2010 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 6

CONTENTS

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

G.W. Graham

J. Les

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M208 — Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010

S. Simpson

Bill M209 — Long Term Tenants Protection Act, 2010

S. Chandra Herbert

Bill M210 — Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010

D. Thorne

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Tour de Delta bicycle races

V. Huntington

Clearwater community events and infrastructure

T. Lake

Youth suicide prevention

B. Simpson

North Shore technology companies

R. Sultan

Youth in Philanthropy

R. Fleming

Children's play village at Qualicum Beach School

R. Cantelon

Oral Questions

Pacific Coast University construction costs and harmonized sales tax

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

Implementation of harmonized sales tax

C. James

Hon. C. Hansen

Pacific Coast University construction costs and harmonized sales tax

S. Fraser

Hon. C. Hansen

N. Macdonald

Release of information on fish farm disease outbreaks

V. Huntington

Hon. S. Thomson

Government action on closed-containment fish farming

V. Huntington

Hon. S. Thomson

Government use of ICBC revenues

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

High school child care program for student parents

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

M. Elmore

Government action on domestic violence

M. Mungall

Hon. M. de Jong

K. Corrigan

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, report for the first session of the 39th parliament

B. Ralston

Petitions

S. Hammell

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (N o . 3), 2010 (continued)

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. B. Bennett

L. Krog

N. Macdonald

Hon. M. MacDiarmid

Hon. B. Lekstrom

R. Fleming

J. Horgan

Hon. R. Hawes

Hon. J. Yap

Hon. I. Chong

Hon. R. Coleman

V. Huntington

Hon. M. de Jong

G. Coons

Hon. S. Bond

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Office of the Premier (continued)

C. James

Hon. G. Campbell

[ Page 6051 ]

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2010

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I have two special guests. I had a chance to have lunch with them today. One is Mohsin Abbas. He's the senior editor of Jang Canada , which is one of the largest Urdu newspapers in Pakistan and also outside Pakistan. As well, he's a special correspondent reporter for Hajj news, a television program, and BBC World . And also his partner, Jiesu Luo. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

Tributes

G.W. GRAHam

J. Les: With regret, I advise the House today of the passing of one of my constituents, Mr. G.W. Graham, at the age of 103. Mr. Graham was born in Greenwood, B.C., in 1907. He moved to Chilliwack in 1909.

When he finished his schooling, he took one year of teacher training and then proceeded to teach at Atchelitz Elementary, followed by Robertson Elementary and Sardis Elementary, during which time he got his bachelor's degree and became vice-principal and then principal of Chilliwack high school, now known as Chilliwack Secondary. He left a lasting imprint on his students and on our community.

In 1950 Mr. Graham was appointed school inspector for the provincial government and later became the superintendent of administration for the province's school boards.

In 2005 the Chilliwack school district named its newest middle secondary school after him, known today as G.W. Graham Middle Secondary School.

In 2008 the University of the Fraser Valley presented him with an honorary doctorate degree for his decades of educational leadership.

One of his former students said this: "There are very few people in this world that you will encounter who will have a lifetime effect on you, and he was one of those people. He gave his students a profound sense that we could do anything we wanted to do."

As I said, Mr. Graham left a tremendous mark on this province and on our community, and he will be sorely missed.

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: Joining us in the House today are two friends of mine, important people in the Vernon area. We have His Worship Mayor Wayne Lippert and the chief executive officer for the city of Vernon, Leon Gous. They're here to speak to some ministers. I would like the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Stilwell: I rise today to introduce some important friends and visitors from my riding of Vancouver-Langara who are in the House today. Rabbi Infeld from Beth Israel Synagogue and his son Avishai are here in Victoria and visiting the Legislature building.

As well, there is a group of 30 grade 5 students and 15 adults from St. Anthony of Padua School. I would like the House to please make them all very welcome.

[1340]

L. Popham: Today I had the pleasure of lunching with four lovely ladies: Elsie McMurphy, Sue Geddis, Linda Black and Ruth Howland. Please join me in making them feel welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M208 — Manufactured Home Park

Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010.

S. Simpson: I move introduction of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010.

Motion approved.

S. Simpson: The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010, looks to protect the most vulnerable sector of our society, the owners of mobile homes. Currently tenants renting pads or land in home parks have little protection against eviction for the purposes of development. This group of people faces unique obstacles and barriers when they face an eviction. Their homes are, in most instances, permanent structures and not movable. If they can be moved, the costs are prohibitive for moving a manufactured home, if you can find another location at all.

By amending sections 42 and 44 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, this bill will accomplish the following: require that a park owner provide 12 months' notice of eviction when redeveloping land under any form of tenancy agreement, require that a park owner at the time of eviction pays a tenant's relocation expenses up to $25,000 and require a park owner to pay those tenants who are unable to relocate their manufactured homes because of local building standards an amount equal to the fair market value of the manufactured home as compensation.

[ Page 6052 ]

Mr. Speaker, manufactured home owners are frequently older British Columbians who have chosen this as their retirement option. They have worked hard all their lives, they pay their rent, and they keep their homes and surroundings in good repair. These British Columbians believed they had an arrangement that would allow them some longer-term security for their later years.

The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act will help to ensure that this is the case and, when it is not, will guarantee that they are at least treated with some fairness in terms of their costs and the protection of their asset.

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

Bill M208, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M209 — Long Term Tenants

Protection Act, 2010

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Long Term Tenants Protection Act, 2010.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise to move that this bill be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to ask each and every member of this House for their support for the Long Term Tenants Protection Act, 2010.

This is a bill for Lynn Stevens, an 82-year-old constituent of mine who has fought ovarian cancer and now has had to fight Hollyburn Properties to stay in the only home she has known for the last 41 years — an unfair eviction. This is a bill for the Seafield, which 93- and 82-year-old Mary and Rolly McFall have called home for decades. They're now standing up to their landlord's attempt to jack up rents 73 percent through the geographic area increase clause.

This bill says no to massively jacking up rents of long-term tenants over and above the yearly rent increases they pay year in, year out. This bill puts into law what is there in spirit. It says no to big landlord companies who try to evict long-term tenants under the pretext that it's for use by a caretaker when there are actually other suites available for that use. This bill says yes to the vast majority of renters and landlords who do follow the rules and maintain long-term relationships based on trust, a home based on peace and quiet enjoyment, and steady income for the property owner.

As members will know, there are a number of other changes needed to balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, but this bill is a good first step. The Long Term Tenants Protection Act could be passed into law this week to immediately protect long-term tenants who are currently living under threat of mass eviction or massive rent hikes because of an unbalanced and unfair Residential Tenancy Act.

I hope members of this House will think of Lynn, Mary and Rolly and unite to pass this bill this week. I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M209, Long Term Tenants Protection Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1345]

Bill M210 — Residential Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2010

D. Thorne presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010.

D. Thorne: I move that this bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

D. Thorne: I'm asking today for support for this bill, which amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide more protection for tenants. It increases the amount of notice that a landlord must give a tenant in the event of renovations that require the tenant to vacate their residence and of conversion to strata title, and it increases the compensation payable to tenants under those circumstances.

It allows the tenant the right of first refusal, giving them the option of continuing residence following the renovation or conversion, and prohibits the landlord from raising the rent any more than otherwise would be lawful. Finally, it allows the tenant increased time to pay overdue rent or dispute an eviction notice and increased time before eviction due to the non-payment of rent.

This act is an acknowledgment of the imbalance of power that exists between landlords and tenants, particularly with regards to the many avenues available for landlords to eject tenants with very little notice or compensation. With this act, British Columbia recognizes and protects the rights and interests of tenants in a way that is fair and reasonable to landlords.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading after today.

Bill M210, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 6053 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TOUR DE DELTA BICYCLE RACES

V. Huntington: Delta South is known for nail-biting races that come right down to the wire. Today I would like to talk about one that has been called "fast and furious" and "a wild, colourful, exciting pursuit to the finish with competitors at the top of their game competing all-out for the grand prize." It's the Tour de Delta, and the grand prize is the race jersey.

The Tour de Delta, the brainchild of the member for Delta North, is a fabulous weekend of bike racing that will be celebrating its tenth anniversary two weeks hence. Over 5,000 spectators will watch three rousing events in both men's and women's categories. Athletes from around the world will come to Delta to compete for what has become the richest cycling prize in Canada.

North Delta stages the first event on Friday evening. The prologue is the Race of Truth, and cyclists compete against the clock on special time-trial bikes designed, they say, for speed not comfort. On Saturday morning families from North Delta, Tsawwassen and Ladner bike to east Ladner for the mayor's race and to watch BMX competition.

That evening the Criterium begins with the Kid's Crit and ends with professional riders and a chase described as NASCAR on two wheels. The Criterium core circles the village streets of historic Ladner. The final event is the road race, which begins on Sunday in North Delta, runs through the agricultural lands and ends with a gruelling uphill battle on the streets of Tsawwassen.

Staging the Tour de Delta takes enormous effort, and special thanks are due all the sponsors, organizers, volunteers and billets throughout Delta who make this weekend such a success. My thanks to them all, and my best wishes to all the competitors for a weekend of leg-burning fun.

CLEARWATER COMMUNITY EVENTS

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

T. Lake: On Saturday, May 22, I had the pleasure of spending the day in the beautiful North Thompson community of Clearwater, gateway to Wells Gray Provincial Park, to celebrate May Days and a number of remarkable achievements. The day began with that staple of rural B.C. life, a delicious pancake breakfast served up by the Clearwater Elks Club, followed by a visit to the farmers market where home-grown herbs and handmade jewelry were hits with my wife, Lisa. Although the weather was rainy, the smiles and hospitality were, as always, very warm.

The next stop was an event that, while it might not seem popular to most, is always exciting for those of us who serve the public — the official opening of the new Clearwater sewage lagoon. The Towns for Tomorrow program has enabled the district of Clearwater to add aeration to the lagoon through a system powered by solar energy, greatly reducing the odour from the plant. The only ones more excited about the project than the politicians were the neighbouring residents, who can now enjoy their back yards whichever way the wind is blowing.

[1350]

The skies parted just in time for the May Day parade in which hundreds of residents lined up to watch colourful floats and antique vehicles make their way through the town, while children reached out for the delicious treats thrown by the participants of the parade. The highlight of the day was the opening of the Clearwater skateboard park and tennis courts, and the crowd was treated to a professional skateboarding demonstration.

The community of Clearwater, while facing the many challenges of a rural resource-dependent community, is full of optimistic and resilient people who celebrate their way of life and will continue to build a bright and prosperous future.

youth suicide prevention

B. Simpson: The accidental death of a young person is difficult for all of us to accept, partly because of our innate sense of the unrealized potential of that loss. When a young person makes a choice to end their own life, there is an associated guilt and inevitable questions of how family, friends and the broader society failed that person so deeply that they chose to not face another day.

That's why programs like yellow ribbon suicide prevention are so critical. The goals of this program are to promote awareness that suicide is our collective problem and is preventable; develop broad-based support for suicide prevention and intervention; develop and promote a program to reduce the stigma associated with suicide, which prevents individuals and families from seeking help; and increase media knowledge about youth suicide in proactive ways to prevent it.

For five years now, a group of young people in Quesnel have exemplified an energetic, upbeat and community-based approach to youth suicide prevention. Called Youth Entertaining for Service or the YES group, these young people have raised enough money each year to enable Barb Lamoureux, the Canadian representative of the yellow ribbon campaign, to come to Quesnel to engage their peers in a proactive suicide prevention program.

The YES group are talented musicians, singers, dancers and true entertainers in every sense. They dedicate months of their lives to the preparation of a themed variety show that enthrals audiences for two-plus hours

[ Page 6054 ]

each night, with many people coming back again and again to enjoy their energy, talent and absolute professionalism. Their show titles reflect the range of their talents and their appeal to all audiences. They started with Fabulous Fifties, then Swing the Mood, followed by Feeling Groovy and last year's Gone Country. This year they're busy preparing Rock On.

I ask the members of this House to join me in recognizing this talented group of young people and thank them for the sacrifices they make each year to provide support to young people in their community.

north shore technology companies

R. Sultan: I'd like to talk about some outstanding North Shore entrepreneurs. ClearVision Technologies is growing fast, solving a chronic problem in packaging. Are those flaps on the box glued down right? A production line can glue eight boxes a second. ClearVision's camera photographs each box as it flashes by, decides whether the glue is right and tags rejects with ultraviolet. Every order is defect-free. In the world of packaged goods marketing, that's a breakthrough.

CEO Stephen Robinson was a big hit at the Chicago packaging conference. Augurex Life Sciences Corp. led by Norma Biln, whose resumé runs from Pfizer to Aspreva, has developed a protein biomarker for arthritis. Biomarkers give more accurate diagnoses, allowing medical treatment customized to each patient. It's a growth market. Biomarkers are a $5 billion business growing about 40 percent a year.

Inproheat was founded by an Austrian immigrant who invented submerged combustion, which saves energy in industrial heating. Today it's the ultimate in greenhouse gas reduction. Inproheat works in Chile, Mexico, the United States, Europe and elsewhere. CEO Steve Panz informs me they converted this very Parliament Building to heating by natural gas, but he also observed there seems to be no lack of hot air in the building to start with.

Why is the North Shore fertile ground for such entrepreneurs? Well, for some others, coaching by such mentors as Mike Volker and Ralph Turfus also helps. Thank you, and thanks to them.

youth in philanthropy

R. Fleming: Greater Victoria high school students recently celebrated the culmination of a year of giving back to our local charitable sector. Student-led groups from seven local high schools demonstrated their support for a broad range of causes, community projects and organizations in the form of grants made through the Victoria Foundation's Youth in Philanthropy program.

[1355]

Participating schools this year include Belmont Secondary, Frances Kelsey Secondary, Victoria High School, St. Michael's University, Reynolds Secondary, Oak Bay High and Stelly's.

Originally launched in Victoria in November 2003, the Youth in Philanthropy program is designed to engage young people in proactive, values-led grant making. Students gain important, lifelong leadership skills as they carry out the process of making thoughtful grants to benefit our communities.

Each year the foundation provides grants of $3,000 for each school, $500 of which is retained to add to an established endowment in the school's name. Using Victoria's Vital Signs as a tool, the students learn about critical issues that exist in their community. Students then research the potential charities. They conduct interviews. They conduct on-site visits. Each student member provides input, and then the group as a whole decides on how to allocate the grant-making funds. The written recommendations are then approved by Victoria Foundation's board of directors.

This year the student philanthropists granted a total of $17,500 to 14 different charities in my community, including the Land Conservancy, Victoria Women's Transition House, Passion for Tango, Surrounded by Cedar, Island Wildlife Natural Care Centre, Beacon Community Services, BCSPCA, Victoria Youth Empowerment Society, James Bay Health and Community Services, Victoria Single Parent Resource Centre, Victoria Riding for the Disabled, Extreme Outreach Society, Boys and Girls Club and Victoria Cool Aid Society.

Since 2003 local student grant-makers taking

part in this program have made over 100 grants totalling more than $100,000. I wish all of us in the House to pass on our thanks to them for giving their time so freely this year and for making the program such a success.

CHILDREN'S PLAY VILLAGE

AT QUALICUM BEACH SCHOOL

R. Cantelon: "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." Dorothy might have said those very words had she landed on the school grounds on Sunday afternoon at Qualicum Beach Elementary School, because created that day on the grounds of the school was a storybook village of children-sized, munchkin-sized buildings to inspire a child's imagination.

It all began early Sunday morning with a team of builders, a pile of lumber and supplies in one place and teams of eager builders, without plans, to build these ten child-sized buildings. They included a general store, a hospital, fire hall, bank, post office, theatre, schoolhouse, library and gas station — all built to inspire children's imaginations in an interactive environment.

Around the safety circle a child-sized roadway was built, where children can ride their trikes or pedal cars and learn about the rules of the road with stop and yield signs, visit the various buildings and enjoy some interactive and learning play.

[ Page 6055 ]

It was built in a day — miraculously, as I say. I pounded nails with the Oceanside Development and Construction Association, so I had good help. It rose from the ground from nothing up to an entire village.

Next to the village is an alphabet garden, which features, of course — as you might expect — 26 planters, each in the shape of the letters of the alphabet. These will be tended by volunteer groups in the community who apply to tend and grow vegetables and flowers in the garden, which will be made available to the community.

The entire thing creates a great learning experience and environment for seniors, grandparents, parents and teens to enjoy their imaginations with these interactive buildings. It's all part of the concept of Building Learning Together, which is a coalition of community partners that have joined together to support early learning for children zero to six and their families.

Since 1999 they've grown to represent over a hundred businesses, service clubs and schools, 20 agencies, ministries, as well as over 200 individuals who participate in this interactive development of childhood learning.

Let's congratulate their efforts and congratulate all those who ably built the buildings.

Oral Questions

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY

CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: In Port Alberni plans are underway to build the Pacific Coast University campus, which will house an internationally acclaimed disabled management program. But thanks to the HST, the cost of construction has just gone up by $70,000. So my question is to the Premier. Why is he hitting the Pacific Coast University with the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: I am familiar with the news reports about the concerns around this institution in Port Alberni. Certainly, I am familiar with the good work that has been done by the National Institute of Disability Management and Research going back well over ten years.

[1400]

I am curious as to how they would arrive at that number. Certainly, we are prepared to work with them to show them exactly how the rebate system would work. When we announced that the university sector in British Columbia would be eligible for a 75 percent rebate of the HST, I know that the university sector was very pleased with that because that, in fact, offsets the incremental cost of HST for any typical university.

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

C. James: I'd like to inform the minister that the university obviously did a lot more planning than the government did. This is $70,000 after the partial rebate, which is an additional cost to this university and their construction.

This is an award-winning program. It helps people with disabilities get back to work. It's precisely the kind of program that we should be supporting for our economy and for people with disabilities so they can lead an independent lifestyle. But the Premier and this government are moving ahead with the HST — $70,000 additional cost on this project.

Again, my question is to the Premier. The HST is hurting British Columbians every step of the way. Why won't he just say no to the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: The Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences has not contacted us. We would certainly be pleased to work with them in terms of the calculations they've done.

When you look at the incremental cost of a construction project that would result from the introduction of the harmonized sales tax and the elimination of the provincial sales tax, we believe that for any typical construction of this nature, the rebate should totally offset any incremental cost. But we are prepared to work with them and look at the calculations that they've undertaken.

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

IMPLEMENTATION OF

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: In a September 2009 bulletin the member for Parksville-Qualicum said that the Premier himself had given his unequivocal endorsement to this university.

Now this same Premier and this government are hitting them with the HST, and it's not simply the Pacific Coast University that's going to be hurt by the HST. There are similar programs and similar projects all across this province. As we all know, the government's HST betrayal will hit British Columbians in every aspect of their life.

Again, my question is to the Premier. The public has spoken loud and clear. Will he get rid of the HST now?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's that kind of blatant misrepresentation of the facts that I think has actually resulted in a lot of people's concerns about the harmonized sales tax. As I have said on numerous occasions, about 20 percent of goods and services will be more expensive after the harmonized sales tax. But we also know there are embedded production costs that will actually come

[ Page 6056 ]

out, resulting in prices being lower than they otherwise would be.

Let's actually just talk for a minute about the ability of a typical British Columbia family to afford those little incremental costs that are going to happen to some things. I've mentioned the HST credit that's going to be there for 1.1 million British Columbians. I have mentioned the reduction in personal income tax that we brought in specifically to offset the HST implications.

[1405]

But let's actually just compare what an individual earning $60,000 a year of income would pay today in personal income tax compared to what they would pay in the last year of the NDP government. In 2001 that individual earning $60,000 a year would pay $5,401 a year in personal income tax alone. This year, after our B.C. Liberal budget, that same individual would be paying $2,969. That's over $2,500 less.

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY

CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

S. Fraser: I don't believe anyone in British Columbia believes the minister when he's coming up with these numbers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: Wolfgang Zimmermann is the head of the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. As the key force behind this non-profit university, he has put together a business plan. He did his due diligence, and he is committed to helping people with disabilities.

The construction of this campus is underway. Imagine his shock when he learned that the HST will penalize his project — $70,000 that was not factored into the project, $70,000 more than he was prepared for. To the minister: will he stop punishing initiatives that support British Columbians hurt in the workplace? Will he scrap the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: Let's be clear what Wolfgang Zimmermann is paying today under the PST system on the construction of this facility. He is paying 7 percent provincial sales tax on every single nail, on every barrel of concrete, on every piece of wood, on every bit of wiring, on every bit of plumbing that goes into that facility. He is paying 7 percent PST.

Well, guess what. After July 1 he will be paying 7 percent provincial HST on all of his wood, on all of the material, and yes, on the labour component as well, but guess what. He actually gets 75 percent of that HST rebated as a result of the rebate system that we've put in place for universities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I wonder if that's the same kind of math that led to a $500 million cost overrun on the B.C. Place convention centre.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

S. Fraser: Okay. I'll try, hon. Speaker.

The minister's pretty dismissive of $70,000. That's a huge hit for a project like this. It's a major setback for managers running a tight plan — like Wolfgang Zimmermann — and who want to deliver on budget. So will the minister stop this misleading rhetoric? Will he do what he said he'd do before the election and cancel the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned, the university sector — and I'm assuming that this facility qualifies as part of the university sector — will be entitled to 75 percent of all of the HST that they pay in the form of rebate. That, given the typical university in Canada, will offset all of the incremental costs that they would be facing.

[1410]

But going back to the member's initial comment about how our understandings may not be the same as his, I can tell you what the understandings are on this side of the House.

It's our understanding of the economy in British Columbia that has meant British Columbia now has a triple-A credit rating in this province. It's our understanding of the economy on this side of the House that has actually led to dramatic reductions in provincial income tax for British Columbians; dramatic reductions in the small business tax rate for small businesses in British Columbia; and the elimination of the corporate capital tax, which was strangling the economy in British Columbia.

British Columbia is coming out of the recession faster than any other jurisdiction, and it is because of the economic policies on this side of the House.

N. Macdonald: With the Pacific Coast University, just let's be clear here. The minister says one thing, lays out one scenario, and Mr. Zimmermann lays out completely another. So who to believe? Is it the B.C. Liberals, who

[ Page 6057 ]

promised not to bring in the HST but did bring it in and now routinely trivialize any view on the HST that does not correspond with the 2 percent of British Columbians that agree with the HST?

Is it him? Or is it Wolfgang Zimmermann, just awarded Citizen of the Year in his community, just awarded or co-winner of Volunteer of the Year in his community, recipient of the Order of British Columbia, executive director of the disability fund for forestry workers of B.C., intimately involved in budgeting for the construction of Pacific Coast University?

Who are British Columbians supposed to believe — Wolfgang Zimmermann or this discredited government?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: As someone who was born in Port Alberni…. I think the first time I had learned of the work of Wolfgang Zimmermann was in the mid-1990s, shortly after I was elected, during a time when I was the opposition Labour critic. Certainly, he has done a tremendous job in leading the National Institute of Disability Management and Research. His work now in putting together the Pacific Coast University of Workplace Health Sciences is to be commended and, I think, one of the reasons why everybody in this House, by unanimous vote, actually approved the private bill for the establishment of the Pacific Coast University.

As I said earlier, he has not contacted us, but we would certainly be prepared to work with him, to look at his numbers. Quite frankly, I would be very surprised if the HST results in any incremental costs for the construction of that facility, but we're quite prepared to look at that.

RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON

FISH FARM DISEASE OUTBREAKS

V. Huntington: We've learned through an astonishing four-year-long freedom-of-information request that for almost two decades the Agriculture Ministry has failed to protect wild salmon from the lethal IHN virus and actually fought to keep that information from the public. In spite of an order from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, fish farmers are threatening to keep disease outbreaks secret if the minister releases the reports.

These foreign companies are conducting business in our public waters and are threatening our wild salmon. What are they hiding from us? Did the Minister of Agriculture cave in, as usual, to the salmon farmers? Or has he released the details of the lethal pathogen outbreaks?

Hon. S. Thomson: I can confirm that, in response to the recommendation as a result of the order from the freedom-of-information process, we have released that information and provided it on April 12, within the timeline that was required.

[1415]

As you know, the legislation requires freedom of information but also respects privacy concerns, and we take that very seriously. That process was worked through, but when the decision was made that the information was to be released, we provided that information.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

CLOSED-CONTAINMENT FISH FARMING

V. Huntington: I am pleased to hear that the information has been released, and I hope it's as publicly available as we would wish. But these fish farm operations are breeding IHN and sea lice, in spite of what members opposite have been told. They have destroyed wild salmon runs in Scotland, in Ireland, in much of Norway and in Chile. They are well on their way to destroying them in British Columbia.

The government protects these corporate bullies who have no right at all to tell us what they will and will not report.

When is the Minister of Agriculture going to protect our wild salmon and move these fish farms off migration routes and into closed containment?

Hon. S. Thomson: Our approach to closed containment is consistent with the recommendations of the Pacific Salmon Forum. This was the most comprehensive report that was undertaken. It made recommendations that said there should not be substantial public investment in closed containment until the business case and the economics were proved.

This is emerging technology. Work continues in this area. There is progress being made. Our staff continue to work with organizations such as the Save Our Salmon society and Tides Canada in looking at this technology. We continue to support it. We will continue to work with those organizations.

Also, as you know, we're in the process of negotiating the transfer of regulation of the finfish and the shellfish aquaculture industry to the federal government. The recommendations of the Pacific Salmon Forum are informing those negotiations. We will continue to do that.

We have the most comprehensive environmental regulation in place for this industry, and we'll make sure that we continue to do that as we transition the regulation of this industry to the federal government.

[ Page 6058 ]

GOVERNMENT USE OF ICBC REVENUES

M. Farnworth: The government has shown that they're more than happy to reach into the pockets of ICBC ratepayers to help cover their budget deception. In this year's budget alone they've raided $778 million from ICBC coffers. Now we've learned that the government has passed an order-in-council that gives them the ability to take money from ICBC's basic insurance rate coffers.

My question to the minister responsible for ICBC is: will he ensure that if there are excess moneys, it is drivers who will benefit and not this government?

Hon. M. de Jong: That's precisely what lies at the root of the document to which the member refers. The corporation, as the member knows, goes to the Utilities Commission for consideration of rate matters. The objective is to maintain stability, where possible, ensure that drivers in B.C. continue to enjoy the lowest rates in North America and, where possible, even reduce those rates.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, the problem with the government is that we've seen that they took the $778 million from ICBC coffers. When they decided to give some back to drivers, it was in the form of $1 for the driver, $19 for the government — $1 for the driver, $19 for the government.

What we want and what drivers in this province want is a commitment that if there are any excess funds, revenues, in the basic insurance coffers, that it goes back to the drivers and not to this government — every single penny. Will the minister commit to that and ensure that B.C. drivers don't get hosed at the expense of this government trying to cover up its budget deceptions?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: Happily for the member's sake and members of the assembly, the answer to that question lies in the OIC itself, which is designed to ensure that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has the tools it requires going forward to make submissions to the Utilities Commission around rates that will ensure stability and that British Columbians continue to enjoy the lowest rates in North America.

HIGH SCHOOL CHILD CARE PROGRAM

FOR STUDENT PARENTS

M. Karagianis: The Options Child and Family Centre provides integrated day care services so that young moms can finish high school. But last month the Minister of Children and Families cut the funding.

Heather Kay from Options has written to the minister, pleading for the reinstatement of their funding. The minister has categorized the cuts as only affecting teaching around feeding and diapering and basic parenting. Well, the letter from Options says: "When you have a baby, your whole relationship revolves around feeding and diapering. How you hold your baby, how you look at her and respond to her cues are the beginning of the attachment process."

Every mother knows how important this is, and I do not understand why the minister is so dismissive of the importance of this program. So I'm asking today: will she reinstate the funding fully before this organization is forced to close their doors this month?

Hon. M. Polak: As we've canvassed in this House before, there have been no reductions to funding for day care spaces in British Columbia — not one dollar. In fact, our funding for child care subsidies this year is increasing to provide subsidies to more and more children and their families. This year alone we will spend $300 million on child care and a billion dollars across government on child care, early childhood development and services for children and youth with special needs.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Almost $50,000 was cut from Options. The result, as the minister very well knows, is that they are going to be closing their doors. The letter here states: "Babies have been kept from going into foster care. Mothers have gained confidence and skills to enable them to become better parents."

It goes on to say: "Without this funding, the moms would not be able to continue their education, and for many, dropping out of school would be a downward spiral in their lives."

It's very clear. Will the minister commit today to reinstate this funding so these young moms can finish their high school and get a better start in their lives on a program that has been around for 21 years and will shut its door if this minister does not do the right thing?

Hon. M. Polak: When it comes to funding for the child care spaces, it is still there. When it comes to funding for the subsidies, it is still there. There is no reason for child care spaces to be closing. The funding remains. The funding the member talks about is a small amount to provide for a basic parenting training program — programs that are provided by other community services.

Again, we have seen nothing but increases to what we've been spending and investing in early childhood development and in child care in this province.

M. Elmore: This is a program for at-risk teenage mothers, usually with a difficult history. The letter points out that rarely does a girl enter the program with an intact family and a stable social safety net. Often this program

[ Page 6059 ]

is the only support they have in their goal to fulfil and complete their education. The moms at Options are vulnerable and at a considerable disadvantage, and this minister defends a cut of 43 percent that will kill the program and take away vital day care spaces.

Will the minister finally just do the right thing and guarantee funding for Options so they can stay open next year?

Hon. M. Polak: The member is wrong. This funding does not….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[1425]

Hon. M. Polak: The member is wrong. The funding remains in place for the child care operating funding. The funding remains in place for the subsidy. In fact, we recognize the increased vulnerability of these young women, and that is why women in those circumstances qualify for an enhanced child subsidy that amounts to approximately $100 more than an average child would receive.

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

M. Mungall: Today the domestic violence death review panel released its report. It shows that 12 percent of homicides in British Columbia are due to domestic violence, and it offers recommendations to prevent such deaths in the future.

My question is to today's Solicitor General. Will this government fully implement the recommendations of this report?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it's a good report. I think, in analyzing the 11 incidents that took place between 1995 and this year, the civilian members of the panel had an opportunity to examine the tragic circumstances and make some very thoughtful recommendations. We don't have time here to canvass each one of them, but each one of them appears to me, at first instance, to have merit.

We'll take until the end of June, as provided in the report, to provide a formal response from various departments of government, but I hope the member will take some comfort from the fact that I think, and the government believes, it's a very good report.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, I'm glad the government thinks that the report is good. But I think that people wouldn't be surprised that the domestic violence death review panel report cites the Langley pilot project as a model of how agencies can work together to protect survivors of domestic violence from danger. However, people would be surprised that instead of being rolled out across the province, this government cut the Langley pilot project.

My question again is to the Solicitor General. Why did this government cut this program instead of applying it across the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the report the authors refer to and emphasize the importance of collaboration, coordination, standardization and ensuring that whether people are involved in the investigative, prosecutorial or preventative side, they have the training necessary to identify and, hopefully, prevent domestic violence.

Some of that work is already ongoing. The domestic violence action plan that launched earlier this year speaks to some of those very themes. There is additional work to be done, and the government is going to capitalize on the good work of this report in moving forward to address the scourge of domestic violence in our society.

K. Corrigan: Well, the minister has said that this is a good report. This government can show their commitment to protecting survivors of domestic violence by acting now to restore the Langley pilot project and begin unrolling similar programs in other communities across the province.

Will the Solicitor General show good faith by committing to fully restoring the Langley pilot project today?

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually think — and I wouldn't profess to have committed the entire report to memory — the report goes beyond that. I think the report and the authors speak to the importance of coordinating efforts between divisions of government, coordinating efforts between investigative authorities and prosecutorial authorities and the agencies that exist at the community level to prevent and counsel families who are victims of domestic violence.

Whilst I appreciate and accept the importance that the member attaches to the single program, I think the value of the report that we're dealing with today is that it speaks to a much larger effort that the government is committed to moving forward on in the future as part of the domestic violence action plan.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

B. Ralston: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the first session of the 39th parliament.

[ Page 6060 ]

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

B. Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

B. Ralston: I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

S. Hammell: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

S. Hammell: I'm presenting a petition calling on the British Columbia provincial government to cover the cost of the annual PSA test for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 40 and older.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, I call the continued estimates of the Office of the Premier, and in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 20.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 20 — Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act (N o . 3), 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

section 37 (continued) .

S. Chandra Herbert: Before the lunch hour the minister and myself, as well as a number of the other members, were engaged in a discussion about UBC and the wider property there — who's in charge, who should decide around property development there. The response I got from the minister was that he seemed to suggest that we were suggesting that a gridlock continue at Metro Vancouver and between UBC and so on.

[1435]

Well, the minister is correct that there was concern between Metro Vancouver and UBC about who had the right to develop property, who had to do the consulting — all those kinds of issues. With UBC being the developer, wanting to proceed with major developments there on the campus and in that surrounding area there…. We've certainly seen those with Pacific Spirit Park and the concerns around the beaches, as well as, of course, the farm.

UBC is the developer. Metro Vancouver was trying to push for stronger land use planning there. They would be the regulator, I guess. But instead of dealing with the gridlock by pulling the two parties together, what we've got here is that the government has decided to put the role of regulator into the role of developer. Now we have UBC, an unelected board, largely in charge as a regulator of the property development as well as the developer.

I guess my question to the minister is: is there any concern that this could be a conflict of interest, could lead to decisions — in terms of the development side of things — being torqued because of the desire to develop by that board?

Hon. B. Bennett: No, there is no concern about that. The UBC board doesn't have the final authority to make the decisions around land use; the minister does. The minister determines whether there has been an appropriate amount of consultation done with the people who live on the UBC lands, and whether or not the land use bylaw is in conformance with the legislation that we are discussing here today.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess the question is: why wasn't there a process that brought the two parties together and got them to decide, as Metro Vancouver suggested, rather than this heavy-handed manner where now the minister is basically in charge of the future development for all of that area, and the residents there have little to no say?

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I'm not sure what sort of a process the member has in mind. I can tell the member that a couple of years ago there was an attempt to do a form of mediation between UBC and Metro, and that was not successful. That is, in fact, why Metro and UBC metaphorically threw their hands in the air and said: "You have to do something to help us."

Maybe I don't understand the member's question properly, but if he's suggesting that there was no process of bringing people together here, that would be incorrect. There was a process. It wasn't a flashy, public process. It was a process that involved our staff working together with Metro Vancouver and with UBC to try and find a solution — and the solution exists in this proposed legislation — that would work on an interim basis for UBC and Metro Vancouver.

[ Page 6061 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I don't know that people have said, "Throw your hands in the air," and I know earlier the minister made the suggestion that Metro Vancouver wanted this to happen, that this was a plan that they were calling for, basically.

Well, at least from my reading of Metro Vancouver councillors and board members, I guess, they've talked about this. They talked of "dictatorship." They talked about, "They hit the panic button, and the crisis does not exist" — that they wanted to be involved in this, as they had been trying to do. But instead of being involved, the minister, through this bill, is becoming the boss, basically, of all the residents for that area, without appropriate democratic principles in place.

I don't think residents of that area are calling out for a flashy kind of a thing. I think they're calling out for what we all have in other communities, which is the right to elect decision-makers who affect the development of their neighbourhoods. That's not what we're getting with this bill. What we're getting is the minister as boss, and a largely handpicked board of directors at UBC who are not elected by many of the residents in that area, many of them being staff.

[1440]

I understand the concerns UBC has, as well, with the lands that they control. And I think, instead of appointing oneself boss, one would think that, maybe, a facilitated discussion where there was a timeline laid down to pull the parties together so that we could actually increase the democracy on the campus, as opposed to, instead, where we're at here. They are no further ahead from what I can tell, in terms of democracy for those residents.

The minister has suggested that there has been much call from Metro Vancouver for this kind of thing. Would the minister share his file of communications from Metro Vancouver directors and residents calling for himself to be appointed boss of the area and for the unelected board of directors to control development, both being a regulator as well as a developer? I'd be very curious if the minister has those communications.

Hon. B. Bennett: I can see it's going to be a challenge for me to convince the member and perhaps all the members on the other side that Metro did in fact express publicly on several occasions its desire that the province actually step in and do something. It was virtually impossible for Metro to deal with land use planning issues on UBC lands.

I can tell the member this much. This is a quotation from a mayor who sits on the Metro board. "It's getting more and more difficult to be the government for them" — UBC — "because we're not there." The same mayor said a bit later: "Let me put it in clear terms. We're not prepared to continue with the status quo." Both those quotations were from the mayor of Burnaby.

Another quotation from the same mayor publicly: "We decided clearly that one of two things happens: either we govern, or we don't govern. No more in between." Clearly, there was lots and lots of evidence that Metro was in need of some assistance in this matter, and so was UBC.

Despite what members on the other side might like to suggest — and I'm not saying they haven't had their own private discussions with certain members of the Metro board; I'm sure they have — when our professional staff dealt with their professional staff and with some of their elected folks, they said: "We need you to step in. We need you to help with land use planning on an interim basis and work long term towards more independent government for UBC." That's precisely what government is doing through this legislation.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, to quote the mayor from Burnaby, as the minister did…. This is what the mayor of Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, told the newspaper about what the government decided to do here. The mayor is quoted as saying:

"It's the typical attitude of the province. It's the arrogance that makes it so difficult for us to be able to deal with them, because in essence, UBC was able to persuade them to really remain with the status quo instead of doing something that we think is necessary, and that is to end up with a local government that's democratically elected and responsible to the people who live in the UBC area."

That's the mayor of Burnaby that the minister quoted in support of what has happened here, when very clearly, from his quotations, he is not supportive of the action the government has taken here, instead calling for a locally elected body to represent the area, as opposed to the minister as boss. That's the concern that the minister needs to take into consideration here with this.

I guess the next question is just around appropriate consultation. According to the bill, there's a suggestion that there could be one consultation meeting about a proposed land use plan, or more if they want. I guess the concern that I've got is that when you don't have an elected body, when the minister is in charge but is not in the area, does not get elected by those local folks, you could have one consultation meeting and ram the thing through. The board signs off on it, and then: "Here you go."

The minister, busy with many of his other files in many other communities, probably not wanting to be, in a sense, the mayor and council for that area…. That doesn't appropriately reflect the widespread community use of that area, as opposed to just the use of the university.

Does the minister suggest or feel that it's appropriate just to have one consultation meeting in this situation, as suggested in the bill?

[1445]

[ Page 6062 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member is referring to

section 40 within the MEVA, entitled: "Consultation and public hearing." That is the minimum that will have to be done by UBCM in the land use planning process when they want to bring forward a land use planning bylaw.

For the member's interest, and in the interests of the House, that is the same routine, the same practice that is established for municipalities. It's precisely the same thing. What's better about this particular process that's encompassed by this legislation is that, in fact, the minister, in this case, has a capacity or opportunity to order as much consultation as the minister thinks is necessary, over and above this minimum that is described in the legislation.

In fact, there's actually greater potential for more consultation to take place in this situation with land use planning at UBC than there would ordinarily be in a municipality.

In fact, it is the opposite from what the members are suggesting, with all due respect to them. It's not going to be less democratic, and it's not going to have less consultation. In fact, there's a very good chance that there will be more consultation here than there normally is.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I guess the other difference, of course — and the minister spoke of one difference — is that the board of directors is making that decision that will affect all the residents, a number who are not affiliated with the university. If they don't like the decision, they don't have a vote to be able to tell the board of directors, "Well, we're not voting for you next time because you've decided to do something," which isn't in, in their view, the best interests of that community.

That's the same for everybody else who uses the Pacific Spirit Park area, the beaches, the many public spaces and facilities there — that they don't have a vote to determine…. Instead, what you have is a board of directors who very much want this development. I've seen some of the proposals. Some of them are quite exciting, and some of them are quite concerning.

I guess the concern here is that we're going to have a situation where the minister can order as many consultations as he likes — and I would encourage him to order more, if this bill passes, than what's contemplated in the bill — but even with all of the consultations in the world, if a board or a government, as we've seen here with the HST and other things, decides they want to do something, no matter what the public says, they can do it.

However, in this place we all have consequences when we do one thing. We have the chance of the voters telling us in the next election that they do not appreciate that, and they can vote us out.

I've laid out my concerns around this legislation, and I think it's a concern shared by many. I don't have further questions, because I understand we're going to get very similar answers. I don't think the answers can come that would say actually that it's the local people who will get to democratically elect the people that will be making that decision, because it's not in this bill, unfortunately. I'll close there.

L. Krog: The minister may well be aware that Wreck Beach is a pretty prominent part of Vancouver's park community. The Wreck Beach Preservation Society has raised a number of concerns around the proposed legislation. They've got two very serious concerns.

The first is that they are of the view that the real estate development at UBC should be regulated and restricted so as to prevent adverse impacts on Pacific Spirit Regional Park.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any comment about his view about Pacific Spirit Regional Park and, in particular, around the use of buffer zones and requiring UBC to develop a decent stormwater management system as well.

[1450]

Hon. B. Bennett: In the existing OCP that continues to apply as a result of this legislation, there is a requirement that the land use planning take into account the park that the member mentions, Pacific Spirit Regional Park. As I say, that OCP will continue on.

The transfer of land use planning authority to the minister, with the planning process going to UBCM, in fact does not include the parkland. So just to be clear, UBC will not have the right to do land use planning over the actual park.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response, and I understand the point he's making. But the concern that the society raises is quite a legitimate one. It's one thing to have a park and a boundary in that sacrosanct property. It's another thing when you deal with the lands immediately adjacent that abut against that park.

The concern here is that they would like to see some guarantee around buffer zones, instituting reasonable setbacks, height restrictions, design requirements on lands adjacent to the park, etc. In other words, you're not going to have a wall of condominiums up against Pacific Spirit Park. That's a dramatic example, and I'm not suggesting that's going to happen. But what they are looking for is some kind of guaranteed buffer zone, and I wonder if the minister has some comment on that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I think it would be helpful to the member if I was to just read a short paragraph out of the actual OCP that deals with green areas and specifically with the park. There's a lot of protective language in this particular

section of the OCP, but this is what this particular paragraph says. It says: "The planning and

[ Page 6063 ]

development of areas adjacent to Pacific Spirit Regional Park will only be done in a manner that protects the park values contained in the Pacific Spirit Regional Park Management Plan ."

That's the OCP that's in place today, so it would certainly be the government's position that there is protection for the park and park values under the current OCP. Certainly, the ministry would not support removing that kind of protection at any time in the future.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments. The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim has wisely pointed out to me, though, of course, that an official community plan really has no enforceability process to it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure the minister's going to tell me, but essentially it's a plan.

It's an official community plan. It's a statement of desire, but it doesn't mean, nor does it actually stop, the development taking place in that area. Now the minister, I'm sure, will provide me with his comments in response to that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I hope that I'm responding specifically to the member's question. He'll let me know, I guess, if I'm not. UBC, in their land use planning and their efforts to pass land use planning bylaws, would not be able to pass some sort of a bylaw that's inconsistent with the existing OCP. So that language that I just read out — that does give protection to the park, to the perimeter of the park and the values of the park internally — would have to guide whatever land use planning UBC is doing.

L. Krog: Another point that the group has raised is a concern around UBC apparently not having an effective, state-of-the-art stormwater management regime to avoid polluting the foreshore area, which, as we all know — all of us who had the opportunity to attend the campus or be on the site — is a significant portion. So I wonder if the minister has any comment on that and whether this issue has been raised to him by UBC, Metro Vancouver or others.

[1455]

Hon. B. Bennett: I might need a bit more detail from the member to fully understand what he's asking me. Maybe this will help. I can say that UBC will be involved, and already is involved, in managing stormwater. But as the member knows, the university lands are, for the most part, up fairly high, and the foreshore is down below the cliff.

They actually don't have management responsibilities for the foreshore, that I'm aware of, other than that they have to manage the water that flows from their land to the foreshore, obviously. I don't know if that captures what the member is after or not.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's comments, because obviously, the issue of stormwater management on the site is a concern, particularly of the Wreck Beach Preservation Society, naturally. The cliffs are certainly subject to significant erosion. There is the issue of pollution. I want to raise this as an issue for the minister to understand and be concerned about.

The second thing is…. This is important, because essentially, what this legislation does…. I understand that the minister will say that right now he is the final authority with respect to what happens in municipal government in the province anyway, but the reality is that very rarely, if ever, does the minister disagree with what the city of Nanaimo, the city of Vancouver or the city of Cranbrook does.

In this particular case, there is no elected body, the way we understand it, that will be electing officials who will be making these decisions, passing bylaws, etc. In this circumstance, the minister's view, with great respect, of what happens at UBC is extremely important to this legislation.

The decisions that will be made will be advanced by an unelected board, largely. The minister does talk about their election, but the reality is that you've got the chancellor, the president, 11 persons appointed by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and eight elected persons — three students, three faculty members and two employees.

The reality is that the majority are appointed by the provincial government. The minister is the person ultimately responsible. So I'd like to hear from the minister today: what is his view of development at UBC in a general way? I'm looking for a statement of philosophy and his viewpoint, because clearly his viewpoint is going to have a significant impact on how these sections are actually implemented.

Hon. B. Bennett: Hon. Chair, I think there are two parts to my answer. The first part deals with the first part of the member's question. Just to set the record straight, the minister in this ministry actually does not sign off on or approve bylaws for municipalities. Regional district bylaws do come to this ministry.

You know, I think the member describes that process fairly. The minister is certainly not obligated to sign off on these bylaws. But typically, by the time they get through staff who look at these things and send them back, often, until they're done properly in terms of their formalities…. By the time they do get to the minister, they usually are signed off. But that's not the process that we're setting up through this legislation. The minister will actually have more authority in this situation than, typically, the minister would have in a regional district situation.

[1500]

To the second part of the member's question, there is an existing OCP there that provides…. From everything

[ Page 6064 ]

that I have been told, all of my advice would indicate that the existing OCP is a reasonably good one and that it addresses issues of sustainability. Of course, UBC is known around the world for its grasp of sustainability principles and how it implements them there at the campus.

So in terms of the minister's role here, the minister would be guided by the existing OCP but also by the legislation. When the member has a look at the legislation that's proposed here, he will see, for example, that any changes are supposed to be consistent with a regional growth strategy. There are actually a number of restrictions on what UBC can do to change the existing OCP.

As I said before lunch, this is probably going to be about a two-year process, at least, where we'll be dealing with the existing OCP. For whoever happens to be minister in this ministry, their job will be to make sure that any changes, any bylaws, are consistent with the legislation and with the existing OCP.

L. Krog: Given, as I understand it, that this is an interim measure in a sense, what's the minister's long-term view of how this issue — and I will try and state it objectively — between Metro Vancouver and UBC is going to be resolved? In other words, what's in the minister's contemplation on this? Are we doing this strictly as a stopgap with a view to creating a municipality? Are we going to get something in place, throw it back and let them settle it on their own at some future date? What's the minister's thinking behind this?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the member has been around here long enough. I suspect he has a pretty good appreciation of the complexities of these kinds of negotiations between these entities — an entity like UBC and an entity like Metro. Any time you do any sort of a local government amalgamation or boundary change or anything like that — service sharing, anything like that — it takes time and effort.

To answer the member's question, what I would foresee is that we get started, after this legislation is passed — assuming that it's passed — and take our time to make sure that everyone understands what their roles are. Over a period of time….

We do agree with Metro and with UBC that there is a need for more representative local government there on the Point Grey peninsula. There's significant population growth estimated there, and we think there will be some benefit to moving towards some form of municipal governance.

We do not know what that will be, and this is not unusual. From the year that I've been in the ministry, I can tell the member that we often get into discussions…. I've got discussions happening all over the province on a myriad of different local government issues where we don't know what the result's going to be.

The culture, frankly, in this ministry is one that I think is almost unique in government, and it's that we don't go with necessarily preconceived notions about what the result will be. We want to work with our local government partners and have them help us determine what the result will be, and that's precisely what will happen in this case.

Section 37 approved.

section 38.

L. Krog: If the minister could explain the effect of

section 38.

[1505]

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the narrow purpose of the particular

section the member asks about is to ensure that the director of finance must, in a report to council, set out objectives and policies for each year in relation to the use of tax exemptions for eligible not-for-profit properties under this new

section 396F. More generally, what we're doing with this legislation is that we are amending the Vancouver Charter to allow the city of Vancouver to provide permissive tax exemptions on part or all of the land and improvements owned or held by local charitable, philanthropic or other not-for-profit organizations such as legions.

Sections 38 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

N. Macdonald: This is a reorganization. The minister and I had a discussion on it. Essentially, this is, as I understand it, the forest renewal money. It's being reallocated into a form that is going to broaden the scope of the funds that were still in forest renewal.

The question I have for the minister, just to put it on record, the amount of money that we're talking about here, if this is the appropriate section, and the changes, the necessity for the changes…. There's quite a lot in here, but if the minister could characterize those changes and the amount of money that we're talking about and the purpose for the reorganization of these funds.

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the amount of money is approximately $14 million, and as the member and I discussed the other day, that amount varies to some extent because we're talking about loan proceeds. We're talking about money that was loaned out under the Forest Renewal B.C. program and has been out there, and that is being repaid. So the amount does fluctuate to some extent. My advice is that it's approximately $14 million now that is sitting idle, essentially because of lower uptake on these loans than what Community Futures expected.

[ Page 6065 ]

I think the member wanted me just to give a little bit of context for why we're doing this and what we're doing. Essentially, what we're doing is we're transferring the responsibility for the administration of the — and this is a term of art — forest community business loans program, that portfolio, to this ministry, the Ministry of Community and Rural Development.

This legislation will authorize the ministry to expand the program's lending terms beyond the forest sector to a wider range of sectors, and that includes aquaculture, clean and renewable energy, innovative development and use of technology, manufacturing and tourism.

These loans will still be available to the forest sector in the same communities that they are available today. I think there are something like 33 Community Futures Development Corp. offices involved here and six aboriginal development corporations that have responsibility for disbursing these loans.

So they will have more latitude in terms of where the money is loaned out. Otherwise, our concern is, based on the evidence, that that money is going to sit there and not be able to get out and help our rural communities. So that's the basis of the legislation.

N. Macdonald: Just one final question then, just to paraphrase what the minister has expressed here. People on the ground that would be going for these loans would not notice an administrative difference. All that they would notice is that the types of loans that will be offered have been broadened. But in terms of how they would apply, all of those processes would remain very familiar to people. If that's correct, then I think that will be the end of the questions on this section.

[1510]

Hon. B. Bennett: To answer the member's question, the only thing that will change with this legislation is the terms of reference for what kinds of enterprises will be successful in getting loan funds. Now, under the current legislation, it's limited to forestry-based or forestry-related enterprises. That scope will expand so that the Community Futures offices and the aboriginal offices, the development corporations, will be able to choose — for example, in the member's riding, tourism enterprises, tourism projects as opposed to simply forestry projects.

I will tell the member that although this is not in the legislation, I am advised by staff that the loan amounts will also be able to be higher than they have been in the past. I think the limit right now is $75,000. The proposal will be to the lenders that they go as high as $150,000 — again, thinking that that's going to enable more economic development, more job creation, in rural B.C.

Section 41 approved.

section 42.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister can just confirm that presently, the use of video cameras in the school system in the province…. If she could just comment on it. How extensive is it? Does she have any knowledge of it? Is it permitted, presumably, under the statute already?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: First, I'd like to say that with me today from the Ministry of Education are Sherri Mohoruk, superintendent, liaison division; and Mary Shaw, who is the manager of governance and legislation and also registrar of student appeals in the student appeals branch.

[1515]

We missed the last few words of what the member said, but I'll answer the part that I did hear. Then if I've missed part of his question, he could let us know. All three of us missed it, unfortunately — the last few words.

But with respect to the… Prior to the legislation we're aware that…. We actually surveyed the school districts. We did not hear back from all the districts, but of those that we had replies from, 36 of the districts have policies in place regarding video surveillance, but in fact 26 of the districts have video surveillance cameras in operation in some of their schools at this time.

L. Krog: I'm sure the member for Skeena will be able to tell me the number of school districts in the province of British Columbia.

So approximately half of the school districts in the province of British Columbia have cameras already installed now. Is the minister satisfied that the use of those cameras is, in fact, presently permissible under the School Act, or is that the reason for this statutory change?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The current use of video surveillance cameras is governed under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. It would continue to be governed under that after the legislation, should the legislation pass.

L. Krog: Given that we've got half of the districts using video surveillance cameras and half not using them, was this legislative amendment a request through the B.C. School Trustees? Was it a request from the school districts? I mean, where does this come from? I must say to the minister that on our side of the House we're not aware of any public outcry or demand from any sources for this legislative amendment.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This was an election platform commitment. We had heard from parents that they would like to have the option to have video surveillance equipment installed in schools if they believed it would add to the safety of their children.

[ Page 6066 ]

L. Krog: I want to thank the minister for her answer. As I recall, it was a campaign commitment in writing that the Liberal government wouldn't institute the HST, and that campaign commitment seemed to go by the wayside and meet with what I think can be fairly described as a significant public opposition to that position.

Is the minister telling this House that the real reason — indeed, it appears to be the only reason — that this legislative amendment is before the House is because in some obscure part of the Liberal platform a commitment was made to basically give government sanction to the installation of video surveillance cameras across the B.C. school system?

[1520]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We previously had a situation where school boards were making the decision about video surveillance cameras in isolation, and we heard from parents that they would like the option to have input.

Further, through the use of school planning councils, it will not only be parents that will have a voice, but it will also be the principal, teachers and, in the case of secondary schools, students, as well, that will have a voice.

We certainly do support parents. We think that parents are an integral part of the school community and that it is important for them to have a voice where they wish to.

L. Krog: This amendment falls into the

section of the School Act that's defined as division 2, "Powers and Duties."

The concept that a board, with the approval of a school planning council, which may or may not be functioning very well, is in a position to have cameras installed in the school facility means, as I see no restriction on this, that in theory — and I'm asking the minister to comment on this — in our wonderful democratic system, as we can elect anyone…. A school board could in theory install cameras in a grade 1 classroom.

The way I read this legislation, it literally gives the authority to a school board to install video surveillance cameras in a grade 1 classroom.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The current status is that a school board is governed by current legislation, by freedom-of-information and privacy legislation. The change here is that if a board was contemplating video surveillance cameras or if a school planning council requested it, the consultation has to take place.

There are clear indications for when these surveillance cameras could be installed. A board may install and operate a camera in a school facility or on school land for the purposes of protecting the safety of individuals in a school facility, an individual's belongings or school property.

So there are specifics in the legislation that talk about the circumstances under which a surveillance camera…. But the main difference between the current state and the legislation is that the school planning council now must be consulted with.

L. Krog: I think I heard the minister in a somewhat lengthy way give a yes to my last question. She talked and referred to the purposes of protecting, and she's quite right. The legislation is specific. It said you may install them "for the purposes of protecting (

a) the safety of individuals in a school facility or on school land."

If there's regular bullying and beating going on behind the backstop at the school, we'd want to stop that. But this section, with great respect to the minister, I would suggest…. When we get to

section (b), it says: "an individual's belongings in a school facility or on school land." It means, quite literally, that if Jane is stealing Dick's lunch, you get to install a camera.

That, I would respectfully suggest to the minister, is the literal and appropriate legal

interpretation of this section. If there is a mass of stealing lunches in grade 2…. In the law you always try and look at the most extreme cases. That's why law is drawn narrowly. That's literally what that

section says. Does the minister agree or disagree?

[1525]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Although he does not seem to be taking this matter very seriously, I believe that the boards of education involved as well as the school planning councils would, in fact, take the video surveillance camera issue very seriously and would contemplate carefully the use of these cameras and would do it wisely. There's no indication that they're doing other than that at present.

Although, as I've said, he seems to be trivializing it, I'm very doubtful that either the boards of education or the school planning councils, both of whom would be involved in the decision-making, would take this anything other than seriously.

L. Krog: I'm somewhat disappointed that the minister would suggest that the protection of privacy in our society is trivializing — the government's view of this legislation, as it's proposed. There is a time to use a sledgehammer, and there is a time to use a fly swatter. What this legislation is giving is the power to school boards, if a school planning council consents to it, for the installation of cameras in literally every room in a school.

Now, I'm not going to suggest for a moment that you're going to have school boards across this province or school planning councils in every district doing that. But the fact is that when you open up the door in this way and, with great respect to the minister, for what is the most trivial of excuses that I've heard for legislation, which is simply that it was in the campaign platform and some parent advisory councils and school planning councils requested it….

[ Page 6067 ]

With the greatest respect to the minister, why are we doing this? What great mischief is going to be remedied by the passage of this section?

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Can the minister tell me: has the B.C. School Trustees Association, the governing body of the school districts of this province…? Does she have a letter she can produce in this House today that says they approve of and request and want this legislation, or a letter even remotely resembling any of the things I suggested might be in such a letter?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: From the president of the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. She stated that people seem to think that this is something new, but in fact, it isn't. She stated: "I think it's better than what we had, and I would prefer that parents have at least some input, which we did not have before."

The president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, Connie Denesiuk, stated that Bill 20 is not going to lead to more cameras in schools. Instead, it adds another step to the process by giving input to school planning councils.

The BCSTA general counsel, Judith Clark, stated:

"The amendments are helpful to boards that decide to establish video surveillance systems in schools in that they specifically authorize boards to collect information about students in this way, for the stated purpose of protecting individuals' safety, personal belongings and school property, in schools and on school grounds. The amendments also limit the authority of boards and principals by requiring approval of the school planning council before cameras can be installed in a school or on school property."

L. Krog: I don't think I heard a letter from the School Trustees Association saying that they thought this was a good idea or requesting it. So I come back to this.

[1530]

Apart from the fact that you have some school planning councils who have some interest in this…. We know that the school planning councils aren't working that well. Indeed, there are schools that don't have them. We know that teachers aren't participating.

Given all those circumstances, did the minister, before this was prepared for approval by cabinet, consult widely with school districts, with the BCTF, with the school planning councils, with educators generally? Did she engage in some kind of process apart from the insertion of something to this effect in the B.C. Liberal Party platform?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What this legislation does is actually put into place consultation that wasn't previously there. It allows for consultation. In fact, it mandates consultation with the school planning council that previously wasn't there.

Previously boards of education could and have put video surveillance cameras in place without any consultation. They've made the decisions on their own.

In terms of the survey that we did of the districts that currently do use video surveillance cameras…. As members pointed out, it's nearly half of school districts that are currently using them. The response to us from the districts in terms of what they viewed as to be the effectiveness of the cameras was overwhelmingly positive, with many school districts noticing less damage and vandalism. We did not have any negative feedback from the districts.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response, but my question was about consultation before this amendment was in fact introduced. I take it from the minister's answer — which focuses on the process now, because you'll have to consult the school planning council — that there wasn't really any significant public consultation prior to the introduction of this legislation.

[1535]

I do note the minister, along with every other member of this assembly, received a letter yesterday from the Victoria Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils expressing significant concerns, setting out the policy that Victoria has adopted and asking for guiding principles.

These include ensuring that consultation processes used are thorough, adequate and appropriate in the circumstances; ensuring that there is a compelling reason for each deployment; ensuring that video surveillance is only used after all other reasonable and less invasive alternatives have been considered; ensuring that deployment is for a time frame realistically tied to the problem that led to the deployment; ensuring that video surveillance records are secure and that access is severely restricted; and ensuring that reporting procedures are designed to build empirical evidence.

I'm just wondering — as I have no doubt that the minister read that letter before today: does she have any comment on the principles that have been suggested by the parent advisory councils? If so, why not consider ensuring that those in fact are the principles, assuming this legislation passes?

V. Huntington: I seek leave to make an introduction, Madam Chair.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I have great pleasure in introducing 27 grade 5 students from Hawthorne Elementary in my riding. They are here with Miss Grace Yan, their school teacher, and seven of their parents. I hope that the House makes them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I have not received that letter, I have not seen that letter, and the colleagues that are with

[ Page 6068 ]

me today have not seen the letter. But from what I could understand of what the member articulated, many of the principles that he has read from the letter are in fact embodied in many of the school district policies. Certainly they are in the legislation, the freedom-of-information and privacy-protection legislation, which already was in place to guide the use of these video surveillance cameras prior to this legislation being brought forward.

What this legislation does is to allow a school planning council to actually have a voice so that if they are opposed when a board comes forward proposing a new use of a video surveillance camera, they actually can block the use of those cameras. It's adding an extra layer of consultation and an extra step.

L. Krog: I'm somewhat surprised that the minister hasn't seen it. I thought the public affairs bureau would be working overtime — or some MLA's office. It was sent to every member of the assembly. It was sent at 9:22 a.m. yesterday.

With respect to the minister's comments, the way I understand it is that this was supposedly more consultation, more consideration. The minister would surely acknowledge, then…. If you don't have a school planning council, then, is the minister suggesting — and correct me if I'm wrong — that this legislation means: unless you have a school planning council, the board cannot install video surveillance cameras?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That is the case. If there's not a school planning council that's up and running, then one will have to be formed, because a board would have to put that matter forward to a school planning council.

L. Krog: My reading of the legislation — and I'm not skipping ahead to

section 43 yet — is that it indicates that the principles, which involve the purposes of protection that are referred to in the act, mean that if you've got cameras installed already, then those are grandfathered, so to speak. In other words, existing cameras will remain in place across the province.

[1540]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The legislation does provide for so-called grandfathering for existing cameras, but it also states that these would be subject to annual review.

Section 42 approved on division.

section 43.

L. Krog: I'm not trying to check up on the minister's correspondence

section here, but I presume she did receive the submission of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association with respect to this amendment? That's a joint submission. Has the minister received that?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, I did.

L. Krog: I want to quote from paragraph 2, and this is from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association:

"The BCCLA and the BCFIPA urge the Legislative Assembly not to pass the school surveillance amendments. We submit that the amendments are not needed, that they lower the standard for justification of video surveillance in schools and that the facilitation of increased video surveillance in schools undermines the democratic values that public schools should exemplify."

They go on to say in paragraph 4, and I think it quite appropriate:

"The BCCLA and the BCFIPA are concerned that this steep downgrading of the need for justification for introducing video surveillance in schools — from a demonstration of necessity to the mere ostensible aim of providing safety or property protection — is (

a) part of the creeping repeal of FOIPPA that is undermining the citizens' privacy protections in a range of areas, and (

b) apt to facilitate an unwarranted and harmful increase in video surveillance in schools."

I wonder if the minister can advise the House: was any reaction sought from the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office?

[1545]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We certainly know that districts have worked with the Privacy Commissioner in the past in assessing the implications of using video surveillance, and we have no reason to think that they will do other than that in the future.

The intent of this

section is not to replace the previous procedures from boards but rather to add a new level of accountability. The head of the B.C. School Trustees Association, the president, has certainly stated her view that Bill 20 will not lead to more cameras in schools but rather adds another step in the process by giving input and, in fact, a veto to school planning councils.

L. Krog: Of course, the school planning councils are hardly what one would call democratic. In a high school they're made up of the school principal, three parent volunteers, one teacher representative and one student representative. In elementary schools, I believe, you don't even have the student representative. That's the democratic forum that will be able to make the request to the board to install the video surveillance camera in the grade 1 classroom to ensure that Sally doesn't steal Dick's lunch.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has argued — and I'd be interested in hearing the minister's comments, as I'm sure she sought legal advice in this matter — that the potential effect of this is to indeed lower the standard that exists under FOIPPA now, that it provides a specific statutory provision, and that as long as a board in its wisdom decides that an individual's belongings have to be protected, you can install these and therefore bypass the existing legislation and protection under the information and privacy act.

[ Page 6069 ]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: With respect to the composition of the school planning council, in fact, they are democratically elected. The parents are elected by the parent advisory committee. Every parent of a child in the school is able to have a vote, if they wish to, for who will represent them on the school planning council.

With respect to what will govern the use of the video surveillance cameras, they will continue to be governed under the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation that's currently in effect. It will continue to be in effect.

L. Krog: I just want to hear it again from the minister, just to make sure. What she's saying to the House is that, notwithstanding the specific provisions in sections 42 and 43 of this bill, FOIPPA will still govern and that this will not provide a reduction in the standard, which is exactly the point of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association's fairly lengthy and, I might say, cogent presentation.

[1550]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Yes, the Freedom of Information Act still applies. In terms of what this legislation does, it actually provides some limits for boards, because there most likely will be cases where school planning councils will say that they do not wish to have video surveillance cameras in cases where the board is considering it.

The Chair: Would members please take their seats so the division members can be counted.

[1555]

Section 43 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 47

Horne

Letnick

McRae

Stewart

Coell

McNeil

Chong

Polak

Yamamoto

Bell

Krueger

Bennett

Stilwell

Hawes

Hogg

Thornthwaite

Hayer

Lee

Barnett

Bloy

Reid

Thomson

Falcon

Penner

de Jong

Campbell

Hansen

Bond

MacDiarmid

Abbott

Lekstrom

Coleman

Yap

Heed

Cantelon

Sultan

McIntyre

Rustad

Cadieux

van Dongen

Howard

Lake

Foster

Slater

Dalton

Pimm

Huntington

NAYS — 26

Fleming

Farnworth

James

Ralston

Popham

B. Simpson

Austin

Karagianis

Brar

Hammell

Lali

Thorne

Horgan

Bains

Dix

Mungall

Chouhan

Macdonald

Chandra Herbert

Krog

Gentner

Elmore

Fraser

B. Routley

Coons

Sather

section 44.

The Chair: We'll wait a moment until the chamber is empty.

[1600]

L. Krog: This

section applies specifically to the Francophone Education Authority. I'm just wondering: were they specifically consulted on this, and did they provide their position to the minister?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: What this

section does is make the previous legislation actually apply to the CSF. As mentioned previously, what the legislation does is add a consultative process through the school planning council that wasn't previously present.

L. Krog: I hope it's not the soft voice, but my question was, quite specifically: did the minister or the ministry consult with the Francophone Education Authority with respect to this section? In other words, did they request that these surveillance provisions apply to them as well?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Again, what the legislation does is make…. For the francophone parents, they will have the same ability for consultation as the anglophone parents through school planning councils. That's the point of this

section of the legislation.

[1605]

As we did with the other school districts, we did survey the CSF and found that they were currently installing video surveillance cameras in two of their schools. That's underway at present.

L. Krog: I take it from the minister that there was a survey done, but what I'm asking is: was the Francophone Education Authority asked specifically if they approved of or supported this legislation?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I've said, this legislation was developed based on our election platform. The specific

promise that we made there was with respect to parents

[ Page 6070 ]

— that we'd heard from parents that they would like to have a voice with respect to the video surveillance.

We certainly believe that parents are an integral part of the school community and that they should be able to have a say. That is what is additionally added for both francophone and anglophone parents.

Specifically, to the member opposite, we did not consult with school boards when we were preparing this legislation.

L. Krog: My question was specifically with respect to the Francophone Education Authority. The minister's answer was to school boards generally. I take it that answer applies to the school boards of British Columbia. In other words, they were not consulted specifically with respect to this legislation.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I've said, this legislation specifically is to allow school planning councils to have a say where they previously did not, where decisions about video surveillance cameras were made by boards. The consultation process now has to include school planning councils, and we did not discuss this with the CSF.

L. Krog: With great respect to the minister, the desire to keep the information private is quite remarkable to me. I mean, this is…. Regardless of what the minister may characterize as simply being a tool or an opportunity for schools and students and parents to have a say now in the installation of video surveillance cameras, it is in fact a step down the road to further surveillance in our society, which is an increasing problem around the privacy issue.

I would have thought that rather than implement this legislation, there would have been at least some consideration given to the issues of privacy, as opposed to the concerns of parents — some parents, I might add, some PACs, some school planning councils — to the concerns that have been raised by the opposition.

I'm going to assume that given the nature of this section…. I'm not sure where it fits in the School Act. Is there at least existing provision so that regulations can be approved by cabinet, which is the last thing I generally like to see, that might in fact limit the application of this

section or provide some guidelines, as discussed in my earlier line of questioning?

[1610]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The Freedom of Information Act still applies, as it did prior to this legislation. We know that boards previously worked with the Privacy Commissioner, and we expect that they will continue to do that in the case where they're considering installing new video surveillance cameras.

Section 44 approved on division.

Sections 45 and 46 approved.

The Chair: Minister, do you want to get your staff?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, please.

Before we begin questioning on this portion of the bill, I would like to introduce Paul Wieringa, who is my acting ADM for oil and gas, on my right, as well as Michael Rensing, who is the manager of renewables in the ministry.

section 47.

R. Fleming: This part of the miscellaneous bill is an opportunity for the government to get the low-carbon fuel standard right. What I mean by right is actually plausibly achieving the goal to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuel by 10 percent by 2020.

The government is aware of a number of reports that cast doubt on some of the flaws in the legislation. There has been a comparison in some detail between B.C.'s low-carbon fuel standard and California's. The differences come down to how carbon intensity in the fuel is measured, the source and the reporting out of suppliers.

[1615]

There are obviously very high-carbon-intensity sources of crude oil and conventional crude sources that are not as high. One of the problems in our low-carbon fuel standard is that there is not adequate accounting for that and a reconciliation in the legislation.

We have an example of better legislation in California where this is done. The fluctuations of the carbon content of certain types of oil can be as great as 40 percent. The problem with the legislation as it's drafted now is that in striving to achieve a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity from fuels by having a biofuel additive, if the source of the crude is of a high-carbon intensity — and I'm, of course, speaking of sources from our dear neighbour here at this point in time — then the fuel standard could be completely counterproductive, and it raises the prospect of completely misrepresenting the emissions savings.

What I would like to do is propose an amendment to the

definitions of this

section of the renewable and low-carbon fuel requirement act by adding a new definition that reads….

The Chair: Member, this comes after

section 47.

R. Fleming: Okay.

Section 47 approved.

R. Fleming: I would like to add, as subsection (1) at this portion of the bill, a new definition that reads — and I've given a copy to the minister:

[ Page 6071 ]

Section 47:

By adding a new

section numbered 47.1 that reads "Section 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act S.B.C. 2008, c.16, is amended by adding a new definition that reads 'High carbon intensity crude oil' means any crude oil that has a total production and transport carbon-intensity value greater than 15.00 grams of carbon dioxide equivalence per Mega-Joule."]

I move that amendment.

On the amendment.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The amendment you've put forward is unnecessary. We actually already incorporate the oil sands. It's already calculated in our baseline number. So I think that's where the member is looking at. I'm guessing that's where he was referring. He talked about our neighbour to the east, and I think he's talking about the oil sands probably. I would let him clarify that, but it's already utilized in our calculation of our baseline number.

Amendment negatived.

section 48.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister can explain to the House…. The changes in

section 48 seem to me to push forward or bring back compliance periods previous and next. Can the minister explain how that balances out over a calendar year, or is it a fiscal year? How is that calculated?

[1620]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is based on a calendar year, Member, and what it does is allow for…. If there was an overcompliance in one year, they could use a portion of that overcompliance the following year to meet their numbers. Likewise, if there was an undercompliance in year 1, they could actually, in year 2, achieve that by overcomplying in year 2.

J. Horgan: Did suppliers raise this issue with the ministry? Were they concerned about balancing out year over year or compliance period over compliance period, or was this amendment driven by the ministry staff?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This amendment was a result of significant consultation with the fuel suppliers themselves to talk about how we could ensure that we could meet these standards and these numbers.

J. Horgan: So the consultation that took place, initiated by the supplier or the ministry, was a result of some concern that the existing statute was less flexible than it could have been or should have been, and is that the rationale for the change?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The flexibility was built in so that the suppliers could meet their numbers, as I said. For example, there may be a global disruption in the supply for what they needed for their fuel to meet these standards at the end of one year, so they may not have met it there. The carryover to the next year would allow them to actually meet their numbers through overcompliance in the case of the way I've just explained it.

J. Horgan: I don't see, in these miscellaneous amendments, but perhaps with staff available…. Is it anticipated that suppliers can continue to miss targets year after year after year provided they're able to push that forward? Is there any…? Do you get three strikes, two strikes, one strike? How many misses do you get before you're called on the carpet?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, you can only carry forward for one year or utilize from the one year back to bring yourself into compliance.

Section 48 approved.

section 49.

R. Fleming: Again, in the low-carbon fuel standard there is a flaw that has been discussed at length in 2008 when we debated the original legislation around land use and the carbon intensity of the biofuel additives to the blended fuel. While the legislation that British Columbia has does talk about some of the direct carbon inputs where biofuel is made — just looks at fertilizer use and some of those types of offsets associated with the production of the fuel — it does not account for indirect land use changes, where land is taken out of either the natural environment or the use of the land is switched.

[1625]

California's regulation, again, is more comprehensive, does force suppliers to report to government about that. It's a loophole that the opposition thinks should be addressed for the credibility of this legislation and for the achievement of the 10 percent reduction target by 2020.

So I would move an amendment at the appropriate time to deal with that and ask the minister for a comment at this time.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, rising to speak to the member and comment on the amendment he's put forward, I would, obviously, at this point speak against it, but for the reason that it's about indirect land use on this and utilizing it in…. I know he's studied California's model — significantly, I believe — but right now it is changing on a regular basis. There's still a great deal of work to be done on this.

I know California is changing as we speak here today. We aren't ruling it out, but at this time it is premature to look at that until further work is done, not just for

[ Page 6072 ]

British Columbia, but really California as well is doing a considerable amount of work, re-evaluating how they actually approach this.

R. Fleming: The minister is correct. California has gone quite far with this. I think in terms of the life-cycle costing of it, they have taken some appropriate steps. They have tagged on to what is called the Global Trade Analysis Project. They look at where these biofuels come from and source them from the very first stage of production. They have created their own peer-reviewed model, which I understand is administered and governed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA in the U.S.

These are things that if we changed B.C.'s law…. These are governance models and peer-reviewed steps that we could take that would not make it difficult for each supplier. It would make the regulation clear. It would be able to account for indirect land use changes. It's likely that other provinces and parts of Canada may also be able to participate in that when they have legislation like this. The point really is to get it right. It is to have full carbon cycle accounting done for the fuel.

I'm going to stop speaking to it now and allow this

section to pass and then maybe propose an amendment that can address that and strengthen our legislation.

Section 49 approved.

section 50.

R. Fleming: I'd like to propose an amendment to the bill by adding a new section, numbered 49.1, that reads:

Section 49:

By adding a new

section numbered 49.1 that reads "Section 6 of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) is amended by adding a new subsection that reads '

(6) Beginning in the second compliance period, and for subsequent compliance periods, a

Part 3 fuel supplier must apply an estimate of indirect land use impacts to the determination of the carbon intensity for biodiesel fuel and ethanol.'"]

On the amendment.

[1630]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Having just spoken briefly on this and knowing the intent, I'll speak against the amendment, Member, for the simple fact that you've laid out the second compliance period. We're not sure…. As I said, there's still a great deal of work ongoing on this to make sure…. And I will go back to the member's own words. We want to make sure we get it right.

We think that this amendment may be somewhat premature. We're very cognizant of the fact of what you're referring to when it comes to indirect land use on this, but I'm not sure that your amendment meets what's going to be needed here.

For that reason, I'm going to speak against it and vote against the amendment, Member.

Amendment negatived.

R. Fleming: I'd like to propose another amendment, adding a

section in 49 that reads:

Section 49:

By adding a new

section numbered 49.1 that reads "Section 6 of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) is amended by adding a new subsection that reads: '

(5) Beginning in the second compliance period, and for subsequent compliance periods, a

Part 3 fuel supplier must identify any high carbon intensity crude oil (HCICO) that it supplies and apply a default carbon intensity developed specifically for the HCICO for the volume of each HCICO supplied in the determination of the weighted average of carbon intensities;'"]

On the amendment.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We broached this earlier. I think under 47 we spoke briefly about it. We already have this in our default calculations, what you're recommending here. Actually, when you look at it, about 48 percent of the utilized oil here in British Columbia is from our neighbours to the east oil sands. We use that in our default calculations already, Member.

[1635]

R. Fleming: This is the concern, that it already is a high content; 48 percent of the oil that's imported comes from that source. That could grow, perhaps, to three-quarters of the market. The attempt to reduce by 10 percent our emissions intensity in this sector, from transportation fuels, by 2020 would be unachievable.

While the minister says that it is accounted for, my understanding is that crude oil is in fact treated equally. Fuel suppliers are not part of a credit and deficit system when they account for where their crude comes from, unlike in California. So while it may be referenced in the legislation, it is essentially meaningless in terms of any economic incentives or disincentives to source high-carbon-intensity crude oil.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We've taken the approach, Member, that we are actually rewarding the lower-carbon-intensity fuels in British Columbia. Higher intensity — obviously, there it's the carrot and the stick. There are penalties for the people that don't comply. We think that that's the proper way to do it. The act, I think, addresses that, and we're comfortable with that.

Again, I'm not supporting the amendment you've put forward here today.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Minister, please.

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 6073 ]

J. Horgan: Similar to the questions I had for the minister on

section 48, can the minister give his assurance that the passing forward and backward of emissions compliance periods is similar — that there will be one forward, one back, and that's it?

[1640]

Hon. B. Lekstrom:

Section 47 dealt with

part 2, which was renewable fuels. That was a one-year carry-forward, or utilizing overcompliance in the year out to meet your undercompliance in the first year.

Part 3 deals with the low-carbon fuel. This one — there is no back-carrying. But what you can do, if you overcomply this year, is carry forward that overcompliance for up to three years. What you can't do is if you undercomply this year, you don't have the luxury, under

part 3, as a

part 3 fuel supplier, of saying: "I'll overcomply next year."

J. Horgan: Was the consultation that the minister referred to with respect to

section 48 also conducted with respect to

section 50? And why did the minister make the period of grace or moving forward three years — not two, not five?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We did consult, Member. This is truly a housekeeping issue. What happened before is that they couldn't carry forward their own overcompliance or credits. They didn't have that ability. They had to get rid of those. They could carry forward credits that they purchased. So this is really a housekeeping issue that allows them to carry forward their own good work, really, or overcompliance.

Section 50 approved.

section 51.

J. Horgan: I'm reading in the explanatory note for

section 51: "…requires fuel suppliers to advise purchasers of the renewable fuel content of fuel by posting labels or giving notice." I'm wondering why we didn't put that in the original renewable and low-carbon fuel requirements — why we are adding that today.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: In our discussions with industry it became clear that if we didn't enshrine this, it wouldn't be uniformly dealt with across. We think that the labelling is extremely important; thus, we've put it in the act.

J. Horgan: I agree with the minister that labelling is vitally important to this initiative, and that's why I'm curious as to how it got through the first time. Maybe it was the haste with which that legislation was passed.

With that, I'll let

section 51 go by.

[1645]

Section 51 approved.

section 52.

J. Horgan: Those who just said "Aye" clearly haven't seen

section 52 because we would never….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: It's one of those moments when I wish we could use props so that members in the gallery and people watching at home could understand what it is we're doing here with

section 52.

What it does is it "corrects the formula for calculating automatic administrative penalties when carbon intensity requirements for fuel are not met for a compliance period." We've just been discussing compliance periods in previous sections where some compliance can be put forward and some compliance can be brought back. That in and of itself is interesting, but nothing in my time, my five years as a legislator, has prepared me for

section 52 and the mathematic formula. Or I guess it wouldn't even be a mathematic formula, would it?

It is a formula, and I don't know how to describe this. I'm looking at my colleague from Nanaimo, who suggests that rather than me explaining what we have here in

section 52, why don't I just ask the minister to do that on my behalf? Could the minister advise the House how it is we came to the formula described in

section 52? Mindful of the time, Minister, perhaps you could do it quickly.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I, too, wish I could use props at this point, Member.

This calculation is similar to California. The only change we're making on this one is that we're making now the EER portion of the formula, which is being added, which is the energy efficiency ratio. The energy efficiency ratio is utilized to calculate the difference between a gasoline vehicle and a vehicle powered by another source, whether that be an electric vehicle, a diesel vehicle, or so on.

J. Horgan: As there is an administrative penalty as a result of this section, and we're trying to correct the formula for calculating an automatic administrative penalty, I think, although the minister made a valiant effort there, perhaps I'll explain to those in the gallery who are now on the edge of their seats, I can see, anxious to learn more about the formula contained in

section 52.

I thought it might have been the secret to the universe, but the answer is not 43. So it can't be that. For those paying attention — I know my friend from Cowichan Valley is — the formula goes as follows. The administrative penalty equals — large bracket, small bracket — actual CI minus required CI, keeping in mind that the actual CI is the weighted average of the carbon intensi-

[ Page 6074 ]

ties of the

part 3 fuels supplied in the

part 3 fuel supplier in the compliance period before taking into account notional emissions under

section 8.

[1650]

So that's the, bracket, actual CI minus the required CI, bracket, times the sum of, bracket, EER times EC for each fuel, bracket, over one million, minus the NE credit plus the NE increase equals times PR.

I think I've done a fairly adequate job. I know I'm getting nods from the Minister of Mines, and those in the gallery now have a fuller understanding of the important work at committee stage here on a miscellaneous amendment bill.

But let me go back to the beginning of the equation, and perhaps the minister could just start there. The administrative penalty is the concern. Although I'm interested in how we arrive at it, perhaps we could just explain what we're going to do with that penalty as a result of this amendment.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The administrative penalty, as you said…. I won't go into the detail. I want to commend the member for his fine reading ability on reading that formula.

The administrative penalty is based on the actual CI — what you have, what will go out, because this is a complicated formula, in all seriousness — then what your required CI was supposed to be. Then we apply the formula that the member rightly read out, and based on the penalty rate, which is being established in regulation, it is applied. The penalties will vary based on your compliance. If your actual CI is significantly less than required, you would be impacted to a greater degree than if you were very close, for example. So the administrative penalty varies with your compliance.

J. Horgan: That's a good job, Minister. My hat is off to you.

The penalty rate, which is at the end of the equation, is set by regulation. Can the minister advise what that penalty rate is today?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We do not have that rate set today. We are working on it, but I can assure the member that once it is, obviously it will be well known. The key here is that it will be set at a significant rate that will ensure compliance. It would certainly be pointless, I think, to have a penalty that didn't ensure that.

J. Horgan: We certainly don't want to be pointless in our work here, so I agree with the minister on that. As we go through

section 52, we have some

definitions of what the EER, the EC, the NE and the various other acronyms are. That's well outlined.

But I want to talk about the "notional emissions increased under

section 8," which is at the very end of

section 52. It goes as follows: "…means the net amount in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions transferred by or to the

Part 3 fuel supplier under

section 8 that the

Part 3 fuel supplier must apply under

section 8" — and so on for the compliance period.

[1655]

I'm asking this because when we get to

section 53, we determine when an administrative penalty will be issued. It's on a compliance date, and I'm confused, based on the previous sections. If we can move forward our compliance periods, then how do we set when the administrative penalty will be due?

I'm actually dealing with sections 52 and 53, I suppose, at the same time.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There are two things, Member. As we go to

section 53, I think we could explain that

section a little better.

On the notional emissions increased under

section 8, the issue that you're talking about, that notional transfer can only be used within the same compliance year.

Section 53, and we're go