2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Pennie Jamieson

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Finance Statutes (Innovative

Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 30)

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Organ donations

Conroy

Prevention of violence against

women

Whittred

Earth Day celebrations

Robertson

Arts and culture awards in Prince

George

Rustad

Homelessness solutions proposed

by Windermere Secondary students

A. Dix

Cloverdale Trades and Technology

Centre

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

Privacy Commissioner review of

lobbying activities of Ken Dobell

J. Kwan

Hon. S.

Hagen

Hon. M.

de Jong

Conflict-of-interest concerns regarding

lobbying activities of Ken Dobell

Fleming

Hon. M.

de Jong

Privacy Commissioner review of

lobbying activities of Ken Dobell

Karagianis

Hon. M.

de Jong

Ralston

Macdonald

Disclosure of ICBC executive

bonuses

Gentner

Hon. J.

Les

Robertson

Simpson

Emergency planning for ambulance

dispatch centres

C. Wyse

Hon. G.

Abbott

Flood protection funding for New

Westminster

Puchmayr

Hon. J.

Les

Committee of the Whole House

Public Safety Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 16)

Farnworth

Hon. J.

Les

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Public Safety Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 16)

Committee of the Whole House

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 19)

Robertson

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Small Business and Revenue

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 19)

Second Reading of Bills

School (Student Achievement

Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20)

Hon. S.

Bond

Cubberley

McIntyre

Chudnovsky

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology

(continued)

Hon. M.

Coell

Fleming

H. Bains

[ Page 6997 ]

MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2007

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

PENNIE JAMIESON

Hon. R. Thorpe: It is with sadness that I rise in this House today on behalf of the Speaker and myself to advise of the passing of Pennie Jamieson. Pennie passed away last Thursday after battling leukemia for the past four years. Pennie served 22 years on our school board, starting in 1985 and serving as the chair for eight years. Pennie was a great school trustee who gave so much to our students and to her community. Pennie will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you, on behalf of all members of the Legislature, pass along our most sincere sympathies to Pennie's sons Neil, Ross and Don, their families as well as Pennie's five grandchildren.

Introductions by Members

H. Lali: I have two sets of introductions. I'd like to start off by introducing three friends of mine from the district of Lillooet. They're here to meet with the various ministers. They are the mayor of Lillooet, Mayor Christ'l Roshard, Councillor Patrick St. Dennis and also Administrator Grant Loyer. Would the House please make them welcome.

The second set of introductions. We have some students from the Canadian Federation of Students, who have been here meeting with various Members of the Legislative Assembly. I'd like to introduce from Local 3, UBC Okanagan Students Union, Krystal Smith, and from Local 72, North Island Students Union, Michael Jensen. Would the House please give them a round of applause.

V. Roddick: It is a delight to introduce to the House Mr. John Powell, teacher, and Principal Ray Holme, along with 50 students from Delta senior secondary high school in Ladner. These students are all enrolled in a grade 11 civics class that I previously visited at Delta senior secondary. I was invited there to discuss the role of a Member of the Legislative Assembly. They've now come to our House to see firsthand if my job description actually pans out.

[1335]

I would like to express to the House that these students are here because of the keen interest they have in how our government functions. Every one of them has proven to me that the youth of today are indeed aware of and interested in the actions of our province. They are tomorrow's leaders. I would ask all in the House to recognize them.

C. Wyse: I have two sets of introductions. The first one is Ben Vinje. Ben is a resident of my constituency. He's a graduate from UNBC, and he is here to visit us in the House. I would ask the House to make Ben welcome.

Carrying on with introductions for members visiting us from the Canadian Federation of Students, there are two groups I would like the House to make welcome: from Local 13, College of New Caledonia Students Association, Valentine Crawford and Justin Simon; likewise, from Local 15, Thompson Rivers University Student Union, Nathan Lane.

J. Rustad: It's my pleasure to introduce a constituent from my riding, Cristy Hogan of Prince George. With Cristy is Alan Preston from Prince George, and Christy's grandparents Mary and Gerald Bjorgaard of Victoria. Will the House please make them welcome.

G. Coons: It's my pleasure to introduce three North Coast constituents from the Chatham Sound Charter Boat Association: Jim Robertson from Hot Spot Charters, Don Pederson from Albacore II and Dave Anderson from Coast Charter. They were here to meet with the Minister of Agriculture and Lands. We had a very productive session as they voiced their concerns about net-cage salmon farms on the north coast. Please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: Like other members, I've had meetings with the Canadian Federation of Students today. I'd like the House to welcome Ewan Maclean, Kiersten Ballard and Shamus Reid. Please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I am pleased today to welcome to the Legislature 17 students from Lord Nelson Elementary School. They're here studying provincial government, and they're joining us along with their teacher Ms. Tricia Stec and three parents, Nina Angeli, Lana Leeson and Xia Jin. I hope the House will make the students from Lord Nelson very welcome.

R. Fleming: I want to join with the minister and introduce some students from our area here in the lower Island. We are joined today by students from the University of Victoria Students Society, Canadian Federation of Students Local 44: Tracy Ho, Caitlin Meggs, Penny Beames and Jamie Strachan.

All of these individuals are recently elected or recently re-elected, as the case may be. Their terms haven't even started yet. I think they begin next week. They're already here with their feet hitting the ground running, lobbying the government on various positions and working with the opposition on various issues. Would the House please make them all feel welcome today.

Hon. P. Bell: I am very pleased today to be able to introduce to the House three individuals from the B.C. Food Processors Association. They are Gay Hahn, Tony Toth and Robin Smith. I would ask that the House please make them all very welcome, because you have to eat to live.

D. Thorne: It's my pleasure today to also introduce two students from Local 5, Capilano Students Union,

[ Page 6998 ]

that are visiting the Legislature and lobbying on several issues. I'd like the House to welcome Kiersten Ballard and Ewan Maclean, and give them a warm welcome.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today are two friends and supporters of mine, Brock Rogers and Gord Keller. They're here for a meeting with the Solicitor General. Could the House please make them welcome.

[1340]

J. Kwan: I join with my colleagues to also welcome the Canadian Federation of Students in the precinct today and in the Legislature. More specifically, Locals 73 and 76 from the Vancouver Community College student unions are here. They are Michael Glover and Jean Chapman. They're here to educate MLAs on the importance of eliminating barriers to access post-secondary education and particularly for adult basic education students. Would the House please make them all feel welcome.

J. McIntyre: I just wanted to add my voice of welcome to Mr. Tony Toth, who is here with the food producers. I look forward to seeing them in the rotunda later today. Tony is a constituent and a personal friend of mine. Welcome.

K. Conroy: I too would like to welcome members of the Canadian Federation of Students. These two young men I've worked with quite a bit because they both went to Selkirk College in Castlegar. Dustin Grof is here representing Local 4 of the Selkirk students union, and Dave Westmacott is representing Local 53 from the Okanagan College student union. Although I'm really happy to introduce both of them, I'm really sad because they're leaving my constituency. Dave has already moved on to the Okanagan, and Dustin is moving down to the lower mainland to work with the Canadian Federation of Students. So please join me in wishing them well.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to welcome Pat Barbosa of Local 61, Malaspina Students Union, Canadian Federation of Students.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to wish a happy birthday to one of our legislative interns, Stefan Currie-Roberts, who is witnessing all the events from up in the perch.

S. Hammell: On behalf of all of us assembled, would you join me in welcoming the following students who are participating in the Attorney General's articling program, continuing legal education, and are here working in the Legislature. They are Nina Bindra, Maria Coley, Lucas Corwin, Maureen McDowell, Andrew Mickelson, Susan Neary, Eva Ross, Jennifer Stewart and Genevieve Tamosiunas. Genevieve is the daughter of our facilities manager here, who is Al Tamosiunas, and Joanne Rada. Their parents are also here. Could we all make them welcome.

G. Gentner: It's a pleasure to introduce to the House Laura Anderson, Titus Gregory and Robert Komachek. They are student representatives, Kwantlen College, Local 26 of the Canadian Federation of Students. It was really quite heartening to meet this group today, because one mature student is actually my age. I'd just like to extend to everybody here that there's hope for all of us.

A. Dix: On that note, I wish to welcome to the precinct today 30 students and their teacher from the civics 11 class at Windermere Secondary School. The students all recently participated in the Encounters with Canada program and are here to learn about what we do in provincial jurisdictions. I ask the House to make them welcome.

G. Robertson: I too would like to acknowledge the presence here today of several of the Canadian Federation of Students B.C. office folks. Shamus Reid, Summer McFadyen, Scott Payne and Jen Arnold are here. Also from Emily Carr student union in my riding is Meghan King. I'll just welcome them all here. It's great that they're here to bring attention to the cause of adult basic education and the necessity of good support services for everyone seeking education. Will the House please make them all welcome.

One more introduction. I had the great pleasure of having lunch with Jane and Maurice Wong from Vancouver. They are here visiting the building today and are proud supporters of Theatre Terrific in Vancouver, which is western Canada's oldest theatre company for people with disabilities. Welcome to Jane and Maurice, and congratulations to Theatre Terrific.

Mr. Speaker: Again, it's one of those days when I think we introduced everybody. But if you weren't introduced, welcome.

[1345]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES (INNOVATIVE CLEAN

ENERGY FUND) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. R. Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that Bill 30, entitled Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I am pleased to present Bill 30, entitled Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007. The throne speech in

[ Page 6999 ]

February and our B.C. Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership , announced in February, voiced our commitment to ensuring that British Columbians will have a reliable, clean source of energy to meet our growing needs now and well into the future.

The energy plan identified the creation of a new $25 million innovative clean energy fund to support the development of clean innovative technologies to help us fulfil this commitment. This fund was recommended by the Alternative Energy and Power Technology Task Force, which was made up of representatives from government, utilities, industry and other organizations. The innovative clean energy fund will support the development of clean and alternative energy sources not just in electricity but in transportation and the oil and gas sectors. It will also help us take action on climate change.

The fund will support the development or adoption of pre-commercial clean energy technologies or clean energy technologies not currently used in British Columbia and reduce the environmental impact of the use, production, generation, storage, transmission, delivery and provision of conversion of energy. It will demonstrate or promote B.C. clean energy technologies that have good potential for market demand in other jurisdictions. It will reduce the cost or improve the reliability of clean energy sources or associated technology and will support energy efficiency and conservation.

Today we propose an amendment to the Social Service Tax Act for a proposed 0.4-percent levy on all final sales of electricity, natural gas, propane, fuel oil used for heating — not including transportation fuels. This levy will provide the necessary moneys for the clean energy fund.

British Columbians are concerned about climate change and sustainable environmental management. We are proud to be leaders in this area, and I know we want to continue that leadership. We know that as stewards of this province, we all share the responsibility for protecting our natural environment while ensuring that we have reliable, competitively priced and clean energy in B.C. The clean energy fund underlines our commitment to environmental protection, economic diversification and opportunity and innovation in clean renewable energy.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, could you put the question.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, I was right at the…. You know my notes.

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

Bill 30, Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) ORGAN DONATIONS

K. Conroy: This week in B.C. is organ donor awareness week. As many in this House know, my family has become well acquainted with the need for organ donation. As someone whose husband has survived two liver transplants, I'm acutely aware of the needs in this province. We are very grateful to the services of the B.C. Transplant Society and the transplant program at Vancouver General Hospital for the amazing work they do to ensure that people in this province benefit by this incredible gift of life.

However, today I want to take the time to acknowledge another group who makes this gift possible — the donor families. These are the unsung heroes, who in an incredibly tragic time in their lives ensure that their loved ones' organs are donated for transplantation. What makes a difficult situation more palatable is when they are actually carrying out the wishes of their loved ones — those people who have taken the time to register as an organ donor.

I think that the experiences of those who have been there say it best. Pia, a donor mother, talks about her son Len: "When Len suddenly and unexpectedly passed away a few years ago, we were so grateful that he had made his wishes known regarding organ donation. That was one decision we didn't have to make. When he signed that form years earlier, little did he know that he would save the lives of five people."

[1350]

From Raymond, whose wife Leah tragically passed away within a year of them being married and weeks after she gave birth to their daughter:

"In those dark times when I feel Leah's loss so painfully, I am comforted by the knowledge that with her passing she was able to give the gift of life to four individuals. I would encourage families, friends and relatives to register as organ donors. It is simple, confidential and life-changing. One day you or a family member may be the one awaiting a life-saving transplant."

Today I echo those words and encourage everyone: if you are not a registered organ donor, please become one. It is never easy to think or talk about dying or to deal with difficult decisions when it is your loved one who has died. By registering as an organ donor, your gift of life will not only be a comfort to your own family but to the families of lives you save.

I encourage you all to register or to ensure that you are registered by simply going on line to www.transplant.bc.ca and make sure you are.

PREVENTION OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

K. Whittred: This is also Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. When a woman is the victim of violence, it impacts all of us. These are mothers, sisters, daughters and grandmothers. A violent act against

[ Page 7000 ]

them is a violent act against the heart and soul of our communities.

As we mark the beginning of Prevention of Violence Against Women Week, I ask the members of this House and all British Columbians to join in the effort to end violence against women.

It can be incredibly difficult for a woman who has been the victim of violence to speak out and seek help. It can be even harder for elderly victims, who may feel they face more social or financial roadblocks to leaving an abusive situation. That's why it's key to support organizations like the Atira Women's Resource Society, which provides direct services for women facing violence, including operating a transition home for women 55 years and older.

Some of the stories of Atira's clients are heartbreaking. One is from a 69-year-old woman who was assaulted by her companion after refusing to give him her pension money for drugs. With some help, she was able to kick her own addiction problem and move on into a new home.

This is what she said: "When I was at the door in distress and crying my eyes out, there was always someone to talk to. I am so thankful, as I probably would still be in that ugly life. I am so happy to be where I am today."

Thanks to the work of government and community partners, there is now support for women and children fleeing violence in over 100 communities in British Columbia, and 95 percent of women can find this support within an hour of their homes. But we must continue to build this support network and raise awareness across the province. All British Columbians deserve to live a life that is violence-free.

EARTH DAY CELEBRATIONS

G. Robertson: Yesterday was Earth Day, and though I think that every day offers opportunities to cherish and value our planet, we designate April 22 to inspire awareness of and appreciation for the Earth's environment, which wholly sustains us.

On Saturday Evergreen hosted its seventh Annual Earth Day Vancouver Celebration at Jericho Park. Evergreen is a non-profit environmental organization that envisions a sustainable society where individuals live in harmony with and contribute meaningfully to their local environment. This free family-oriented event featured live music and performances and a variety of activities for both kids and adults.

People put their hands in the earth on Earth Day and rooted out invasive plant species, replacing them with native plants. It was a day of celebration, restoration and hands-on participation.

Earth Day is also about education. Last week Tides Canada Foundation announced that they are donating a DVD of the award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth to every public high school in B.C., making our province the first jurisdiction in North America to do so.

We need to equip our children in the best way possible to clean up the mess that we're making. We need to take action now, immediately, to take care of this planet for future generations. While Earth Day is about celebrating the bounty offered by our planet, it is ultimately about taking action to sustain our planet so that it will continue to sustain us and that Earth Day can be celebrated for centuries to come.

[1355]

ARTS AND CULTURE AWARDS

IN PRINCE GEORGE

J. Rustad: This week is the eighth annual Arts and Culture Week in B.C. Throughout the province, arts and culture groups are holding events highlighting the talent and richness of our society.

I'd like to highlight one such event in Prince George which not only promotes culture and arts in Prince George but recognizes and celebrates the accomplishments of individuals that have contributed so much. On April 21 the Community Arts Council held their biannual Arts Gallery of Honour awards. The event recognized the achievements of people who helped to inspire others through displaying outstanding leadership and creative success, and through good, old-fashioned hard work and commitment.

This year's awards went to eight individuals. Jacqueline Baldwin for the literary arts category. She's a poet, activist, mother, grandmother, actor, organic farmer, volunteer and winner of ten literary awards for her poetry.

Colin Dix for theatre arts. He's an actor and director and has devoted hundreds of volunteer hours to community theatre in Prince George.

Sandra Nahornoff in the visual arts category. Her paintings and photography of wildlife are outstanding.

Maureen Nielsen is the Alice Box Memorial Award winner. She's inspired people for years through teaching piano and through her work in choirs.

Des Parker for architecture. He's been an architect in PG for more than 50 years.

Judy Russell in the performing arts category. Through her Enchaînement Dance Studio, she's nurtured generations of performing arts students.

Noreen Rustad in the fibre art category. Throughout the long years her commitment to volunteerism for the betterment of the community is a priority that she continues to this day.

Penny Stewart as a supporter of the arts. Since 1977 she's worked to help groups become more organized for the betterment of the arts community.

Please join me in congratulating these individuals for all they've done to help enrich our lives.

HOMELESSNESS SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY

WINDERMERE SECONDARY STUDENTS

A. Dix: During introductions I noticed the presence in the precincts today of students from the civics 11 class at Windermere Secondary School. Part of their work has been to take an issue of interest to them and seek out ideas and solutions to address the problems they've identified.

[ Page 7001 ]

The class has chosen the issue of homelessness and asked me to read a portion of their proposal to the House today. They say:

"Homelessness remains a big issue in British Columbia. We believe that all levels of government need a concrete plan to help the homeless, not an inefficient system that leaves the homeless and those who wish to help them scrambling for their meagre share of funds or insufficient housing. Government support is fragmented, with services provided under the auspices of 80 programs coming under three government departments.

"For our civics 11 class, we were given the task of coming up with ideas to deal with homelessness. We believe that poverty and lack of health intervention are two of the root causes. The government should concentrate all their programs under one department so that assistance is more readily available.

"One of our proposed ideas is to set up centres whereby the homeless are offered short-term accommodation and also provided assessment by professionals as to their needs — be it training, dealing with health issues or, if employable, assistance in finding the appropriate job.

"We believe that the reasons for homelessness are complex and that a concentrated effort by the government to supply not only housing but housing centred on the idea of rehabilitation would lead to success in eliminating homelessness. Thank you for the opportunity to be heard by our members of the Legislature."

It's signed: "The civics 11 class, Windermere Secondary School."

On behalf of us, I'd like to thank the Windermere Community School and all the students in British Columbia for their participation and for coming forward with concrete ideas. The Minister of Housing and I will have the opportunity to discuss all of their proposals and ideas during our upcoming budget debate on the Ministry of Housing.

CLOVERDALE TRADES AND

TECHNOLOGY CENTRE

D. Hayer: On Friday I had the privilege of joining our Premier and many other dignitaries for a very special event — the opening of the new Surrey Cloverdale Trades and Technology Centre for Kwantlen University College. This new state-of-the-art training centre will provide advanced trades and technical training for British Columbians who wish to pursue a career in areas such as automotive, electrical, carpentry, building trades and engineering technology.

[1400]

My constituents of Surrey-Tynehead are particularly pleased with this exceptional new training centre as it allows their children to go to school and learn in-demand skills very close to home. This new centre offers skills training on leading-edge equipment — the best in North America — so that when students leave the Cloverdale Trades and Technology Centre, they will be able to compete among the best-trained people on earth and will be able to take advantage of the great employment opportunities our powerful economy has made possible.

This centre is all about excellence. It provides leadership in post-secondary education. That has been the goal of our government from day one.

I want to congratulate our Premier and the Minister of Advanced Education as well as our other government MLAs from Surrey who have worked very hard for this over the past six years. I also want to thank the board of governors, the faculty and staff of Kwantlen University College, as well as many others, for their effort in this, and also the students from Kwantlen University for creating this exceptional training facility.

There will be demand for thousands of new jobs created in the next decade for the service of this new trade and technology centre, as the economy is booming. This training centre is going to provide excellent training facilities for all the students. I want to thank everybody who helped with this.

Oral Questions

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REVIEW OF

LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF KEN DOBELL

J. Kwan: We know that Ken Dobell registered as a lobbyist in October 2006. We also know that he backdated his activities to April 5, and the Privacy Commissioner is now reviewing the matter. But what we don't know is what Mr. Dobell was doing in March.

Through an FOI we've learned that the Premier met with Mr. Dobell and the Vancouver city manager, Judy Rogers, on March 9. Immediately after that meeting, the Premier met with the Deputy Minister of Tourism, Virginia Greene. On March 21 Vancouver city council, at an in-camera meeting, accepted $5 million from the province to establish the 2010 cultural precincts fund. Ken Dobell later got that contract, paid for by the same fund, to lobby the province on behalf of the city.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Precisely when did his ministry approve the $5 million grant to the city of Vancouver, and what role did Mr. Dobell play in this creation?

Hon. S. Hagen: Here we go again — assault by innuendo. Ken Dobell has served this province and the people of this country extremely well. Any speculation or allegations are totally inappropriate. We all know that a proper review is being undertaken. If the opposition wants to continue down this road and make accusations, they should make them out in the halls where they'll be held accountable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Let me just say this. The timing of the decisions made by Mr. Dobell's participation makes the Privacy Commissioner's review even more critical, and it raises serious questions around perceived and actual conflict.

[ Page 7002 ]

The Premier gave millions of dollars to the city of Vancouver, and subsequently a contract was signed and awarded to his friend and special adviser, but only after the Premier met with two signatories to that contract.

To the Minister of Tourism once again: the timing of this mess raises serious red flags, so will the minister push to expand the Privacy Commissioner's investigation into all of Mr. Dobell's lobbying activities?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. S. Hagen: I guess it's on the record now. One of the MLAs from the city of Vancouver is against $5 million going to the city of Vancouver for cultural….

I say again to the member: if the member has any accusations to make, let her make them out in the hall where she'll be held accountable.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member has a further supplemental.

J. Kwan: How predictable from the minister who refuses to answer the questions and tries to deflect it onto another issue. The issue here is around the timing of Mr. Dobell's lobbying activities. The issue here is around the commissioner's review and the expansion of that investigation.

The evidence suggests a serious breach of the Lobbyists Registration Act by Mr. Dobell. Mr. Dobell didn't register as a lobbyist until October. He backdated his activities to April 5, the same day that the Premier announced the cultural precincts fund. It is clear that Mr. Dobell was likely engaged in the creation of the project that paid for his lobbying activities.

Again, to the Minister of Tourism — and please focus, because the question is this: will he ensure that the March activities of the Premier, the Tourism deputy and Mr. Dobell are fully investigated as part of the Privacy Commissioner's review?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand that this is inconvenient when members of an opposition are seeking to perpetuate some sort of political conspiracy theory, but the fact of the matter is this. Under the provisions of the Lobbyists Registration Act, the registrar, who is the Privacy Commissioner, has a role. He is playing that role. He is conducting this review, this fact-finder's review.

I understand that it is inconvenient and doesn't fit with the opposition's

schedule to await the results of that, which will be made public, but I strongly suggest that the precepts of fairness, of natural justice, require that that happen. If the member has a more specific allegation that she would like to make, then she should do it outside where the parliamentary privileges do not extend.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST CONCERNS

REGARDING LOBBYING ACTIVITIES

OF KEN DOBELL

R. Fleming: Well, it's not that this matter is inconvenient. It's that the potential of it is to be downright conflicted for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Ken Dobell is a man of many hats, it's been said — given the mess of the convention centre, maybe too many hats. He's a special adviser to the Premier. He was the head of the Vancouver Convention Centre board and still sits on that board today. He's handling the coastal forest and softwood files for government.

He's the chief lobbyist for the city of Vancouver, lobbying the Premier and the Minister of Tourism. He represents the province with VANOC and chairs its finance committee. With that much access and inside information from all of these jobs, it should come as no surprise that he was awarded the lobbying contract for the $5 million cultural precincts project.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Does he believe that Mr. Dobell has taken sufficient measures to avoid the appearance of conflict?

Hon. M. de Jong: Lots of words, Mr. Speaker. If the member has a specific allegation to make about whether or not….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: If he has a specific allegation to make concerning the awarding of any contract under any circumstance, then I would suggest that he make it outside of this chamber where parliamentary privilege does not extend and, in the meantime, do the responsible thing and await the results of the review that the commissioner is working on.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, these are legitimate questions that the opposition is asking. While this government may not be worried about the appearance of conflict, Mr. Dobell apparently was concerned about the optics of his conflict.

[1410]

On October 3, 2006, he sent a letter of disclosure to Jessica McDonald and Judy Rogers, stating: "There may be a perceived conflict that should be addressed." He then asked them to sign a letter to record their acknowledgment of the perceived conflict.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Did anyone in government seek any third-party advice, or did the

[ Page 7003 ]

Premier's office just take Mr. Dobell's word at face value about the concerns of a conflict of interest?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it seems to me that the member can't have it both ways. On the one hand, he chastises Mr. Dobell for his behaviour in these matters, and on the other hand, he says he seeks defence in his allegations from conduct by Mr. Dobell.

Look, there is a Lobbyists Registration Act. It provides for certain requirements that lobbyists are obliged to follow. The registrar in this case has agreed and is in the process of conducting a review of this matter. If it is inconvenient for the member to await the results of that, that's too bad. But that's what we're going to do on this side of the House, because that's the responsible thing to do.

PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REVIEW OF

LOBBYING ACTIVITIES OF KEN DOBELL

M. Karagianis: Last week this side of the House pressured the government to take action on what appears to be a blatant violation of the Lobbyists Registration Act. On Thursday morning the Attorney General tasked the Information and Privacy Commissioner with conducting a fact-finding action into the Premier's special adviser, Mr. Dobell. I can appreciate that the Attorney General and the government would want a quick answer on that, but it has been suggested that this fact-finding mission could take up to two weeks to complete.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Did the Attorney General set the two-week deadline, or was the deadline suggested by the Information and Privacy Commissioner?

Hon. M. de Jong: The registrar, who is the Privacy Commissioner, will conduct his work thoroughly, as he always does, and release his report.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: In fact, my question was: who set the deadline?

The fact pattern in this seems very clear to me. Mr. Dobell registered as a lobbyist more than six months after he began lobbying activities. Here we are a year later, and it's been a year since Mr. Dobell started his lobbyist activity for the city of Vancouver.

British Columbians would like answers. They deserve answers. So the question is: before the Attorney General or government referred this to Mr. Loukidelis, did anyone consult on the implications of the Statute of Limitations for pursuing this investigation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I'm having difficulty. The member seems to be saying: "I don't want to prejudge, but forgive me while I prejudge this matter." I don't know what part of this the member is having difficulty with. She is claiming credit for a particular course of action. If that makes her happy, then let her claim credit for it.

The Privacy Commissioner, in his role as the registrar under the Lobbyists Registration Act, is conducting this review. That is as it should be. He will examine to ensure that the requirements of the act have been followed. That report will become public, and the member can then review that document. If questions follow from it, in her mind, she may pursue them in this House, which is also her right and quite proper. But in the meantime I'm afraid she's just going to have to cool her heels and resist the temptation to draw political conclusions for political gain.

B. Ralston: An investigation is underway, and obviously the government takes this seriously. Because the matter is serious, the Attorney General must have consulted with ministry lawyers before agreeing to ask the commissioner to conduct a two-week investigation.

Can the Deputy Premier tell this House whether the government discussed the implication of the Statute of Limitations with Mr. Loukidelis when he was asked to investigate Mr. Dobell?

[1415]

Hon. M. de Jong: To the extent that I think I understand the question, I'll take it on notice for the AG.

N. Macdonald: The government has decided to ask the Information and Privacy Commissioner to investigate the Premier's friend, Mr. Dobell. The question for government is: in making the decision to investigate, who in the Premier's office besides Ken Dobell did the Attorney General consult before launching the fact-finding investigation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, you know, members may not want the…. They keep asking these questions, and we try to answer them as best we can.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say this again so that the member will at least hear it in direct response to his question. There have been questions raised around the Lobbyists Registration Act and a particular individual. The registrar under that act, who is also the Privacy Commissioner in this province, has agreed after discussions with the Attorney General's ministry to review that matter, and he will prepare a report.

That report will be made public. The member may then read the report and pose whatever questions logically — or in the case, illogically — arise from that report. They will have ample opportunity to do that not just in the public domain but right here in this chamber if they so choose.

DISCLOSURE OF

ICBC EXECUTIVE BONUSES

G. Gentner: Now for something a little different, relative to ICBC. The question will be to the fender-

[ Page 7004 ]

bender minister of transparency. According to ICBC's media relations officer, ICBC will no longer disclose the size of its bonuses to executives. Also, in a story in the reputable Vancouver Sun , CEO Paul Taylor made over $60,000 in bonuses and earned a base salary of $300,000 for last year.

Since the Crown corporation will not disclose executive bonuses, will the Solicitor General explain to this House what criteria are actually used to establish Mr. Taylor's bonus package for 2006 and beyond?

Hon. J. Les: I should make it very clear, first of all, that ICBC discloses all of that type of information in the same way that all other Crown corporations do as well. They publish that information completely in compliance with the Financial Information Act. So if the member wishes any detailed information, that is published, as he knows…. I think it's usually about June of every year, and he's free to access that information. We are completely transparent in terms of how ICBC releases that information, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Gentner: Yes, hon. Speaker. I was a little worried that the minister's response — in that ICBC executives would receive Olympic perks such as box seating for figure skating, etc., now that they are the official sponsors of the Olympics….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

G. Gentner: Nevertheless, on March 20 the Premier's office launched an investigation on the conduct of ICBC CEO Paul Taylor. On March 30 an

article appeared in the Globe and Mail detailing allegations concerning Mr. Taylor's relationship to and with the B.C. auto dealers association. Three days after that, on April 2, ICBC announces through its media spin doctor that executive bonuses will not be disclosed.

[1420]

Does the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for transparency, apparently, Paul Taylor's boss…? By the way, Mr. Taylor received more bonuses than anybody else in the corporation. Does the Solicitor General agree that these bonuses should remain secret?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, ICBC fully discloses all executive compensation — period.

G. Robertson: In 2005 the government immediately disclosed the details on the bonus information through ICBC. What's changed? It's 2006. What possible rationale is there for failing to disclose this immediately?

Hon. J. Les: I guess I'll just have to repeat again that ICBC fully discloses all remuneration information completely in accordance with the Financial Information Act in the province of British Columbia and completely in accordance with the way that is done by other Crown corporations. I'm not sure what it is about that answer that the member opposite doesn't understand.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Robertson: It doesn't make any sense. The Solicitor General claims that they're following due procedure, due process and that everything is fine and dandy. Well, the chair and CEO of ICBC is under investigation. According to the Finance Minister, KPMG is working on this. That has changed. That's changed a great deal.

Last year you disclosed immediately the bonus compensation due to Mr. Taylor. This year you don't. The only change that the opposition sees here is that the same chair and CEO is under an investigation from this government. Is that the reason this information is being withheld?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, more drive-by innuendo by the members opposite. That's all I'm hearing. What I am pleased to say is this. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is being well run and is being well directed by its CEO, Paul Taylor, as a marked contrast to 2001 and before that, when ICBC, frankly, was in the ditch. It was being manipulated for political purposes, and it sent out $100 cheques that it couldn't afford, at political direction.

Today ICBC is being well run. It is there for the benefit of all British Columbians, helping to keep auto insurance rates low and stable.

S. Simpson: Last year it was good enough for this information to be released in an expeditious manner right away. What's changed, Mr. Speaker? Can the minister tell us what is different this year that this information about compensation is not being released now?

Hon. J. Les: Since we came to power in 2001, nothing has changed. ICBC is being run professionally. It's being well managed. It is not being politically manipulated. It discloses everything that it's required to disclose, and it is keeping rates for all British Columbians low and stable.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: It was released last year. It's not being released this year. The question is simple. What's changed that the government will not release this information?

[1425]

Hon. J. Les: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Everything that ICBC is required to release will be released completely in accordance with all provincial legislation, completely in compliance with the way that is done by other Crown corporations as well. We have nothing to hide. In fact, we have lots to be proud of when it comes to the administration of ICBC over the last number of years.

[ Page 7005 ]

EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR

AMBULANCE DISPATCH CENTRES

C. Wyse: The dispatch station for ambulances in Kamloops yesterday suffered a mishap. That mishap was very significant. The Kamloops dispatch station covers the dispatch of ambulances for three-quarters of British Columbia. There are reports of stories of confusion for dispatch and other related types of stories that apparently have affected the health and well-being of the workers there.

My question to the Minister of Health: would he assure British Columbians that ambulance coverage was not interrupted, and further, will he agree to table a report explaining how the emergency backup plan worked in Kamloops?

Hon. G. Abbott: The incident to which the member refers, I gather, occurred as a consequence of a sewer backup at the station that had some health implications for some of the workers there. I understand that the transfer was made smoothly and effectively to adjacent premises, where that work continued to be undertaken.

The reason for the event is unclear to us at this point. I'm sure that the city of Kamloops and others are investigating why that event occurred. But I do want to thank the member for raising the question, because I want to thank all of those who were involved for conducting themselves in a most professional, capable and thoughtful manner during a remarkably difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Wyse: Indeed, we too would like to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts that were put into place by everyone who was affected yesterday. There are further stories that also come around and out of this particular situation. It is very new; it has just occurred. The question that I asked of him was whether he would table a report on this incident so that all of the information would be available.

It is important to once more remind this community that many parts of British Columbia are not covered by ambulance for different reasons. If the dispatch station is out of service, it means that nobody gets that service area. We need the report, and we need assurances that in actual fact there is an emergency backup plan for all dispatch stations in British Columbia that send out ambulances so that the entire province is covered.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm having some difficulty following the chain of thought that is being presented by the member. The event that occurred earlier this weekend was a most unfortunate event. It appears to be an event that relates to the infrastructure of the city of Kamloops, and there was an extraordinary event that occurred there, which disrupted the operation of the dispatch centre.

Those involved, by all accounts that I have heard, followed appropriate procedures and behaved in a calm, professional and straightforward manner in attempting to deal with the situation at hand. I think what it does is underline just how well we are served by the extraordinary people who work in our emergency services in this province.

FLOOD PROTECTION FUNDING FOR

NEW WESTMINSTER

C. Puchmayr: As the flooding risk increases in the Fraser Valley, the city of New Westminster is told that they are not able to get funding for prevention measures in a most critical goods-movement corridor in New Westminster.

Can the Solicitor General tell this House why this area, which is a main transportation corridor and residential area, does not qualify for adequate funding from the government's alleged flood protection plan?

[1430]

Hon. J. Les: I have no knowledge at this moment whether New Westminster in fact applied for funding or not. But I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. We have just finished allocating some $33 million, and we made that commitment unilaterally, because we recognize that there is potential risk coming up this spring. Many communities are very productively putting that funding to work to mitigate the flood hazard. If New Westminster has issues, I am sure they are in discussion with our staff, and they will be dealt with the same as everyone else to try and mitigate the threat that we might be facing this spring.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: The city has been in contact with the head dikes inspector, and they have asked for the funding. That funding is not coming forward. If only the city could afford to hire Ken Dobell, maybe they could get some funding where they need it.

Mr. Speaker, tens of millions of dollars of goods travel along that corridor. There are three railways. There is the north Fraser River perimeter truck route. There are residents that live in that area. There is also a $15 million environmental mitigation project that is not yet completed, which is going to contain rainwater in a holding tank right by the Fraser River. That area is not mitigated. It's not protected from a flood. There could be not only the tens of millions of dollars of loss per day in goods movement; there is a $15 million environmental project that this government and the city and the GVRD jointly funded.

I ask the minister: will he commit to make the resources available so that we can avoid the serious economic catastrophe that is looming in New Westminster, should the water breach the dike?

Hon. J. Les: I guess thanks to the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, for a completely rhetorical question — whether we're going to make the resources available or not. We've made $33 million available. For the member's information, that is four times the amount that

[ Page 7006 ]

was made available in 1999 when we last had a threat like this — four times.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Les: If the member opposite has particular concerns with respect to the protection of his riding, I am surprised that I have not heard from him until just this afternoon. One of his colleagues had some similarly unenlightening things to say, and the mayor of that community responded by saying: "Please apologize to the minister for me on behalf of my citizens for the MLA's uneducated and non-productive comments." I think that member could have been the author of some of those questions.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 16, Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

PUBLIC SAFETY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 16; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:38 p.m.

section 1.

M. Farnworth: My question to the minister is under

section 1, where it says "other than a privileged communication…." I presume that means specifically lawyer-client but would not mean, for example, a spouse. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: That is correct.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister outline for me how this definition has changed, how it's expanded and what it will accomplish in terms of what offences are listed? And are there any offences that will not…?

[1440]

This

section repeals the definition of "conviction" under the old act and substitutes a new definition of conviction. Can the minister tell the House what the differences are between the old definition and the new definition?

Hon. J. Les: I suspect we might have one or two questions on this item, so I'll start out by saying that the new parts of the definition, under what constitutes a conviction, are (c), (

f) and, under (g), the

section 810.2 peace bond that is sometimes employed upon expiry of sentence.

M. Farnworth: I wonder if the minister can explain the rationale for subsection (

c) being part of the change to the definition.

Hon. J. Les: I think it's important to do a little bit of distinguishing here between different types of pardon. First of all, there's the general pardon, which is issued by the National Parole Board. Under a general pardon, a conviction is not erased; only the record is erased. So the conviction still stands.

Under a pardon that is, on the other hand, issued by the federal cabinet, it is then deemed that the person never indeed did commit the offence, so there is quite a distinguishing feature between those two types of pardon.

Clearly, it is the former that we're dealing with here — the general pardon. As I've already said, in that case, although the record is erased, the conviction still stands. That remains part of CPIC and those kinds of records and is already disclosed by consent even today.

[1445]

M. Farnworth: In terms of the general pardon, does this particular definition in this type of legislation exist in other provinces, or will British Columbia be the first province to have this particular definition in this particular format?

Hon. J. Les: I think it's safe to say that we in British Columbia have taken a more comprehensive approach to full disclosure of all relevant issues relating to people who are working with children, with vulnerable children. We are not aware of other provinces that provide access to the information behind pardoned offences, but that doesn't take away from the legislation. It is important that those factors are known. We want, I think, to be absolutely as sure as we possibly can be that young children and vulnerable people are not exposed to potentially dangerous situations.

M. Farnworth: I agree with the sentiments of the minister. We want to see that, and I want to ensure that this legislation is able to do what we all want it to do. That's why I'm asking these questions. I want to make sure that when this goes out there, it doesn't end up being struck down because of a court challenge or something like that on what could be perceived as an expansion — many people going: "You've now had a pardon, and here we are putting that back out."

Has the ministry had any legal advice in terms of how this particular section…? Is it vulnerable to a

[ Page 7007 ]

potential Charter challenge? Has the ministry had any legal advice on that particular section?

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the caution of the member opposite, and I'm happy to say that we've consulted extensively with legal counsel. There are no difficulties with this approach.

It's important to remember that a pardon — a general pardon is what we're talking about in this case — does not obviate the original conviction. That conviction stands. It is the record that is erased. Quite often that is simply done so that people don't have issues, for example, if they wish to travel to other countries. Sometimes if that record is out there, it can in fact be a tremendous impediment in those kinds of situations.

We have been reliably informed by our ministry legal counsel that having access to those convictions behind the pardon is completely appropriate and should not be subject to challenge.

[1450]

M. Farnworth: The minister raises an interesting point. I'd just like, if he can answer it…. By doing this, does that then make those convictions open to other jurisdictions to look at in terms of deciding whether or not to allow people to travel? Seeing that you apply for the pardon and you get the pardon, so that is no longer reported. A conviction still stands, but you have the ability to travel. By implementing this section, will that change that?

Hon. J. Les: I should point out clearly that the access to that previous conviction information is only as a result of this legislation. This legislation also provides that it is not to be shared with others, so there's a very narrow purpose and scope for this provision.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister explain, under subsection (f), how that differs from…? What will subsection (

f) allow, and how does it impact with

section 717 of the Criminal Code of Canada? What is it intended to do?

Hon. J. Les: Under subsection (f), a conviction is defined as the use of alternative measures under

section 717 of the Criminal Code, and there are a number of examples of where alternative measures are used. They are used, for example, in a case where sentencing is deferred and restorative justice measures are put into effect. That, too, is useful information, particularly when it occurs repeatedly or several times, to establish a pattern of behaviour that might be a matter of concern as these matters have occurred in the past.

M. Farnworth: In terms of restorative justice, I guess the question that comes to mind is that restorative justice is intended as a way to deal with something outside the traditional court system, usually for more minor offences as opposed to a very serious offence, particularly when it comes to involving children and young people.

[1455]

Has the ministry done any work on what type of sentences they see being caught up in this restorative justice or what type of situations would be included in this? It strikes me that a serious offence is going to be documented as a serious offence. I'd be interested to know the ministry's rationale or further thinking on this.

Hon. J. Les: Perhaps I can provide a little extra clarity here. What is intended in (

f) is that if alternative measures have been used specifically in relation to the designated offences that we are interested in checking for, that is what we need disclosure around. So it would relate to those 56 offences, I think it is, that are currently listed. We are adding six additional by virtue of this legislation, so there's a total of 62 types of offences. If alternative measures were used in dealing with those, then we want to know about that.

M. Farnworth: That's the clarification I was looking for from the minister. What we're not looking at is…. If you're sentenced to something and you're getting alternative measures, it's not captured on there but is in fact the ones enumerated on here. I thank the minister for that.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

M. Farnworth: I have a series of questions on this particular section, and I guess it revolves around…. This is not the right

section to apply to…. The general issue is applying to the whole…. We can get through things fairly quickly.

In terms of the issue around the criminal-records check and moving from an initial of one to five years, what was the ministry's logic around choosing five years? Why not ten years? Why not three years? Why not every year?

[1500]

Hon. J. Les: Pretty legitimate question. You can put in there any number you like, of course. When you're writing the legislation, you actually have to put a number in. We chose five years because it corresponds pretty closely to current practice by the RCMP. For example, when they do criminal-record checks, they employ a five-year interval. That is not to say that's right or wrong, but that is the standard practice. Based on that and similar provisions, we decided to use the five-year interval in this legislation as well.

M. Farnworth: Is this standard in place in any other provinces that the minister is aware of?

Hon. J. Les: I stand to be corrected on this, but we are not aware that there's any requirement for repeated checks in other provinces. In that case, they would simply check once a person was becoming certified to become a professional relating to services to children.

[ Page 7008 ]

But of course, we are implementing repeated checks — in this case, every five years. If that provision is not found in any other province, clearly, then, we have no comparison.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

M. Farnworth: In terms of issues around cost of the records checks, the ministry is saying that it's currently borne by the teacher and that under this…. Actually, regardless of whether it's a teacher in a public school or a private school — wherever in the education profession — that cost will continue to be borne by the individual. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: That is correct.

M. Farnworth: In terms of cost, has the ministry looked at what the cost is in terms of implementing the background checks?

Hon. J. Les: The intention is that this would be implemented on a cost recovery basis. The infrastructure, of course, is there to do this kind of work. The estimated cost on a five-year basis is $20 per check — in other words, $20 every five years, or $4 per year.

M. Farnworth: So the minister is satisfied that the actual cost recovery of the background check is that $20?

Hon. J. Les: That's correct.

M. Farnworth: Has the ministry looked at what the costs will be to the individual police detachments themselves in terms of doing the background checks? Right now you have teachers coming on…. They do a background check when they're first employed and then every five years after that.

You're increasing the workload that needs to be done, and I'm wondering: has the minister looked at that impact in terms of our police resources in communities from a bureaucratic nature — just the increase in backlog and the increase in time it takes to get these checks done and that you're going to have individual members of police detachments looking and doing this kind of work?

[1505]

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question, because additional administrative burden is, of course, always an issue. We are working hard with the College of Teachers to ensure that this is done as smoothly as possible. There will clearly be 20 percent, roughly, of the teaching and other staff who will require criminal-record checks every year. In police detachments this work is typically done by civilian employees. These are usually retired ex–police officers.

We have calculated that the $20 charge will, in fact, pay for the time without the imposition of any further financial burden on the jurisdiction in question.

M. Farnworth: Has any discussion or consultation taken place with local governments on the potential impact on the administrative staff who are going to have to do the checks?

Hon. J. Les: I could have perhaps been a little bit more clear in my previous answer. The civilian personnel who will actually be doing this work — these ex–police officers that I talked about — are actually located within the ministry. They will coordinate all of this work and ensure that it gets done. As I said, it's going to be cost recovered.

M. Farnworth: Just so we are absolutely clear on this. This will not result in an increase in workload at the local government level for their administrative staff that are working in police departments, and it will not result in an increase in cost in an administrative way to local government police departments.

Hon. J. Les: That is correct.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

M. Farnworth: Are there any differences between the way that teachers in independent schools are being treated as opposed to teachers in the public school system? Have there been any changes in this act, from the old act, that would have dealt with these types of issues?

[1510]

Hon. J. Les: Previously, under current legislation, teachers in independent schools were only required to submit to a criminal-record check after they had achieved their certification. Under this legislation, they will be required — the same as teachers in the public school system — to submit to a criminal-record check before they get their teacher certification.

Sections 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

M. Farnworth: This section,

part 4.1, deals with registered students working with children. Could the minister define what is meant by registered students working with children? I take it this means at an educational institution and nothing outside of that.

Hon. J. Les: The intention here is to deal effectively with registered students — students who presumably would be on their way to becoming full-fledged teachers. We're trying to capture post-secondary students who "work with children." In the definition when we say work with children, we mean during the course of an education program, to capture post-secondary students doing a practicum or other work experience required where they would have unsupervised access to children.

[ Page 7009 ]

M. Farnworth: So this would not, for example, deal with student teaching assistants in classrooms — say, at a university or college, for example?

Hon. J. Les: The principle to keep in mind is this: if student teachers and others have unsupervised access to children, then they must submit to a criminal-record check.

[1515]

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

M. Farnworth: This

section makes it an offence for…. "A minor commits an offence who, for the purpose of purchasing or attempting to purchase liquor or of gaining or attempting to gain access to a licensed establishment, presents identification, proof of age or any other record to establish his…age or identity if that identification, proof of age or other record…."

That's pretty straightforward in terms of if someone's a minor and they're presenting false ID, it now becomes an offence. Clearly, it is an offence if an adult makes false identification. Is that correct, Minister?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, that certainly is an offence under the Criminal Code. I think it's called false pretences.

M. Farnworth: Now, I asked the question because, while it's an offence for a minor to make or to use false identification…. How is a minor who is making false identification treated? Are they covered by this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. J. Les: The minor who is actually producing the false identification would be dealt with under the appropriate legislation, whether that's the Youth Justice Act or the Criminal Code, as appropriate. I don't believe that is in any way affected by this legislation. This legislation deals with the minor who presents in a licensed establishment and then utters false identification to attempt to obtain access to those premises.

M. Farnworth: What I want to make sure of is that while we're closing a loophole, we're making sure…. Let's close all the loopholes or as many of the loopholes as possible. I think this section, hopefully, will do that.

One question is: have there been any studies that look at or any work done by the ministry in terms of how large the problem of minors using false identification is?

Hon. J. Les: In this particular case we're not aware that any formal studies have been done as to the extent of the problem, but our liquor inspectors around the province have accumulated quite a pile of fake IDs over the years. Clearly the problem is more than anecdotal. It's quite real.

This legislation, of course, attempts to balance responsibility and accountability. Clearly it is inappropriate for people who own licensed establishments to allow minors to attend there, but it's become increasingly apparent that there is a need to balance those accountabilities and have some sanction apply to minors who would fraudulently attempt to access those premises.

[1520]

Sections 22 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

M. Farnworth: This deals with the always thorny issue of consular licence plates, and I know that a large part of that is outside of provincial jurisdiction. So my question to the minister is: are the proposed changes unique to British Columbia, or do they exist in other provinces as well?

Hon. J. Les: With this legislation we are bringing the practice in British Columbia into line with what is done in all other jurisdictions, certainly, in Canada.

Section 29 approved.

section 30.

M. Farnworth: Are there any exceptions as to which there would be an exemption granted, and if so, to whom and for how often or long?

Hon. J. Les: The provisions of this legislation apply equally to everyone. We're not aware of any exemptions. If someone presents who has a valid driver's licence from another jurisdiction, they will receive a B.C. driver's licence in exchange for that. If someone, a diplomat, from another country presents who has no proof of any licence anywhere, they will enter the graduated licensing program.

The same is true for dependents. We will treat everyone the same to ensure that we have better recordkeeping of the driving behaviour of these people. Because of the fact that they will have a B.C. driver's licence, it will enable us to do that more effectively.

M. Farnworth: On the thorny issue of penalties levied in terms of motor vehicle infractions, we have no jurisdiction, I take it, in our ability to collect those fines if consular officials decide not to….

Hon. J. Les: Regrettably, the member opposite is right.

[1525]

M. Farnworth: I wonder: would that apply to British Columbia residents who act as honorary consuls? We have a number of them in B.C. They act as an honorary consul for the republic of, you know, Obscuristan or wherever — it's not a real country; some obscure state. They are a citizen of British Columbia, a citizen of Canada. They act as an honorary consul. They get the consular licence plates. Do they have to pay the fines? Is there a mechanism to make sure they pay the fines?

[ Page 7010 ]

Hon. J. Les: For the member's interest, there are apparently about 53 of these types of individuals in the province. I've often wondered about that particular type of designation, but in any event, they of course are British Columbians and Canadians first, and as such, they must comply fully with provincial and federal legislation and are not eligible for the provisions of this particular act.

M. Farnworth: And that would mean the paying of speeding tickets and parking violations, I take it.

Hon. J. Les: In the same way that the member opposite and I would be obliged to do that, Madam Chair.

Sections 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Les: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

PUBLIC SAFETY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill 16, Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 19, intituled Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

[1530]

Committee of the Whole House

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 3:31 p.m.

section 1.

G. Robertson: Questions on

section 1 related to the homeowner grant. In 13.1(1), in reference to the definition for shared information, it specifies "personal information that is collected as a result of a disclosure" and that that "information or a record that is collected as a result…." Does that refer to all personal information that is collected through that process or all the personal information that is disclosed, or is there a subset of that that is made available for sharing between the different acts?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'd like to recognize staff that are with me and have worked very hard: Janet Baltes, Sally Chaster and Parveen Niijar.

The answer to the question is: all.

G. Robertson: I had a question related to the definition on shared information in

section 1.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm sorry. I thought that I said that all information that we collect is shared.

G. Robertson: All information. Does that refer specifically to personal information that is filled out through the process of applying through the variety…?

Maybe I'll take a step backwards for a moment here. In terms of the disclosure, access and disclosure to records and the sharing of personal information come up a number of times through this act. So for the purposes of this committee stage and simplifying what we're doing here, I was going to basically ask all questions that seem to be relevant to information-sharing throughout the bill for the various acts: the Home Owner Grant Act, the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

I'll just condense my questions around personal information sharing and disclosure within the ministry in this first

section on the homeowner grant. I'm curious. In terms of the information that's provided, is it specifically what is on a single form, or are there a number of different forms that are different for each of these acts?

[1535]

Hon. R. Thorpe: The reason — the member may recall this when we were provided the briefing — that we're proposing this legislation today is because, currently, residents of British Columbia, with respect to these acts that we're talking about — I think it's the Land Deferment Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act — have to now provide that information three times. For the purposes of the information we've collected with respect to the acts that are specified, that information will be shared. That's the proposal.

G. Robertson: Just so I have it straight, that means there will now be one form related to personal information that's utilized for all of these different acts, and that one form will be shared between the acts in terms of how it is used by the ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: At this point in time we will continue to use the same forms we have. But the intent is, once we have that information, to share it through the different acts so that we don't have to go back to an individual taxpayer resident to get them to fill out

[ Page 7011 ]

different forms. Staff does envisage somewhere down the road in making sure, within the parameters of safeguarding and never compromising the integrity of personal and private information, that the possibility does exist that one form is down the road, but not at this time.

G. Robertson: Therefore, there are several application forms in place now that will continue to be used. Are those application forms requiring personal information standard? Or are there contents within some of those forms that are not currently in the other applications?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The overall answer to the question is, yes, but you may need a specific question answered with respect to a specific program. That would be specific to that particular program. But the overall intent is to have a common set of questions.

G. Robertson: My concern here and where I'm headed with this, is that there's information currently being provided for one of the acts that is not actually required in some of the other acts in terms of how the information is referenced. Does the minister or staff have any concerns about a sort of generic form that has all of the required information and may be too much for some of the acts as they are now existing?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the member has heard me say many times, personally as the minister responsible, I consider the protection of personal and private information to be my primary responsibility. I will not tolerate compromising the protection of personal and private information. As importantly as that, I can assure the members of this House that my staff and our ministry understand their obligations. They are very dedicated public servants and understand the protection of personal and private information, and they will not compromise the protection thereof.

With respect to if we ever get to a generic form, such a form would only ever be put in place with the provisions that it had the safeguards built into place with respect to the protection of personal and private information. Of course, that would always be done with a privacy impact assessment and also in consultation with the commissioner who protects this information on behalf of British Columbians — or oversees the protection of that.

[1540]

G. Robertson: I appreciate the minister's comments regarding the integrity of staff on this.

Maybe one final way to ask this question would be: is there material difference between the personal information collected on one form versus the others relevant in these different acts at this time, or are they materially the same?

Hon. R. Thorpe: They're materially the same.

G. Robertson: Moving down to (2) in

section 1, a question on the reference to: "a ministry person may use or disclose personal information collected under this Act." Can the minister clarify: is that specifically a full-time staff member of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, or does it refer to other ministries as well?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It is individuals employed to discharge the responsibilities that they have to discharge under the administration of the applicable acts.

G. Robertson: Does "ministry persons" specifically mean within the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, someone who has responsibility for this within that ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: If the member is trying to ask if this work is done inside or outside the ministry, it's all done inside the ministry.

G. Robertson: Within the ministry. So "a ministry person" specifically refers to staff within the ministry. Is there anyone outside of ministry staff that may have access to this personal information?

Hon. R. Thorpe: There may be, of course, from time to time, when systems work is required. As every member of this House can appreciate, we do not have all of those experts on side within the ministry on a full-time basis, and staff does advise me that from time to time they may have to do systems work. But staff also advise me that safeguards are in place at all times with respect to contractors to ensure that the protection of personal and private information is not compromised with those, for example, system contractors.

G. Robertson: The minister has segued into my next question around those safeguards. Can the minister elaborate on what safeguards are in place, particularly given that there is information-sharing? I believe that — and the minister could correct me — is a precedent in terms of sharing information between applications for different acts.

[1545]

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, again let me say that all of this is within the ministry. Within the ministry today we do share information on tax statutes. This has been through, staff advised me, a privacy impact assessment which ensures that all of the requirements of FOIPPA are at least met, if not beat, in the protection of personal privacy information.

G. Robertson: The privacy information assessment — is that a public document? Is that something that the public can access to be certain that the appropriate safeguards are in place?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, the member can request that.

G. Robertson: Is that subject to freedom-of-information requests, or is it publicly available without all that?

[ Page 7012 ]

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, it is according to the freedom-of-information requests. With respect to this, it shouldn't take us too long to pull that together, should he make that request.

G. Robertson: I think it would be useful to have that on hand just in case there are concerns from privacy watchdogs out there as to how this has been put together.

The minister mentioned that information is shared within the ministry on tax statutes. My understanding is that this is moving up a level and sharing information between these acts. Is that the case? Is this a whole other level of information-sharing, or is this already being done?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I said earlier, we do share within the ministry between tax statutes. This takes the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Home Owner Grant Act, which are non-tax statutes, and shares the information. Because they fall under the property tax act or part of the property tax act, that's why we're doing this. Again, we're trying to streamline and simplify it for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Are all of the acts currently administered by staff within the ministry, or is anything within the scope of these four acts administered by an outside contractor?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The direct answer is no. But we must make sure that the member does realize — and I'm sure he does — that with respect to the Home Owner Grant Act, municipalities and regional districts are involved.

G. Robertson: I have a question specific to that very issue flowing from subsection (5) in

section 1, which states that subsection (3) does not permit a disclosure to an employee of a municipality or government agent office.

[1550]

I'm not clear what disclosure does take place, particularly specific to the Property Transfer Tax Act. What is disclosed to municipalities or government agent offices?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I thank the member for that question. First of all, the information from a local government feeds up to the provincial government for management by those that look after this. Information does not flow back down to local governments once it's up at…. Unless, of course, we have a taxpayer or a homeowner that has some questions or concerns, who's raising issues….

Then we have to go back with the local government in question to try to clarify the situation on behalf of the taxpayer. That's the only time I've been advised that information would flow back down. As a regular course of business, information flows up, is managed once it gets up and only flows down on a very exceptional basis to clarify issues and concerns on behalf of individual taxpayers.

G. Robertson: At this time, in terms of what Bill 19 lays out here, there will be no personal information sharing with municipalities except in exceptional circumstances, as the minister has just mentioned.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That is correct — of course, an exceptional basis being when a taxpayer has a concern about his or her particular application, timeliness, etc. Then we would work with the municipalities or regional districts to get clarification for the taxpayer to ensure that fairness takes place.

G. Robertson: Following up on a previous question, in terms of that information potentially being available to a contractor, does the ministry foresee any of these administrative services being contracted outside of the ministry to be performed and that personal information therefore being available to an outside contractor?

Hon. R. Thorpe: This information here today is to streamline the act to provide better services to the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's what is contemplated in this legislation today.

G. Robertson: Is it possible for the ministry to contract out, outside of the ministry, services that are relevant to these four acts and thereby access the personal information? Is it within the realm of possibility that those services could be performed outside of the ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That is not contemplated in this legislation.

G. Robertson: I understand that it's not directly contemplated here. My question is in terms of the safeguards with the personal information of the citizens of B.C., some of which, given the nature of these acts and in particular the homeowners act…. Their information must be held confidential, and there must be appropriate safeguards to do that.

Given that we are increasing the ability of the ministry to move that information internally to and fro and simplify it, which makes eminent sense, the danger is that the information is also potentially available to an outside contractor who may not have quite the same scrutiny that the ministry performs its duties with. Members of the public certainly are entitled to know whether this information could potentially be administered outside of the ministry.

[1555]

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I thought we were actually here to debate the legislation, not to debate hypotheticals. This information is protected by the personal and privacy laws of the province of British Columbia, and those will not be compromised. I have said that for my staff that work on this, this is of paramount importance. I have mentioned that from time to time we use system contractors, and every safeguard is taken to ensure that the protection of personal privacy information by staff will never be compromised.

[ Page 7013 ]

That is our goal. That's what they work hard for every day, and that's what we try to do. Hypothetically? We're all human beings, but they do their very best, and I do my very best to protect the personal and private information of all British Columbians that we administer.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

G. Robertson: We'll dive into questions related to tax rulings from here, as did my questions on

section 1 related to personal information, that apply to four different acts throughout this bill. My questions related to tax rulings in the same way apply to wherever these tax ruling amendments show up throughout the bill.

Just to clarify, in

section 3 in the definition for proposed transaction: "…is proposed to be undertaken by an identified person…." I'm curious if a corporate entity has the ability to apply for a tax ruling without a person's name identified to it.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to advise the House that Joel Fairbairn, who works diligently on this, has joined us.

"Identified person" does mean a corporation, and they have to be identified.

G. Robertson: Chair, I'll take your guidance on a number of questions that are general to the initiative around tax rulings. I can go ahead and start in on them in

section 3 relevant to the tax ruling definition, or I can apply them throughout

section 4, where there are more specifics.

Interjection.

G. Robertson: I'll go ahead with tax rulings. Can the minister just clarify on the record what the government is currently doing in terms of tax rulings, what is taking place now and some information relevant to the scale of tax rulings that are going on right now?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's ranging between 6,500 and 7,000 that we're doing in tax rulings now. What we are striving to do and making great progress…. Again, there is a requirement of the individual, the identified person — when we give the rulings — to give us the complete picture. If they do not give us all of the facts and details, then the binding ruling is not going to be in place.

[1600]

Our intent here is to make it easier for small business, medium-sized business and other businesses in British Columbia to make decisions based on information that they have received from the government and not in a written form and not to have issues pop up four and five years later. That is contingent upon those individuals supplying all of the pertinent and detailed information, which would certainly justify our written binding recommendation ruling.

G. Robertson: Some 6,500 to 7,000 tax rulings currently…. The minister just commented that there are tax rulings being amended through these four acts here in the bill. What specifically are those tax rulings currently being made for — the additional acts? Where are they taking place within the ministry right now?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Throughout all tax statutes.

G. Robertson: Currently the four acts that are being amended with tax ruling sections here…. Is there anything taking place currently around tax rulings?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Virtually all of our binding rulings are under these four acts.

G. Robertson: And in terms of the language currently within those acts — the improvement, I suppose, is what it can be called here — can the minister just describe the limitations of the current provisions within these acts for making tax rulings and why, more generally, all of this amending is necessary?

Hon. R. Thorpe: These amendments give us the legislative authority to stand behind the written rulings that we have committed to under the taxpayer fairness and service code.

G. Robertson: And that authority to do written rulings does not currently exist?

Hon. R. Thorpe: What this does is give a legal authority, as opposed to a policy authority, for the effectiveness of the binding ruling that we have given out.

G. Robertson: Why is it only for taxes in advance of a transaction? Can the minister clarify that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Because we cannot rule on something that's already happened.

G. Robertson: Can the minister just briefly describe what protocol exists for tax appeals?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Currently the taxpayers of British Columbia, once they receive an assessment, should they not be in agreement with that assessment, have 90 days in which to appeal to the minister. The minister then, through the appeals branch, which is completely separate from our other tax areas and reports directly to the deputy minister….

[1605]

I might add: thanks for that question, because it gives me the opportunity to recognize the appeals division. Some two years ago the appeals division had a backlog of 13 months on average for processing appeals. We set upon a very ambitious program — one that was led by Janet, who is here — to reduce that.

Our first goal was to reduce it in year 1 to six months. Our second goal was to reduce it to five months on average for the period ending March 31.

[ Page 7014 ]

Staff advise me that they have achieved an average — and I have yet to receive the report, but I know it's coming — of 4.9. That's surpassing their target, and our goal for the coming year is an average of 4.5.

When the minister has made the decision to support, amend, alter or agree with the taxpayer, that is given in writing. The taxpayer then has another 90 days to appeal to the courts of British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Thank you to the minister for that clarification.

In the briefing that was generously provided by staff, we had some discussion about the experience in other jurisdictions around tax ruling. The federal government has a tax ruling system for the federal Income Tax Act, I believe, and Ontario, as well, for the corporate income tax. I'm curious if the government is looking at bringing in a similar program related to income tax and tax rulings specifically around income tax.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We have an arrangement with the federal government. The CRA, Canada Revenue Agency, looks after that on behalf of the province of British Columbia.

G. Robertson: So in effect, it exists through the Canada Revenue Agency.

In terms of these tax rulings, can the minister clarify what oversight there is? You describe the appeal process, but the specific oversight within the ministry for the tax rulings as they are being issued….

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the cornerstone of providing a binding ruling is to ensure that we have all of the information. If staff do not feel that they have all the information, they go back and get information. We are not going to get ourselves into a situation where people are giving us half of the information and then expecting to receive a binding ruling.

[1610]

Staff will pursue that, to their professional comfort level, to ensure that they have all of the information. They will then review the pertinent statutes, administrative practices and policy issues. They will talk to tax administration in social services and hotel tax areas, program areas.

In very complex issues we will seek professional — whether it be professional legal or other professional services, to ensure before a ruling is issued…. Staff are very well aware and becoming increasingly aware of complex situations. We will not rush our rulings on information to taxpayers unless we feel very, very comfortable that we have all of the information and have done a thorough and thoughtful job.

G. Robertson: My question related to oversight perhaps falls more directly into

section 1.4 and the exclusive jurisdiction of the director. Is the director in fact the statutory decision-maker in terms of these tax rulings, or is it further up into the minister's office?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, they are the ultimate decision-maker. But in the day-to-day workings of the ministry and making sure that we're as efficient and effective as we possibly can be, the director — the commissioner — does have the ability to delegate that to staff to discharge those responsibilities.

G. Robertson: Back to a more general question. Does the minister foresee a change in the nature of the applications for tax rulings, given we're doing about 7,000 a year right now? With tax rulings gaining legal standing with Bill 19, does the minister anticipate an increase in volume — and with what kind of tax ruling applications?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think we have to recognize the fact that the marketplace around us changes at a very rapid pace. Again, I believe the taxpayers, the citizens of British Columbia, are well served by the public service in the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

One of their responsibilities is to keep the commissioner, the director, the deputy minister and eventually the minister apprised of what's going on — and of shifts, if they see shifts taking place. Our challenge and goal is to make sure that we're staying up with the curve, not falling behind the curve.

We're going to adjust ourselves to meet the needs of the marketplace while at the same time making every effort to ensure that we are not compromising the tax revenue situation for British Columbians.

G. Robertson: I'm not totally certain. Is there an anticipated surge of activity in tax rulings that the ministry is bracing for with this legislation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Staff advise that we're not expecting growth that we can't manage. We have no knowledge of a tsunami around the corner with respect to binding tax rules.

[1615]

G. Robertson: I guess in a related question: does the minister see, with the passage of this bill, any change in revenues related to tax rulings and the number of tax rulings that the ministry has to perform?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. The only thing we anticipate is that as the economy of British Columbia continues to grow and more and more British Columbians are employed, we expect the tax revenues from reduced tax to continue to flow into the province — a great place to invest.

G. Robertson: What kinds of transactions in terms of applying for tax rulings are off limits? Is there any specific type of transaction that does not qualify for a tax ruling?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hypothetical or, as they're sometimes called, fishing expeditions.

[ Page 7015 ]

Listen. We have professionals working in our ministry in this area that are dedicated to providing timely binding rulings to individuals, but it's incumbent upon them to supply all of the relevant information in a timely basis. That's how we are going to move forward, and that's all I can say.

G. Robertson: So if I understand the minister correctly, there are no limitations in terms of the nature of the application for tax ruling. It can be anything and everything in terms of a transaction, and the ministry will provide a tax ruling, provided the appropriate information is included.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm not sure exactly what point the member is trying to get at here. First of all, if someone asks for a ruling on a particular situation, staff is going to make sure that we can take that situation and ensure it is a real person, a real situation, and that we have all the facts. We are not going to be giving binding rulings on illegal activities or hypothetical activities without all of the facts that we have.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

G. Robertson: On

section 4, in terms of the application for tax ruling, the bill describes a fee that is prescribed and that all that fee must be paid in advance of the ruling. Can the minister clarify the fee and the nature of how the fee is determined?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, as the member has noted, subsection (2) says "if a fee." So that's the first question — if.

Secondly, if a fee is brought in, that fee will be under scrutiny to ensure it is competitive with other jurisdictions. We take the putting in place of fees as a very, very serious matter. So we will be looking at this as part of the regulatory framework, which I think we're currently scheduled to look at in the fall.

[1620]

Again, it will come up through the ministry, through the deputy minister, with recommendations. The minister will have to sign off on it, and it would be part of our annual fee in the budget process, should there in fact be a fee.

G. Robertson: The minister certainly highlighted what my next question is to be about. If a fee is required, what will determine whether or not a fee is required for a tax ruling?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, since we formed government, we have established a set of criteria for the establishment of fees. I don't have it at my fingertips right now, but it ensures that British Columbia fees are competitive with other jurisdictions and that service is there. The application of fees, the introduction of new fees, is taken as a very, very serious part of the annual budgeting process.

G. Robertson: I'm concerned here that there is a lot of effort and energy going into making the system of tax rulings more transparent — obviously, adding some legal standing to it within the ministry — and that, at the same time, there doesn't seem to be any clarity here about if a fee is required to get a tax ruling, which sounds like we're going the other direction.

At this point, are fees charged for all of the 7,000 tax rulings that are taking place right now, and, if not, what percentage?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'm sure the member has noted that this part here is enabling legislation which would allow the government, when and if it should so desire, to bring forward regulations. That's what enabling legislation is. At the current time government does not charge for rulings within the ministry or our government with respect to tax rulings.

G. Robertson: Government currently doesn't charge at all, and yet we are undertaking about 7,000 tax rulings a year. Does the minister consider this a subsidy to business — to provide those tax rulings without any fee attached? If an accountant was retained to provide tax advice, it clearly would be anything but a free ticket. What is the rationale for providing free tax rulings currently?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Of course, my comments pertain to the statutes that we're talking about here. Our overall goal with these is to strive for increasing voluntary compliance. That's our goal. That's the way, we believe, we are driving cooperation between taxpayers, fairness between taxpayers, and better results for the citizens of British Columbia — by driving for voluntary compliance and not relying on audit functions after the fact. Of course, we will maintain our audit provisions after the fact, but we are driving here for voluntary compliance.

With respect to the member's question, the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue will continue to provide these binding rulings within our budget framework, which we debated with the member some weeks ago. With respect to our estimates, we can do the work we're doing within our ministry budgets at this point in time.

G. Robertson: Can the minister clarify what's in place within the ministry right now in terms of staff and cost to administer tax rulings and what is anticipated with this bill? Will there be an increase in the FTEs or the budget in order to carry out these tax rulings?

[1625]

Hon. R. Thorpe: We currently have eight FTEs in this area. We anticipate having eight FTEs as we move forward.

G. Robertson: My recollection from the briefing is that there has been significant year-to-year growth in the number of applications for tax rulings. A 30-percent-to-40-percent increase is the number that sticks in my head. Can the minister confirm that we've seen

[ Page 7016 ]

that kind of growth in the applications year to year, and does he anticipate a change to that growth curve?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I believe I said earlier, no, we do not anticipate a tsunami coming around the corner with respect to this. You know, one of the things that we do in the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue is look to the changes in the marketplace. We look at the services that are required, and we establish our priorities.

A few years ago we had three individuals in this area, I understand. Now we have eight, and we believe that can fulfil our needs for the current three-year business cycle that we've tabled our service plan for.

G. Robertson: Again, the question of how much growth is anticipated. I would contend that 30-percent-to-40-percent growth is significant in terms of its impact on any staff, however worthy and capable they are, and I'm sure the ministry staff are that.

I am concerned, though, that that magnitude of growth continues. At this point the minister is saying that no further staff or expense is required to administer that, despite formalizing the tax ruling process through this act. I'm concerned that the minister believes it's going to be status quo, when clearly the data thus far has indicated that there already is a tsunami of increase in terms of requests for tax rulings.

Is the minister going to stand by that — that there will be no more staff and expense to administer these tax rulings?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The staff at the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue take very seriously their responsibilities to develop and build the three-year service plan, led by my deputy minister and assistant deputy ministers. The service plan that has come forward, which I recently debated with the member, lays out our plan for the coming three fiscal years.

I have the greatest confidence in the ability of our management team and the employees in each one of the areas of the ministry to look at, anticipate and create innovative approaches, streamline processes and build efficiency. Therefore, the plan that has come forward, the plan that we have debated, the plan that was passed in estimates to be in effect….

I have every confidence in the entire team at the ministry to discharge their services in a timely and efficient way. I am advised that currently in the Ministry of Small Business — with respect to the appeals, rulings, etc. — we have, if not the most efficient system, one of the most efficient systems in Canada.

G. Robertson: In terms of the tax ruling administrations in the rest of Canada and other jurisdictions, my understanding is that there are fees charged in other jurisdictions.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

The minister mentioned earlier that it's not known what fees will be charged, and the big "if" of whether fees will begin to be charged. Frankly, I don't have a lot of comfort around what is going on in terms of the fee structure here, as we look at

section 4 and its mention of a fee being prescribed.

[1630]

We know other jurisdictions do charge. I'm curious if the minister sees moving to a system where market-based fees are charged for tax-ruling services, in effect. For businesses to come forward and request binding tax rulings, obviously it can save them a lot of time and money. But it comes at a cost to government, and it comes at a cost to taxpayers. Clearly, other jurisdictions recognize that.

Does the minister see implementing a more market-based system of applying fees at the cost — a fee-for-service within the ministry, which the ministry bears to perform this administrative function?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, this is enabling legislation. I did think I had answered this question before. It says "if," and that means exactly what it says — "if a fee is prescribed." I've also described the fee process that takes place in the province. I have not seen or had any discussions with staff with respect to: will there be fees or not? This is a provision, in the "if" instance they come forward.

Let me say that our government has been very clear in its approach to fees — that they will be competitive, they will be fair and they will be done on a cost recovery basis should they happen. It's purely hypothetical, and at this point in time I have seen no work that would suggest that a fee is around the corner with respect to binding tax rulings. In fact, if the member takes the time to look at the fiscal plan which was tabled by my colleague the Minister of Finance on February 20, 2007, the member will clearly see there is no fee anticipated in the coming service plan cycle.

G. Robertson: Will individuals and their businesses have some forewarning if fees are implemented? Are they going to get some advance warning that all of a sudden there will be a fee for tax rulings, or is this going to be a surprise when and if it comes?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Apparently, hon. Chair, the member wasn't listening very carefully. I do not anticipate any fees in the current service plan cycle.

G. Robertson: A question. In

section 4 on tax rulings (2)(b), there is reference to publishing a tax ruling. Will the rulings in fact be made available to the public, or will there be some way for the public to access tax rulings?

[1635]

Hon. R. Thorpe: The question in tax rulings (2)(b), "publish a tax ruling," pertains to our tax information manual, known in the ministry has TIM. This is information that is published there for information purposes only. It is stripped of all personal and identifying information. We currently have that available for sale. Each manual, as I understand it, has a price of around

[ Page 7017 ]

$500. We currently sell about 600 of those a year to interested folks who have interests in taxation in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: For those watching at home, riveted by the action here in the chamber, I'll just clarify we are working our way through Bill 19 and the tax-ruling elements of Bill 19 that actually apply. We are in the Hotel Room Tax Act, but they also apply to several other sections within this bill, which we will not be going through in grinding detail unless the minister really wants to.

These general questions on tax rulings also apply to the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act through the rest of this bill.

A final question on

section 4. The last piece of it relates to the length of time taken to reject an application or issue a ruling. Has the ministry set targets or goals here, in terms of individuals or businesses knowing when their application will be rejected or approved and issued? If so, what are those targets?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The taxpayer fairness and service code, the third edition, was published in February 2007. On page 10 are sales tax inquiries and rulings. The first point is: "Respond to…general e-mail inquiries regarding sales, hotel, fuel and tobacco tax sent to" — da-da-da — "within two business days of receiving all…information."

That's when they'll hear back. "Respond to…complex e-mail inquiries and written rulings on sales, hotel, fuel and tobacco taxes within 20 business days of receiving all of the necessary information." Of course, when a situation is more complex than that, the individuals — the identified persons requesting that — are notified that it will take longer, again dependent on us receiving all of the pertinent information to ensure a binding ruling.

G. Robertson: I'll just correct myself. I reeled off several of the wrong acts that are affected by these tax rulings, and I'm sure that staff caught it. In addition to the Hotel Room Tax Act, it was the Motor Fuel Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act and Tobacco Tax Act that have the tax rulings. We will not be asking all the same questions for each of those acts.

[1640]

Sections 4 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

G. Robertson: Just a few questions related to the implementation of the international fuel tax agreement, IFTA, through the Motor Fuel Tax Act.

I've raised this issue with the minister previously around the implications to government revenues with this implementation of the international fuel tax agreement. Can the minister comment on how implementing this will affect government revenues?

Hon. R. Thorpe: B.C. first became party to the international fuel tax agreement, commonly known as the IFTA, on January 1, 1996. We do not anticipate or have any knowledge or concern that these amendments will have any fiscal impact on the province. They are solely intended to clarify the legislation.

G. Robertson: So I understand from that that the changes canvassed in the ministry's estimates a few short weeks ago related to revenue stream, specifically on the Motor Fuel Tax Act and international fuel tax agreement, are totally unrelated to this legislation.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That is correct.

G. Robertson: In terms of what is before us here in Bill 19, will this potentially affect our ability to independently set fuel tax rates, for instance — say, for example, when the trucking industry is in dire straits?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No.

G. Robertson: Maybe just another point of clarification about where this may impact us. Does it have any bearing in terms of raising fuel taxes, for example, to address concerns with global warming and the impact of greenhouse gases?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the members on the other side of the House know, our government has taken a leadership position with respect to the climate action plan, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent as we look forward, but this does not limit in any way a government's ability to decrease or increase taxation.

Sections 16 to 69 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Bill 19, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007, for second reading.

D. Hayer: I seek leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 7018 ]

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: We have two very special guests here today. One is Mrs. Rani Narayana. She is the wife of the high commissioner of India to Canada, who just recently arrived here. Also with her is Mrs. C. Malhotra, who is from the Indian high commission. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Second Reading of Bills

SCHOOL (STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

ENABLING) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007, be read a second time.

This legislation will help improve student achievement by working with school boards to improve student results, providing students and parents with more choice and increasing support to school districts. The legislation also delivers on government's throne speech commitment to introduce education reforms that focus on improving quality, choice and accountability in British Columbia's education system. The legislation also supports our government's new literacy plan, ReadNow B.C.

We are proud of the fact that British Columbia students are among the best in the world. On the 2003 international test for 15-year-olds, no country outperformed B.C. in math and reading, only Finland and Japan performed better in science, and only Alberta scored higher than B.C. on the 2004 student achievement indicators program, SAIP, in science tests for 13- and 16-year-old students.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Moreover, many children are arriving at the door to kindergarten without the skills they need to be successful in school. Without a solid foundation on which to build their reading, writing and study skills, many of our children are falling behind in school. In fact, one in four students started kindergarten this year without the developmental skills needed to succeed. That's nearly 9,000 students.

These facts make it clear that we cannot continue to do things the way we have always done them and expect to get different results. We need to find new ways to improve student achievement.

[1650]

This legislation introduces a number of new measures that will help move our province's education system forward so that it remains among the best in Canada and the world, and helps B.C. achieve its goal of becoming the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America by 2010.

One of the cornerstones of this legislation is increased accountability for student results. School boards and the province need to work together to improve how students are doing in their schools. Under this new legislation the focus will be on improved student achievement. To help boards do this, accountability contracts will be replaced with achievement contracts.

We recently met with the B.C. School Trustees Association and school boards, and we will continue to meet with them to find ways to improve student achievement in their districts. These achievement contracts will require each board to look ahead and set specific measures for student improvement. Boards will also be required to prepare achievement reports in which superintendents will look back on the previous year and report how their district did in reaching its achievement goals.

The role of the district superintendent of schools will clearly be articulated to include their responsibility to school boards for student achievement in their districts. This will help reinforce the fact that student achievement is the superintendent's number one job.

We are also increasing school board accountability for student achievement, but with that we will increase support for school districts. To help districts reach their goals, we will create superintendents of achievement. Four superintendents of achievement are part of our plan to build additional capacity in school districts. These superintendents will inform and advise and work alongside school boards to help them develop school and district achievement contracts.

They will also find new ways to use existing data and evidence in order to evaluate student achievement. They will foster connections between school districts that are taking similar approaches to improving student achievement in their schools. They will also identify best practices in school districts by encouraging those districts to share their successes with other districts, including those that are struggling to meet their achievement goals. They will also, and importantly so, connect the ministry and field resources.

Superintendents of achievement will also help to determine whether levels of student achievement are what we would expect, whether it is improving and whether we're doing the right things to improve student achievement throughout British Columbia.

The superintendents of achievement will also provide parents with a new avenue for appealing decisions. The scope of the appeals and the process involved with appeals will be outlined in regulation in collaboration with school trustees.

Parents want to have more of a voice in how the education system in British Columbia is being delivered. One of the ways boards can improve student achievement is by making sure children are developmentally ready when they start school. We know that

[ Page 7019 ]

when young children get a great start in school, they get a great start in life. However, the reality is that some children are better prepared than others when they begin school. That's why it's so important that families with preschool-age children get additional support and tools they may need to help prepare their children for kindergarten.

We've already put a number of programs in place to help children begin their school year. For example, the LEAP program is designed to promote literacy in children up to age five by integrating reading and language skills with play. Ready, Set, Learn is a kindergarten readiness program for three-year-olds and their parents. Ready, Set, Learn open houses have been operating for three years now, and they help ensure that parents receive the information they need about their child's learning and development. Last year the program was offered in 1,071 schools and served more than 17,000 soon-to-be students.

Just this fall the province embarked on an ambitious program to open up 80 StrongStart British Columbia centres in schools throughout our province. These StrongStart centres help young children grow linguistically, physically and socially through age-appropriate activities like stories, music and art. Caregivers are actively involved in the StrongStart centres so they can use the same activities at home to ensure that children are being better prepared for kindergarten.

[1655]

Currently, the province provides every school-age child with a personal education number, or PEN, to assess student performance over time and to help teachers develop educational programs. Now the province will also provide PENs to preschool-age children enrolled in ministry early learning programs. These PEN numbers will help educators assess those early learning programs and make appropriate changes.

This legislation also requires boards to develop literacy plans to improve reading skills within the school system by working with their communities. We know that reading is a fundamental skill for every British Columbian, and it's necessary to be successful, whether in school or in life. We also know that one in three British Columbia adults struggles to read something as basic as a restaurant menu or a bus schedule. It is essential that we work together with school boards and communities to change that.

Because school boards will have a broader mandate which includes early learning and literacy, this legislation will change the name of school boards to boards of education. We want to improve literacy rates for all British Columbians so they can achieve their very best.

Under this legislation, we also will have the capacity to create new provincial demonstration schools, and that right will be broadened to provide students and parents with more choice. Some examples of provincial demonstration schools may include schools that offer training and trades, technology, languages and the arts. A provincial demonstration school could be a stand-alone school or a school within a school.

We intend to consult with our partners before making final decisions on any proposed provincial demonstration schools. These schools will give us the opportunity to develop the very best educational practices that can be shared with schools throughout British Columbia and also, most importantly, to respond to families' desires to see more choice within public education.

This legislation also upholds the School Act and the principle that school boards should provide programs leading to graduation free of charge. It is clear from discussions with school boards, parents and students that they want choice and flexibility within the public school system. That's why we're introducing amendments to the School Act. We want to enable school boards to offer more choice to students in their educational programs so that our students can achieve their very best.

The amendments to the School Act set out the following: school boards may charge fees for specialty academies. The amendment permits a school board to offer a specialty academy, following approval from the school planning council, which must in turn consult with parents in the community. The specialty academy must comply with the requirements set out in regulation. Boards and school planning councils must also annually approve fees for specialty academies.

The amendment permits school boards to charge fees to defray any non-instructional costs incurred in offering a specialty academy or costs that are in addition to those incurred by providing regular educational programs. This means that the core courses will be off