as we debate this bill this afternoon and move it through committee stage to see if we can get it passed through this House before this winter, because it is about the person at risk on our streets that we want to have one more tool to help.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to stand and join the debate on Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act.

What the Assistance to Shelter Act essentially does is give the police additional authority to use reasonable force — and we're not clear what that is; we'll talk about that a little bit as I proceed in my comments — to take people off the street and drop them off at shelters. Then they, by this bill, would have the opportunity to choose whether to stay at the shelter or not. The purpose of this is to be done during periods of extreme weather. Again, we'll talk about what constitutes extreme weather. That's essentially what this piece of legislation will do.

What this piece of legislation does not do is create one more unit of housing. It does not provide one more shelter bed anywhere in this province. It doesn't deal with those issues at all.

Now, the minister in his comments today in introducing second reading and speaking to second reading — and the minister certainly had made these comments on previous occasions when talking about this bill and issues that relate to this bill — speaks about Tracey, a tragic case of a woman dying on the street. What we don't hear about when we hear the discussion of Tracey is, of course, that Tracey was resistant to going into a shelter because there was no assurance that her cart or her few possessions would be protected.

Hon. Speaker, if somebody said to you, "Come with me, but leave everything that you own in the world behind," you'd say no too. The minister doesn't talk, when he makes these comments, about the thousand other people who were on the street the night that Tracey tragically died.

The minister in his comments doesn't talk about Darrell Mickasco, who died last February in a fire because he was on the street and had no place to go. He died tragically, and his partner was left with serious injuries that she still suffers from.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

For all the minister's comments about this, this piece of legislation does absolutely nothing that would be of any support or assistance to Tracey or Darrell or any of the thousands of people in Vancouver and the thousands more people across the province who are in the situation that Tracey and Darrell were in before they died.

[1530]

This piece of legislation, Bill 18, will do nothing to support those people who are in that situation.

What the bill does do is this. The bill gives the police additional enforcement authority, and we know from previous documents that there was another iteration of this bill. The previous iteration was the one that said the police could throw people in jail, but we know the government pulled back from that. The documents came out. We had those documents. We introduced those documents. The government backed away from that.

Clearly, it's my belief that the government backed away from saying, "We will throw people in jail," because the lawyers and the counsel for the government said: "You simply can't do this. You cannot go that far." As a result, we have seen this adjustment through Bill 18, which says: "We will walk people up to the door. We will take people by reasonable force." We don't know what "reasonable force" means. Reasonable force will be decided — as with many things in this bill, as with many things the government does — by regulation as to what reasonable force is in this circumstance and what police can and can't do.

That will be a cabinet decision behind closed doors. It will not be a public discussion. It will be a cabinet decision behind closed doors. It's the same as with extreme weather and what extreme weather will and won't be in different places in the province. That the minister and others at the minister's designation…. But the minister also can deem what extreme weather is, and I'm not sure how the minister chooses to do that. I'm not sure what the minister's expertise for that is, but the minister can choose to do that.

We have a situation where the police are given the ability, the authority, to take somebody. There is nothing in this legislation that says anything about protecting the possessions of somebody. There is nothing in here that obliges in any way the police, who decide to enforce this, to move forward and protect those possessions or move those possessions or, if somebody has a pet, to move that pet, as well, and ensure the protection of that pet.

Of course, if those are the few things that somebody owns, why would anybody expect them to turn their back on their few possessions? How could anybody expect them to do that?

The minister talks about assisting people with serious issues around mental illness and addictions. We know that under the Mental Health Act authorities already have the jurisdiction, the capacity and the ability to deal with people who do not have the ability to make those decisions or who they deem to not have the ability to make those decisions on their own accord. Under the Mental Health Act, that authority already exists.

[ Page 2356 ]

We're talking here about a piece of legislation that would say that the government, that police, can take somebody who is of sound mind, who knows exactly what they're doing, who has made a decision not to go into a shelter for any number of reasons and say to them: "You are coming with us whether you like it or not, and we're going to drop you at the door of that shelter." There's nothing in here that obliges them to take any of that person's possessions with them when they go to do that.

What is the reality of this? The minister speaks about talking to people in the community. Well, I've talked to an awful lot of people in the community with this — people here. The people in the community, people who work in the community do not support the minister. They do not support this legislation. They believe that it's flawed and that it will do nothing to support the people the minister talks about today. That's what people who work in the community say.

What they say is that the tragedy of this legislation, should it pass, is that it will do two things. First of all, those people who are afeard and have a concern that the police are going to forcibly move them will look to go farther underground. They will look to go to places where the police can't find them.

[1535]

The tragedy of that, when you talk to people who actually work in the community and work with the homeless, is that people will get hurt. People will get into trouble, and they may not be found because they will be hiding. They'll be hiding from Bill 18 and the consequences of Bill 18.

The second thing that happens is that…. If you're saying to somebody, "You come with me, whether you like it or not. You leave your possessions behind, and we are taking you to a shelter. We are taking you to a shelter, and you can stay there if you like," what are the possibilities, after you have imposed yourself on somebody like that, that they're going to want anything to do with that shelter?

If they're angry and they do stay, what are now the obligations and the exposures you have put on that shelter and on other people there — when you have people who have arrived who are angry because of the way they were treated and the way they were brought to that shelter and under what circumstances they were brought to that shelter? These are real issues.

Let's be clear here when we talk about shelters. Of 25 shelters in Vancouver that we looked at last year, three were barrier-free. Three of those shelters would have provided people the opportunity to have brought their possessions or their pets. The other shelters offered them nothing. They offered them nothing.

Now, the minister talks about wanting to expand this program, wanting to have more of those barrier-free shelters. Well, the minister would have been better placed…. It would have been a better use of the minister and the ministry's time to have invested the time in looking at how to open more barrier-free shelters, get more community outreach workers on the street who worked with people than to have spent his time developing Bill 18.

Under this legislation, we essentially…. It is my belief that all the potential is there to make things worse. Let's be clear. Everybody in this House, I believe, wants people who are on the street and homeless, when the weather gets difficult, to have an opportunity — and when the weather is not difficult — to have a shelter bed available that is inviting to them, that accommodates their needs, that meets their needs around their possessions, that meets their needs around their relationships, where they feel safe, where they feel that those shelters are supervised in a way where people don't feel at risk.

I believe that if we can create and provide those beds for people and if we invested a few more resources at the community level with community support workers — people who know the streets, people who work with people who are homeless every day — and gave them additional supports to go out and work with people who are homeless, to encourage them into those shelters in ways that are collaborative and cooperative, we would get a lot farther than telling the police to go out and grab people and throw them in the back of the car and take them off to a shelter for their own good.

We will do much better if we invest in the community. This legislation doesn't put ten cents more in the community. It doesn't open one more barrier-free shelter. It doesn't provide one more opportunity for one more outreach worker to be out working with the thousands of people on the street who might need help this winter.

The minister also spoke — and it's the minister, interestingly, who raised this question — about a Charter challenge. I have no idea whether there will be a challenge to this or not. There certainly is no shortage of eminent lawyers out there who believe that this legislation can be challenged and overturned, that it is a breach of civil rights, a breach of people's rights, and it can and will be overturned in the courts, should that be pursued into the courts. I believe there's a good possibility that that will occur.

But — and the minister, again, referenced this himself — a lot of those folks, a lot of people in the community, are pretty cynical about what the B.C. Liberal objective with this legislation is. They are cynical about it. For all the hand-wringing of the minister on this one, this really isn't about whether anybody wins a Charter challenge, as long as that challenge isn't realized till sometime after March.

[1540]

There are people who are cynical, and they're cynical because of the lack of support in the community to create new beds. They're cynical that this, in fact, is about

[ Page 2357 ]

the Olympics, that this is what this legislation is about: to provide tools to be able to move people should that decision be made during the Olympics. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but I know there are an awful lot of people in the community who truly believe that that's what the objective behind this is.

Those people in the community are looking for other supports. They're looking for help, but they don't see any help here. They don't see any resources. The minister talks about the SROs that have been purchased. It's a good thing to purchase the SROs, to upgrade the SROs, to create that stable housing.

But let's be very clear. Those SROs didn't provide one more unit of housing. They took existing housing that was in pretty bad shape. They've improved, and they've stabilized it. That's a good thing, but it's wrong to suggest that they created any new housing, because they didn't do that.

What do we need to do here? First of all, we need to work much more closely with the communities that work every day with these challenges. Whether it's the inner city of Vancouver, in Prince George, in Kamloops…. Whatever community it is, we need to be sitting down and working with people in those communities and working on the solutions that work in those communities, and they will be somewhat different in every community.

We need to make the commitment, and the resources have to be committed now. They have to be committed now to open significantly more barrier-free shelter beds in Vancouver and elsewhere in this province where they're required. We need to have those barrier-free beds — those beds and those shelter beds that are inviting to people, where people feel safe and secure and where they know that their stuff is going to be okay too. We haven't had any of that to date.

We need to hear more about the building of housing generally. The government, for all the minister's rhetoric, does not have a record on housing that anybody would be proud of.

If we really want people to be the front-line workers who are going to work with the homeless and are going to look to encourage the homeless, who are going to provide them with information about the availability of shelters — and I think that is an important question…. If they're going to encourage them and support them in getting to those shelters, if they're going to be able to provide transportation to help get them to those shelters, then let it be community outreach workers who have the confidence of homeless people in the community, who work with them day in and day out.

Be clear. That is not the relationship that the police have with the homeless in many cases. It is not a relationship where there's confidence that there is the level of respect there that needs to be. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality. Homeless people do not believe they are respected, in many instances, by the police. Consequently, you have this conflict that makes this difficult to do.

Community outreach workers, who work every day with the homeless, have built that rapport, can build on that rapport. I would say to you, hon. Speaker, that they, working in a collaborative and cooperative fashion, are much, much more likely to get many, many more of those people into shelters in a way that everybody feels good about at the end of the day, rather than to ask police, who have an awful lot of work to do already, to go out and play that role of social worker.

We already know that police are very uncomfortable with that role. They would much rather have somebody else doing it. They know that they are not the best people to be successful on this.

[1545]

It would require the government to make a commitment that was more than rhetorical to deal with that, and the government hasn't made that commitment to date. They have not made that commitment to date.

The bill does none of these things. It does not work with the community. It has not garnered community support for this legislation from the people who work every day in the community. It does not have their support. It does not have the support from people who have legitimate concerns about civil rights and civil liberties. It does not have the support of people who are looking for more housing. It does not have the support of people who want to open more shelters.

It has none of that support. It doesn't have it because the bill does not offer one single solution to any of those issues — not one single solution. It is a knee-jerk reaction by this minister and this government. The concern really has to be that we, arguably, will do more harm than good with Bill 18, in terms of what it does to get people off the street.

The minister talks about the Traceys. We talked about the Darrell Mickascos or the thousands and thousands of British Columbians who are on the street today, who will be on the street this winter and who there will not be a shelter bed for. There will not be a place to take them.

What we know is that Bill 18, in all likelihood, will pass sometime in the next couple of weeks, but you will leave the police in a place that is an untenable situation for them. You will leave the homeless in a situation where they feel…. Those people feel that they are being targeted — not to be found a place to go, not to be found a shelter. They are being targeted to be picked up off the street by the police, and they will look to protect themselves from that by hiding and going farther underground.

You will have community organizations across this province in communities, working with the homeless across this province, who will have to pick up the pieces that this failed legislation will create — the damage that

[ Page 2358 ]

it will do — and try to put them back together with the limited resources that they have.

You will not have enough shelter beds for those folks who want shelter beds. You will certainly not have enough shelter beds for those people who have their few possessions in the world or their pet or for couples who want the opportunity to stay together. You will not have those shelter facilities for them.

If the government is serious about dealing with this issue — and I'd like to think that the minister is serious about wanting to deal with this issue — then put the investment in the place where it will do the most good.

It will not do the most good by having a piece of legislation that talks about the police using reasonable force to drive people into shelters, whether they are interested in being there or not, exposing those shelter operators to potential challenges. It's probably getting most of those people who aren't interested in being there or who are indifferent to it and making them angry so that they, in fact, walk away, when it might be a good thing for them to stay at those shelters. It does nothing to create better opportunities for those folks at all.

We have a piece of legislation in Bill 18 that doesn't deal with the problem and that raises serious levels of cynicism about what the motivations for this legislation are. We hear that every day, and it just could have been so much better. It could have been done so much better.

There could have actually been an assistance-to-shelter act developed in a way that really would put people in shelters and that they would feel good about. They would come, they would be looking to come, and we would be moving forward. Bill 18 simply does not accomplish that.

[1550]

It would be my hope that as we get through this bill — and we're going to get into the committee stage — we will be looking closely at the bill.

I look forward, as do my colleagues, I know, to having a discussion with the minister over some of these details, particularly the long list of things, as this government is wont to do, that will be done by regulation instead of by legislation — the long list of areas where we have no idea what the government's real intentions are and won't know until after some closed-door cabinet meeting, when they come out and announce that these are the rules, instead of putting the rules in the legislation where everybody can look at them and judge them for what they are and for what they aren't.

We will have that discussion with the minister in committee stage over the coming days. We will get to the details of this, and hopefully, the minister will have something to say. As he talked today, the minister said: "We're working with these folks on this" and "We're working with those folks on that."

Maybe we'll get the minister to tell us how many more barrier-free shelter beds he is prepared to pay for and open up in Vancouver in the next couple of weeks. What commitments, and how firm are those commitments that nobody who gets picked up under this legislation will have their possessions left behind? How will that occur? The minister will be able to explain why he thinks it's better to have police do this than to have community workers do it.

There will be a lot of questions to be answered here. I'm sure the minister will be happy to answer them. Those questions will all be there. We'll ask the minister about what advice he got about the legitimacy of this under the Charter and what advice he has received about that. I look forward to having those discussions with the minister. I know a number of my colleagues on the opposition benches look forward to those discussions too. We will move forward. We will see where this legislation lands.

There are many, many people out in the community who are watching this very closely, who certainly share the concerns that we will raise here on this side of the House. They will also be looking with great interest to see how the minister responds to these questions about whether this legislation is credible in terms of meeting the objectives that the minister says it's there to meet or whether it is, in fact, a piece of feel-good legislation that will achieve very little in terms of actually meeting the needs of people who are on the street, who are homeless and who will need support this winter.

P. Pimm: I'll stand today to speak to Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act. I'll be speaking in favour of this act. I'd like to applaud the minister for bringing forward this piece of legislation. I think it is something that's certainly well needed in our province. It's something that shows we're trying to make an effort to help the homeless in times when extreme weather conditions do exist. I think it's something that they will all benefit from.

One of the things we've got to remember is that this legislation is being brought forward for extreme weather conditions. When we talk about extreme weather conditions, I know what extreme weather conditions are, coming from the north. We have some extreme weather conditions, and this kind of legislation will certainly help in our area for sure. It will help in the Vancouver and Lower Mainland area, where last winter they had what I would consider extreme weather conditions.

We have global warming, but it seems like we have some colder conditions in the winter as well. This legislation will certainly help all of those.

There are many people that don't even know that there are extra beds available during extreme weather conditions. For those, I think they'll find that this is going to be something that will be extremely helpful.

I know there are certainly some issues that are out there, and we're going to be working on those issues.

[ Page 2359 ]

I'm sure the minister is going to be working on those issues as time goes on to make sure that the valuables that these people own are brought with them. I know he's working on that sort of thing now. There are going to be some concerns along the way. I think he's done a very good job on bringing those forward as well.

[1555]

The other thing that we must remember is that there's not going to be any…. You're not going to be forced to stay at the facility. It's going to be an opportunity to be brought to the facility, to be shown where the facility is so that you have that opportunity to be there. If you decide that you don't want to be there at that point in time, I guess that will be the decision. At least, you'll know where the facility is, you'll know that you've had the opportunity, an