2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Leslie Peterson

Hon. M. de Jong

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M215 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Money Transfers) Amendment Act, 2015

J. Shin

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Volunteerism in Chilliwack

J. Martin

Prevention of violence against women

M. Karagianis

Mike Buday

M. Morris

Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society

H. Bains

Bees and beekeeping program

S. Hamilton

Economic opportunity projects for women in Lower Columbia area

K. Conroy

Oral Questions

Sale of government land in Burke Mountain area

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

Sale of government lands

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

S. Robinson

Sale of government land in Burke Mountain area

M. Farnworth

Hon. M. de Jong

Review of child death case

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015 (continued)

C. Trevena

Hon. T. Stone

M. Farnworth

Hon. S. Anton

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 26 — Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong

B. Ralston

C. James

A. Weaver

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 9 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2015

Hon. S. Bond

S. Simpson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services

Hon. A. Virk

D. Routley

D. Eby

K. Corrigan

V. Huntington

G. Heyman

[ Page 7215 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2015

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I wanted to mention to the House that I was pleased today to welcome 37 students, two grade 5 classes, from Southpointe Academy, which is an independent school in Delta South, led by Ms. Cristina Leo and accompanied by eight parents. The students were here earlier today but did want to be mentioned and welcomed to the precinct.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House here a couple of constituents from Monte Creek, which is a small community on the eastern edge of my constituency. Alan and his wife, Ansley, Armstrong actually just got back from a three-month trip to Australia. They’re avid cyclists. I believe that this is their first time here in the House. Alan started a family-run dentist practice in Kamloops almost 50 years ago, and he has since passed that practice on to his son and daughter. I would ask that the House please make Dr. Alan and Ansley Armstrong welcome today.

N. Macdonald: I just want to introduce Brittany Newman, who is visiting. She’s a Goldenite who was actually raised in the same block that we lived on. She’s now living in White Rock. That happens, I guess, but she still thinks fondly of Golden. It’s lovely to see her here.

Welcome.

Tributes

LESLIE PETERSON

Hon. M. de Jong: The passage of years in no way diminishes the relevance, the importance or the value of the contribution those who serve in this chamber have made. Leslie Peterson served in this chamber for 16 years. He was born in Viking, Alberta, and moved to British Columbia in 1949, where he set up a practice in Vancouver.

He was first elected to the chamber in 1956 for Vancouver Centre and served for 16 consecutive years. He was a long-serving Minister of Education and Minister of Labour, and he served for four years, from 1968 to 1972, as the Attorney General for the province of British Columbia. Following his departure from political life, he became a member of the board of governors for the University of British Columbia. He was appointed to the Order of British Columbia in 1990 and received the Order of Canada in the year 2000.

Although it has been many years since Mr. Peterson served in this chamber, I know that all members will want to convey to his family our profound sense of loss and condolences, and thank them for sharing him with a grateful province and a grateful nation.

Introductions by Members

D. Eby: There are probably few members in this chamber that haven’t had the chance to experience camping in British Columbia. There are a number of people in the gallery here who make that experience possible for families across the province and internationally. We have representatives of the B.C. Lodging and Campgrounds Association — Jim Humphrey, Patrick Gramiak, Jeff Kirkman and Joss Penny. I would hope the House would make them feel welcome and thank them for their work exposing people all over the world to B.C. wilderness.

[1340]

G. Kyllo: It’s a great pleasure that I introduce my eldest daughter, Sarah Kyllo, her first visit to the chamber, with her partner, Gerry Martselos. And a very special introduction to my newest constituent, my second granddaughter, Siddhalee. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

J. Horgan: Joining us today off-Broadway, I would say, are the B.C. NDP constituency assistants, who are here for a training session. They normally watch us on the big screen, but now they’re here with the orchestra pits filled, ready to watch the play begin.

I know members on both sides of the House could not do their work were it not for constituency assistants. I want to thank you all from the bottom of my heart, and I think I speak for everyone. Whether you be on our side of the House or the other side of the House, the work we do is critical, and it’s because you’re where you are doing what you do that it makes it all go.

Thank you all very much from the bottom of my heart and, I believe, from every member in this place. Thank you very much for what you do, either on our side, their side or even in independent-land down the way there.

J. Shin: I’m happy to introduce to the House a group of 35 members from the Taiwanese-Canadian community visiting us today. Many Taiwanese immigrated to Canada in the late ’80s, and today the greater Vancouver area is home to the largest Taiwanese community in all of Canada. So it’s not just their pineapple cakes and bubble tea that I love, but I also appreciate their entrepreneurism and social spirit which enrich our multicultural society that we celebrate in B.C.

[ Page 7216 ]

My constituents Rex Hua, Kat Chang, Renee Hua and May Liu are also in the gallery with the group. I do have to mention — although the member from Deer Lake would likewise mention her — the third-time-elected, my very good friend and Burnaby’s sweetheart, Coun. Anne Kang is also joining us in the gallery.

Would the House please welcome our Taiwanese-Canadian friends feel very welcome.

B. Ralston: I, too, would like to introduce some of the members of the same Taiwanese group. I’d like to begin with Reverend Colin Kang, who is the United Church minister at Tai Kong United Church on Elgin Street in East Vancouver. He’s about to retire, and I’d like to thank him on behalf of the entire assembly, I’m sure, for his years of service.

Let me also introduce Suzane Kang, Chee-Eong Lin, Hsi-Tsang Wang, Shih-Ying Gloria Lee, Hui-Mei Mandy Chen, Meng-Hui Wang, Michelle Chen, Marin Kuo and Hsiu-Chu Nancy Chen.

R. Chouhan: I also would like to welcome some of my wonderful constituents from the Taiwanese community. They are Ibi Soqluman, May Lee, Sophia Soqluman, Murray Soqluman, Harvey Lai, Sandra Lai, Mike Lai, Ya-Chi Chen, Fiona Lai, Paul Lai, Sophia Lai, Mei-Chu Tai, Sheng Hsiang Chuang and Yen Hui Su. Please join me in welcoming all of them.

K. Corrigan: I’d also like to welcome some of my constituents who are part of the Taiwanese delegation that are here today. Coun. Anne Kang, who is also a good friend, has already been mentioned. With Anne today are two very young constituents who are her two children, Elizabeth and Teddy Lin.

Peter Lu is here, as well, as part of the delegation, and Andres Yeh and Yao-Sheng Wu. Would the House please make those guests very welcome.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I’d like to make an introduction. Please welcome DeBeck Elementary students, the grade 7 class and their teacher Don Allison, accompanied by Principal Larry Hurst; and the grade 6 classes with teachers Ms. Poonawala and Mrs. Yamasaki and accompanying parents. Please make them very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M215 — BUSINESS PRACTICES

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION (MONEY

TRANSFERS) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

J. Shin presented a bill intituled Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Money Transfers) Amendment Act, 2015.

J. Shin: I move introduction of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act for its first reading.

Motion approved.

J. Shin: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce this bill to regulate foreign money transfer fees and improve the standards of business practices by the vendors. This bill will protect British Columbians from predatory fees applied to international money transfers, also known as remittances.

[1345]

In Canada remittances amount to more than five times the international aid that the country as a whole provides, and many British Columbians send money overseas to help support their family members. These money transfers are also the means for sending emergency cash to family and friends travelling abroad, for providing regular support for children studying in other countries and for individuals wanting to transfer money for international aid during times of natural disasters or for other charitable causes.

With globalization and technological advances, it is now easier than ever before to send money abroad. However, some money transfer companies are charging large and often hidden fees to British Columbians for handling their remittances, and there are no regulations in place in B.C. on the rates and the disclosure standards.

Many senders remit small sums often, as opposed to a big, one-time amount. British Columbians looking to transfer money are paying a flat fee of $12 to $20 each time, or even more, be it $100 or $200 that they’re sending, and this does not include the additional and often undisclosed conversion fees for currency exchange.

Currently in B.C. the fees being charged average 15 percent of the total amount transferred and can go as high as 20 percent, far higher than the fees that we see in other countries.

This bill proposes to align British Columbia with the international standards recommended by the World Bank, which state that a maximum of 5 percent of the total moneys transferred be charged for providing the service. By regulating fees and increasing transparency, this bill will protect British Columbians from fee gouging and help them to see more funds make it into the hands of their loved ones.

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

[ Page 7217 ]

Bill M215, Business Practices and Consumer Protection (Money Transfers) Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VOLUNTEERISM IN CHILLIWACK

J. Martin: We happen to be right in the middle of National Volunteer Week in Canada right now. As we all know, non-profit organizations and volunteerism play a huge role in each and every one of our communities — caring for those less fortunate, promoting the arts, culture, sports and encouraging healthier and better connected neighbourhoods.

Cari Moore coordinates a program called Volunteer Chilliwack, through Chilliwack Community Services. Her role is to support volunteerism in Chilliwack and help organizations find those volunteers best suited for their needs. She also volunteers her time in various capacities, including as president of the Soroptimists International club of Chilliwack.

Harold Zinke is a well known face on the streets of downtown Chilliwack. Harold has been a street ambassador to the downtown Chilliwack BIA for 14 years, keeping the streets of downtown Chilliwack clean and green. He is a friendly help to many of the downtown merchants, always ready with a smile and a handshake.

As MLA in Chilliwack, I have the pleasure of attending numerous community events, and somebody I get a chance to see often is Marilyn Vik, who leads many of Prospera Credit Union’s community engagement initiatives. She and her team volunteer much of their time out in the community and help to run these events smoothly.

In promoting sports in Chilliwack, there is no one more recognizable than Jack Covey, an avid supporter of the Valley Huskers football team and a board member of the Chilliwack Sports Hall of Fame, Jack continues to focus on the idea that sports is much more than a game. Rather, it is a pathway to the development of an athlete as a better person and a better citizen.

These are just a few of the outstanding volunteers in Chilliwack, and I know that each and every member on both sides of the House have story after story to tell about the stellar volunteers in their own communities who make such a difference.

I would ask the House to join me in celebrating the thousands and thousands of British Columbians who dedicate so much of their time and their effort to make British Columbia the best place on earth. Thank you so much.

PREVENTION OF

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

M. Karagianis: This is Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. It’s a sad truth that we live in an often violent society. Fifteen years into the 21st century ours is a society where women and girls are not always safe. The tragedy of missing and murdered women in British Columbia and across Canada is a vivid example — and, of course, the disturbingly high rates of domestic violence that we see in our society.

Violence against women affects us all. It affects children. It shapes the future of girls and boys. It shatters lives. It costs us dearly in many ways.

[1350]

Twenty years ago, in 1995, B.C.’s government of the day proclaimed one week in April as Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. This annual campaign helps raise awareness of incidents in our community that impact the safety and well-being of our mothers, our grandmothers, our daughters, our sisters, our aunts, our partners and our friends.

This week we must commit to increase our efforts to raise awareness for the rights of all girls and women to live free from violence. We need to encourage a paradigm shift in how society treats girls and women here in B.C., in our country and right across the world.

Education and awareness are key components and so are early intervention, supports for women at risk and resources for front-line programs and for workers. We must involve everyone — women and girls, men and boys — to change our attitudes and to teach healthier ways of conduct.

South African archbishop Desmond Tutu said: “It is by standing up for the rights of girls and women that we truly measure up as men.” And as Maya Angelou said: “When I know better, I do better.” So we must all do better. The safety of women and girls depends on it.

MIKE BUDAY

M. Morris: Thirty years ago on March 19, 1985, I was a member of the RCMP emergency response team, boarding an aircraft to travel to Teslin Lake in northern B.C. My team was tasked with relieving the northwest B.C. RCMP emergency response team, who were engaged in tracking and apprehending an armed murder suspect on this remote and isolated lake. The suspect had shot at the RCMP aircraft the day prior.

As we were boarding the aircraft, we received the news that the suspect had been shot by police, but not before the suspect had shot and killed Const. Mike Buday with a single bullet to the back of his neck. The suspect had also pointed his rifle at a second RCMP member, who shot and killed the suspect. It was later revealed that the suspect’s weapon had misfired. The bullet in the chamber of the rifle had failed to go off when struck by the firing pin. The second RCMP officer’s life was spared by this misfire.

Mike Buday was a friend and a colleague, well respected by fellow officers and members of the communities he policed during his short service. He joined the RCMP in 1976 and served in the communities of Fort Nelson, Prince George and Terrace.

[ Page 7218 ]

Last month on March 19 a municipal park was dedicated to the memory of Const. Mike Buday in the community of Terrace. A cairn marks the spot near Teslin Lake where Mike was killed. Constable Buday’s name appears on the peace officers’ memorial on the grounds of this Legislature, along with the names of many other peace officers who have given their lives in serving the people of British Columbia. I commend this Legislature and communities throughout British Columbia for recognizing these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice to keep our province safe.

PROGRESSIVE INTERCULTURAL

COMMUNITY SERVICES SOCIETY

H. Bains: It’s always an honour to stand here and thank organizations that help so many in so many different ways, especially helping new immigrants make transition easier to settle in their new country, Canada.

Today I would like to thank an organization called Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, also known as PICS, for organizing an appreciation event to mark the beginning of National Volunteer Week and to acknowledge the efforts of the more than 100 volunteers. On Monday volunteers were recognized by Raghbir Singh Bains, who was recently honoured by the Prime Minister with a Community Leader Award.

My good friend Charan Gill founded PICS many years ago — 20 years ago, in fact. In the beginning PICS was run solely by volunteers. Today it has developed into a major community organization, and PICS’s name is synonymous with helping people.

Each year more than 100 volunteers donate thousands of hours of their time to PICS, working diligently on services such as employment and settlement programs, senior housing, adult daycare, transition homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence, and currently, the tax clinic. I might add that my colleague from Surrey-Whalley has accompanied me many times to the facility of PICS, and we saw those services in action.

National Volunteer Week began in 1943 to draw attention to the vital contributions women made to the war effort on the home front. Today it has become the largest celebration of civic participation in Canada. During National Volunteer Week, PICS, as well as many other organizations here and around the world, try to find ways to recognize the countless hours donated by volunteers in every way.

[1355]

I ask this House to join with me. Let’s join with these organizations in expressing extreme gratitude for all the work done by indispensable volunteers and thank service providers such as PICS, who continue to find ways to help people in need.

BEES AND BEEKEEPING PROGRAM

S. Hamilton: I rise today to speak about the importance of bees and other pollinators to our province. Bees play an essential role in the agricultural sector in British Columbia. Crops which depend on pollination account for an increasing percentage of the province’s agricultural outputs. This year an estimated $200 million of agricultural products are dependent on honeybee pollination.

Currently, there are not enough honeybee colonies in B.C. to support the production of many crops, including blueberries, which are so central to farming in my community of Delta. But thanks to the continued effort of organizations like Delta’s Earthwise Society, who provide classes and instruction on beekeeping, we are gradually addressing this issue locally.

An estimated 60,000 bee colonies are needed to sufficiently pollinate our province’s 20,000 acres of blueberry farms. With a total of 45,000 commercial bee colonies in B.C., our local farmers actually need to import bee colonies to support their crops.

Bees also contribute to the health of British Columbians, as honey, beeswax and pollen are used in a variety of products and therapies used to treat seasonal allergies, skin conditions and other ailments.

In recognition of the importance of bees, Kwantlen Polytechnic University has recently announced B.C.’s first commercial beekeeping program. This program will support small-scale family beekeeping businesses, providing B.C. farmers with access to pollinators and providing beekeepers with a stable, in-demand source of employment.

The program will begin in January 2016 and will have the space for 16 graduates initially, but that number is forecast to grow to 24 spots after three years. KPU estimates the first batch of graduates could boost the province’s economy by up to $250,000 per year. I’m sorry, but I can’t resist. Would-bee students will gain knowledge and firsthand experience on beehive care, bee disease management, bee botany, integrated pest management, as well as packaging and marketing and bee business planning.

I encourage all members to support beekeepers in their region and recognize the importance of bees to British Columbia.

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY PROJECTS

FOR WOMEN IN LOWER COLUMBIA AREA

K. Conroy: Women Creating Change is a partnership between the Greater Trail Community Skills Centre and the Trail Family and Individual Resource Society. In May of 2012 three years of funding was awarded by Status of Women Canada to determine and address barriers to women achieving economic security and stability in the Lower Columbia.

[ Page 7219 ]

A number of projects were completed, but fundamental to the overall project was the research conducted through the gender-based analysis. This showed statistics like: 51 percent of the local population is female. More than half of the women in the region earn less than $24,000 a year, as compared to one-quarter of the men, and one-third of the working women work in lower-wage occupations.

This led to the development of a community plan, their “20/20 vision for 2020,” which guided a community accord. The hope is that by the year 2020 there will be equitable economic opportunities available for all women in the region. To accomplish this, they had individuals, organizations and businesses across the region sign on to the community accord.

All agreed to support, encourage and value policies, decisions and actions which will increase women’s access to affordable education, career planning and skills training, living-wage employment opportunities and family-friendly workplaces, affordable child care, housing, public transportation and other community services. So far, those to sign on include every municipality in the area; the school board; Selkirk College; our MP, Alex Atamanenko; myself; and numerous organizations and businesses.

Another project was PhotoVoice, an on-line video of eight women living below the living wage in the community. It gave them an opportunity to share their stories while putting a face on what it means to be poor in the Lower Columbia region. Also just completed was the first round of bursary awards to women who are in the process of stepping out of their current situation and wanting to upgrade their education but may not be able to attend school on a full-time basis.

This is a progressive group, led by Jan Morton, Michele Cherot and Ann Godderis and staffed by Tara Howse, with an active, dynamic advisory committee of women throughout the region. I know we can look forward to more exciting work from this group on behalf of women in the region.

[1400]

Oral Questions

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LAND

IN BURKE MOUNTAIN AREA

J. Horgan: Yesterday the public learned that in the haste to balance a budget in 2013-2014, the B.C. Liberals held a fire sale of public assets. They had a fire sale when they disposed of 14 parcels of public land, appraised by an independent appraiser, valued at $128 million. They sold it for $85 million.

Just so I can get the Premier up to speed on what happened yesterday, we talked about this in some detail with her minister of community services.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair will hear the answer and the question.

J. Horgan: We asked some questions of the Minister of Citizens’ Services. We didn’t ask him why it was that he’s responsible for the Freedom of Information Act and denied access to the evaluation for over a year. I suppose that he didn’t get the memo that I got from the Premier that said this was going to be the most open government in North America.

However, I digress. The point today for the Premier is this. We had a private evaluation paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia, a professional who knows his business, who told the people of B.C. through their government that they had assets worth $128 million. And in their haste to balance the budget, the Premier and her ministers sold it for 33 percent less than it was worth.

My question to the Premier is this: what were you thinking? You said that you were a good manager of the economy.

Madame Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

J. Horgan: Clearly, leaving $43 million on the table is no example of that.

Hon. C. Clark: I want to commend the amount of change we see over there in the NDP these days. Three weeks ago they expressed an interest, for just about the first time, in what’s going on around the treaty table, last week they expressed an interest in economic growth, and this week the Leader of the Opposition has the temerity to express an interest in balancing the budget. Well done. It’s something that on this side of the House we have long known almost all British Columbians are very interested in doing.

That’s why in the budget he refers to there was a $350 million surplus. The numbers that he’s talking about wouldn’t have changed that materially, particularly given the fact that about 40 percent of the closing dates on those agreements happened after the budget year had ended. His argument that this was part of an effort to balance the budget is very clearly wrong, as is, I think, his view that no government, has any business, really, in trying to make sure that we’re getting rid of surplus assets.

We on this side of the House are very different from the NDP. We believe that when there are surplus assets in government that the taxpayer owns and that could be put to economic use, we will dispose of them. We will sell them, put them to use, create jobs, create economic activity. That’s what we were elected to do, and that’s what we’re going to keep doing.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

[ Page 7220 ]

J. Horgan: I can see that the passage of time hasn’t helped the Premier hear the question and then try and cobble together an answer that comes remotely close to what was asked of her.

I believe I heard it’s okay for the Premier to tell other levels of government how to manage their affairs, whether it be through the now infamous Auditor General for Local Government or whether it be saying to school boards to find some low-hanging fruit. I’ve got a message for the Premier. I went by my school board, and the tree that had the fruit on it has been cut down, and they’ve sold the wood for firewood because they can’t afford their hydro rates.

Now, let’s see if we can have a groundbreaking moment here in the province of British Columbia under the watch of the B.C. Liberals. I was going to ask — through you, hon. Speaker, to the Premier: why would you leave $53 million to school boards to find when you had $43 million in value that you gave away to Liberal backers? Why would that happen? Can the Premier answer that question?

[1405]

Hon. C. Clark: If they did, indeed, chop down trees on a school site in his riding, it would be so that they could make space for the new $40 million school that is being built there.

I think I’ve already pretty clearly illustrated why the member’s argument that this money would have been, could have been, was being used to try and balance the budget is just wrong. With a $350 million surplus on the books, with 40 percent of the closing dates on these land sales happening after the budget books had closed, I think it’s pretty clear that his argument is wrong.

This was a set of deals that was done and administered by Colliers, which is a very well-respected real estate company in Canada. It was a six-way bidding process. We certainly believe that we got best value for that land based on the real assessment of the land after assessors had actually gone and had a look at it.

We’ve most importantly, though, gone out and freed up that land in a really important part of the province, a really important part of the Lower Mainland, for economic growth. I know that the mayor of Coquitlam, that the mayors in the Tri-Cities and that all of the mayors in the Lower Mainland will be delighted to know that economic activity is going to be happening on land that before and certainly under the NDP would never have happened.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a final supplemental.

J. Horgan: The Auditor General said that the balanced budget….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Oh, I’m sorry. Is it your question? I didn’t know that the minister of gas was up today. I didn’t know that. I’ll continue if he has finished his intervention.

The Auditor General said, about the budget in question, that were it not for the gain from real estate sales, it may well not have been balanced. Now, we’ve opened up one can of worms here, and we have many, many more cans to open over the next six weeks. I’m looking forward to every single day, and I’m certain that when the Premier is here, she’ll enjoy it as well.

Let’s look at some of the waste. The Auditor General for Local Government — money in a pile, burned. We had yesterday the admission that we couldn’t work with IBM. This is one of the larger companies in the world, and the people of B.C. would have expected value for money — $72 million, gone. We’ve told school boards that they have to find money. We’ve told ferry users that they have to pay more. We’ve told hydro users that their rates are going to go up, up, up and up.

The so-called good managers on that side of the House had a precious asset in the heart of the Lower Mainland — one of the most desirable places in the known universe to live, real estate values going up, bidding wars going up. And despite expert advice to spend six to nine months marketing it, over Christmas they said: “I’ve got a Liberal friend who will buy that. Let’s do it now. What’s $43 million among friends?”

My question to the Premier is this. Let’s try and focus on $43 million wasted instead of talking about things that might interest the Premier for the moments that she’s here. Why did you leave $43 million on the table?

Hon. C. Clark: The member gets up and expresses this interest in a balanced budget and in careful, disciplined spending. I have to say it is the very first time I have heard that member or any member express such passion about balancing the budget or looking after people’s money. In the budget that….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. C. Clark: These members would repeal balanced budget laws. They would go out there, and they won’t even…. In the last election they wouldn’t even promise to balance the budget. Every day they promise to spend billions more of taxpayers’ dollars, and they have no way to pay for it. They have no interest not only in balancing the budget, but they also have no interest in making sure that we’re spending taxpayers’ money well.

We will not take lessons from the New Democrats in how to manage the economy. After seven successive credit downgrades, here we sit on this side of the House, after 13, 14 years in government now, with a triple-A credit

[ Page 7221 ]

rating that has just been confirmed. We are very proud of that. That is the product of years of hard work, careful management of people’s money and real fiscal discipline.

[1410]

The members opposite wouldn’t know what that looked like if it dropped on their heads. On this side of the House we understand it, we work at it every day, and we’ve been recognized for it around the world.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS

C. James: Yesterday the Minister of Citizens’ Services flatly dismissed any suggestion that he was rushing land sales in order to prop up the government’s bottom line. We heard the Premier repeat that again today. Once again, it appears very clear that the government can’t get its story straight.

I have an e-mail from Mr. Jim Baker, the strategic properties lead in the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. He wrote to his colleagues and said: “To be part of the sale and development of over eight hectares in Victoria’s beautiful Inner Harbour area is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, an opportunity that normally would warrant years of planning and preparation. Unfortunately, we don’t have unlimited time. Our goal is to have for-sale signs up on October 31, with the sales in the bank by March 31, 2014.”

My question is to the Premier. Why were government staff told to have “money in the bank” by the end of the fiscal year, even if it shortchanged taxpayers?

Hon. M. de Jong: The difficulty with the theory being advanced by the member and her colleagues is that it simply isn’t borne out by the facts, and it simply isn’t borne out by the manner in which these transactions occurred.

We were talking about the transactions at Burke Mountain, where in one fiscal year, 2013-14, proceeds from this sale were booked — a portion of the proceeds in a year where the government recorded a surplus in excess of $350 million and the balance recorded in a year where the government anticipates recording a surplus between $900 million and $1 billion. The suggestion that the timing on these transactions was motivated by a fiscal imperative is not borne out by those numbers — nor, by the way, is it borne out by the fact that a number of the parcels involved are still on the market.

The government is committed to the principle and understands, accepts and will be motivated and guided by the principle that the taxpayers of British Columbia deserve the very best market value for assets that are sold on their behalf.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Money in the bank by March 31. An opportunity of a lifetime. “Unfortunately, we don’t have unlimited time.” That’s a direct quote from ministry staff. It sure sounds to me like the government gave direction to rush these sales.

The sad part of all of this is that rushing these sales meant the taxpayers lost out — in the case of Burke Mountain, losing out on millions. At a time when government is telling families to tighten their belts, they’re squandering scarce resources that we will never get back.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Why did the government direct that a year-end fire sale should override ensuring taxpayers get fair value for public lands?

Hon. M. de Jong: In January of 2013 I heard virtually every then member of the opposition cry out that the government could not balance the budget. When the budget was introduced in February of 2013, the same members of the opposition cried out: “The budget isn’t balanced.” Later….

Interjection.

[1415]

Hon. M. de Jong: Now I hear the member making an assertion. It’s not new math. It’s NDP math, and it doesn’t work on this side of the House. The fact is….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand that having staked all of their credibility on the fact….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I have an interesting theory about NDP credibility, but they don’t want to hear it, Madame Speaker.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: Having staked all of their credibility on the fact that a budget in British Columbia in 2013 and 2014 and 2015 couldn’t be balanced, I understand how embarrassed they are, confronted by the fact that it could.

In the release and sale of surplus assets, the process is clear. It is fair. It employs reputable firms in a transparent way, and it invites and receives a robust response from the market — in the case of Burke Mountain, six offers. And for members of the NDP, which may be unfamiliar with the workings of the market, that ultimately is the most accurate reflection of market value — that which the market is prepared to assign to it.

[ Page 7222 ]

S. Robinson: It’s this government that should be embarrassed for giving away a British Columbian asset.

The Minister of Citizens’ Services was extensively briefed by staff yesterday after question period. So perhaps he had a chance to speak to his deputy minister, Sarf Ahmed. On May 17, 2013, Mr. Ahmed wrote to his colleagues and said: “I am writing to you as ADM responsible for asset sales. As you are aware, asset sales is a key initiative for the government to balance the budget in fiscal 2013-14. The fiscal plan includes a net gain of $350 million from this initiative this year, which we are collectively committed to achieve.”

My question to the Minister of Citizens’ Services: why did he insist that government was not rushing land sales to make government’s budget targets when his own deputy minister says something else?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member who has pursued the issue further, I’m going to — if she will allow me or if she would like — provide her with copies of the ’13-14 budget, where the government quietly and secretly hid our plans around surplus asset sales by setting out in detail what the objectives were, setting out in detail what the rationale was. If that’s coming as news to the member now, then I really don’t have any explanation for that.

I do know this. The opposition, particularly over the last number of years…. When they were in government, of course, they had a different take on this, having sold many assets. But the opposition would have us believe today that they are opposed. They were opposed in 2013; they were opposed in 2014; they are opposed in 2015 to the sale of assets that are generating no activity.

In fact, if the opposition had its way, there would be $83 million less available today for health care, for public safety, for education, because they are philosophically opposed to the notion of taking that asset, selling it at market value to the private sector and generating jobs and economic opportunities in communities across British Columbia. And we are for that.

[1420]

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LAND

IN BURKE MOUNTAIN AREA

M. Farnworth: I’d like to inform the Minister of Finance that what this side of the House wants to see is a fair and equitable return on the assets that the people of the province of British Columbia own — not giveaways. And when it comes to lands on Burke Mountain, that is exactly….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Ministers.

M. Farnworth: We want a fair and equitable return on those parcels of land. And what the minister has failed to mention is that a number of those parcels have had significant work done on them by the city of Coquitlam. Planning and development. All the planning has taken place. On those particular parcels we can get market value. That’s what we should be getting.

But on parcels that this government has sold, that work has not taken place. There has been no planning appropriately done. In fact, their recommendations from the appraiser were to hold those parcels for the medium and longer term. That’s why, by not doing that, we’ve seen a piece of property assessed at over $5 million sold for $100,000.

If the Minister of Finance wants to ensure a fair and equitable return to the people of the province of British Columbia, can he please explain why you would give away now a piece of land for $100,000 when your own appraiser said: “Hold on to it, and guess what. You’ll get almost $6 million”?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to repeat for the hon. member and the House the process that was followed.

First of all, the lands in question were identified in 2012 as being available for marketing. The active marketing took place, I believe, starting in November 2013. And ultimately the transactions occurred. Now, I’m not sure what part of a process wherein there is an active marketing process by a reputable firm that elicits six offers from the market, from which the decision-maker, distinct from any political involvement, selected the unconditional offer that was received from the ultimate purchaser, which generated the income. Now, if that isn’t by definition, the mechanism for determining market value, then I’m not sure what is.

With respect to the parcel that the member has referred to, I concede he lives closer to it than I. I am advised that the topography on this land, coupled with the stream and the other setbacks and the other challenges in its location, had a significant impact on the ultimate valuation. If the member is saying that he, if he could, would pay the assigned amount, millions of dollars, for that lot, then I’m going to suggest he won’t be joining that former NDP premier at the other firm that he referred to yesterday, because the market has spoken here and the lot in question was clearly not valued accurately.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: And yes, I do live very close to that particular mountain. I’ve watched that mountain for 40 years. I’ve watched the development take place on that mountain. Every member of the Tri-Cities who lives there has — including the Premier three ridings ago, before she left because she got tired of the people who lived there. She knows exactly the kind of development that’s taking place too.

[ Page 7223 ]

[1425]

Guess what. The planning has been taking place to develop that land, and fair market value has been arrived at for all the parcels that have been sold, except for this one. And the minister wants to stand up and say: “Topography. It’s too steep, and there are stream problems.”

Well, let me quote and read from his own appraiser’s valuation report. “As illustrated by the topography images, lot 8’s terrain generally slopes at a gradual to moderate rate with no pockets with slope ratings exceeding 30 percent. As there are no significant portions of land and no….”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members. Hon. Members, this House will come to order.

M. Farnworth: I guess the heckler over there has obviously never been out to West Vancouver and seen what view property goes for out there and what they build out in West Vancouver. But I can tell you. People are eager to live on Burke Mountain because of the incredible views that you get.

Let me continue down what the appraiser writes. He says: “After analyzing the information regarding the subject lot, its highest and best use, due to topography, it is determined to be held for its current state for the medium term until access and services can be provided at an economically viable rate to allow for development.”

Their own appraiser is saying this land is suitable for development. It doesn’t have any stream issues. It doesn’t have any out-of-the-way slope gradient issues. It’s suitable for development. And in the longer term it will get $6 million.

So the question is: why on earth do you still stand there and say that giving away a piece of land for $100,000 that your own appraiser says is worth closer to $6 million…? How on earth does that make good sense?

Hon. M. de Jong: On the one hand, the opposition says what they are interested in — and by the way, what they are entitled to be interested in and all British Columbians are entitled to be interested in — is whether or not British Columbians received a fair return, fair market value, for the lands — and any lands, not just the lands on Burke Mountain.

On the other hand, the member and his colleagues seem to take issue with a process that relied upon a respected marketing agency that went to the market, engaged in extensive marketing activities, solicited and received a robust response from the market and selected the best offer. Now the member and his colleagues want to sit here and suggest that somehow there was a flaw or somehow people were shortchanged.

By the way, I understand that the NDP have difficulty with this concept of market value. It was only a few elections ago that a member of the opposition party suggested that property values should be legislated. It was a member of the NDP who thought this chamber should legislate property values in British Columbia. We reject that assertion. We believe that people are entitled to receive fair market value, and that is what happened in this case.

REVIEW OF CHILD DEATH CASE

D. Donaldson: In the death of a child in care, the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s practice standards require that a designated director be notified immediately and a case review is initiated within 30 days, based on factors like the nature of the incident.

In the case of Isabella Wiens the nature of the incident is a 21-month-old who died in care, with the coroner listing unexplained broken bones and multiple bruises. To quote from the coroner’s report: “Autopsy revealed healing injuries including bruises on the chin, forehead and face and arms and legs, as well as healing fractures in the bones of the left arm. Where and how the fractures occurred could not be explained.”

[1430]

There’s no statute prohibiting the minister from answering if a director’s case review took place. As a matter of fact, we’ve been informed that a director’s case review was not done.

To the minister, why didn’t an unexplained death of a child in care, combined with unexplained injuries, trigger the highest level of review by her ministry? Why did you not ensure a director’s case review was conducted?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Again, a tragic circumstance and, certainly, a heartbreaking one for the family.

As I’ve said before, I’m not going to comment on details of cases in this House, for reasons of privacy law. That remains the case today.

I have outlined in this House and in the media the number of processes that occur any time there is an injury or a death of a child in care. That has not changed. Those things occurred.

The member may be confused on some aspects of this, and that I would be happy to assist in correcting, if the member would bother to contact my office.

[End of question period.]

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

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I would like to introduce a friend and former constituent, when I represented the Lake Cowichan

[ Page 7224 ]

area. He’s been introduced already in this House in a different context. He’s a constituent of my friend from Cowichan Valley. His name is Jim Humphrey. He’s the owner of a campground in Lake Cowichan, but I’d like the House to recognize his contributions as the leader of the Vancouver Island minor hockey association, which is experiencing a number of challenges right now.

As we know, sometimes people become far too involved in the emotion of sports around children. On Vancouver Island there have been a number of very unfortunate cases where parents have in fact come to blows in the stands. They are repeatedly harassing young people who serve as referees and linespersons — one of them the daughter of a friend of mine, who can barely stay in the service that she gives to minor hockey.

I want the House to commend Jim Humphrey for the leadership he’s showing in trying to control this problem and bring resolution to it. And I give him my personal thanks, as a step-parent of a rep hockey player and a person who has witnessed all this. For the great service that you do, Jim: thank you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, and in this chamber, beginning with committee stage on Bill 15.

[1435]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 15; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

section 16.

C. Trevena:

Section 16 of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act — this is just fixing numbering, as I understand. I would just like the minister to clarify that, please.

Hon. T. Stone: This is purely a housekeeping item. I think the legislation as it currently reads provides for (

b) and (

c) and it really should be (

a) and (b). It’s just cleaning that up. It was a mistake from the past.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

C. Trevena: To the minister, I just wondered if he could give a little bit of an explanation about the need to amend this section, which will now allow a municipality to allow cycles and/or motorcycles to park near a beacon, a stop sign or a traffic control signal. I would just like a little bit of information about why he got this and how it’s going to work.

Hon. T. Stone: This particular section, while it may appear to be quite a minor amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act in the grand scheme of things, is one that is of high interest to those who have and use motorcycles.

For a good number of years now these motorcycle coalitions have been asking government to make this change. To this point municipalities have been enabled, through this legislation, to allow motorcycle parking within six metres of crosswalks, but not stop signs and traffic signals.

The true intent of this amendment here is to expand that, such that municipalities will be able to facilitate motorcycle parking or allow motorcycle parking, should they choose to do so…. The decision will still rest with the municipality. Should the municipality wish to do that, they will be able to do so not just six metres from a crosswalk but also within six metres of a stop sign and a traffic signal.

The benefits of this… I should point out that in addition to the motorcycle coalitions, we’ve had an increasing number of municipalities that have been asking us for this. There were quite a few, actually, at the Union of B.C. Municipalities Convention last year. What this will do is allow for the more efficient use of some of this space for the parking of motorcycles.

[1440]

Again, the caveat is safety and that the allowance for this type of parking

[ Page 7225 ]

cannot in any way infringe upon the driver’s ability to actually see the traffic signal or the stop sign.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could just explain a little bit about how we’re going to ensure the safety. It seems to be, just from thinking about certain traffic signals that you know in your own communities….

How are you going to ensure that that safety aspect is kept there, that the vision isn’t going to be blocked and that you’re not going to suddenly get a whole raft of motorbikes there? I just wanted a little bit more explanation, please.

Hon. T. Stone: The key requirement for a municipality to be able to enable this, via bylaw in their respective community, is that allowing such parking cannot in any manner obstruct a motorist’s view of the crosswalk or the intersection.

That actually is the case today with respect to the allowance that municipalities have for this type of parking within six metres of a crosswalk. We’re simply expanding that to allow similar parking six metres within stop signs and traffic signals.

It will continue to be up to the municipalities that choose to enable this, or choose to allow this at specific intersections, to ensure that it meets the safety test. I should again point out a good example of a municipality that is doing this today — insofar as the current provision, which is the six metres within crosswalks: the city of Vancouver.

I understand, on good authority from those in Vancouver, that the city of Vancouver has not encountered any significant challenges from a safety perspective with the allowance that they’ve had up to this point. We wouldn’t anticipate there would be any significant safety challenges by expanding this to allow for similar parking within six metres of signals and stop signs.

C. Trevena: The minister, obviously, is very concerned about safety, as we all are. And mentioning the city of Vancouver, is there any way to track this? I’m thinking that, more than anything, you’re going have it be like pedestrian-vehicle accidents that could occur — where somebody’s just not seeing, and they come out from between the bikes, behind the bikes or something? Has this been tracked? Is ICBC looking at this?

Hon. T. Stone: Yes, and I know that the member for North Island shares our concern, my concern for safety.

With any incidents involving vehicles, whether they be cars, trucks or motorcycles, and as well, incidents involving pedestrians, those details would show up in the accident reports of law enforcement — so in the case of Vancouver, the Vancouver police department. Those details would show up in ICBC data, from the perspective of any claims that result from these kinds of accidents.

The way I understand that it works within a municipality is that it’s very similar to the way it works with the province on our provincial highways. You’re constantly assessing, taking a look at where accidents are taking place. Again from a municipal perspective, if there is a trend developing at a particular intersection where this type of parking was allowed for motorcycles, that would presumably trigger some action on the part of the municipality to take a look at that and, potentially, remove the lawful ability of motorcyclists to continue to park at that particular — if I can call it that — high-incident location.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

C. Trevena: I’ve got a number of questions about this

section — a little concerned about the changing definition, changing regulations about winter tires.

[1445]

I wondered if, first, the minister could explain what the new definition of “winter tire” is and where it is going to be applied, just to start things off.

Hon. T. Stone: Just to take a step back here. Generally speaking, what we’re trying to do here with this changed or improved definition for winter tires really is in response to…. It came out of our rural and safety speed review that we did last year.

Certainly, as a new minister a couple of years ago, going into the fall season…. This whole question of what actually constitutes a winter tire — which apparently is an annual discussion, an annual debate that had been taking place for a good number of years — frankly, was confusing to British Columbians.

We have a definition today that’s in the Motor Vehicle Act. It’s hard-coded there. We also had law enforcement in different parts of the province indicating a slightly different definition of a winter tire. There was conflicting information within the Ministry of Transportation’s own collaterals.

I determined to put this on the table for discussion as part of the rural safety and speed review which, again, took place last year, to really extract from British Columbians their thoughts on this. Where we landed was that, fundamentally, tire technology has dramatically improved over the years, and it’s continuing to improve. It evolves almost on an annual basis — the technology that’s used in tires.

The approach that we had employed to this point — i.e., having the definition hard-coded in the Motor Vehicle Act — made it very, very difficult to change and amend. The member knows well the legislative process required for amending a piece of legislation.

What, fundamentally, we are doing here is…. This section,

section 18, is about removing from the Motor Vehicle Act the hard-coded definition that we have today for winter tires and replacing that with the requirement to provide for a “winter tire” definition via regulation, which will then enable us to, on a much more frequent basis — frankly, as needed — update that definition from time to time as the technology in tires evolves.

I know we’ll get to the next

section in a moment, but very quickly,

section 19, the next section, is the

section that actually provides some framework for the types of considerations that can be put on the table when we define or develop a regulation for winter tires.

That all being said, I believe that part of the member’s question was also: what is the definition going to be? Again, we’ll talk a bit more about that in the next section,

section 19. I can say, as the member is well aware, that we did erect new signs around the province before this last winter season and indicated on those signs that for the purposes of defining a winter tire — i.e., a tire that is lawful to use in a defined period of time on our high mountain passes — that the preferred option would be the mountain-snowflake tire.

[ Page 7226 ]

[1450]

That is the best winter tire available. It’s the one that I use, that I put on my truck every winter. Most folks in the Interior, who live through winter and icy and snowy roads — that’s the tire most people use. We also believe that because the tire technology has evolved as much as it has, mud and snow, or M-and-S, tires also qualify as winter tires.

Again, the ministry’s recommendation, my recommendation as the minister, is that if people are travelling over high mountain passes, the snowflake-in-a-mountain tire is the better tire.

But 60 percent of British Columbians, those who live in the Lower Mainland, don’t travel in snow that often. We believe that because the technology in tires has evolved as well as it has, particularly with M-and-S tires, the most balanced approach — and the approach that first and foremost respects safety but also recognizes the realities of who in British Columbia actually really needs mountain-snowflake tires on a regular basis — is the ability to have either. The mountain-snowflake or the M-and-S tire is an appropriate winter tire for use on high mountain passes.

The last thing I’ll say about this is that there is still a requirement in the Motor Vehicle Act, which will still be there after we complete these amendments, that provides for a requirement for a minimum tread depth of 3.5 millimetres. That’s really important too, because you can have the best mountain-snowflake tire, but if it’s bald, it’s not going to do you any good. So motorists are still reminded to make sure that their tread depth is no less than that 3.5 millimetres.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for his overview. I apologize if we end up crossing a little in

section 18 and

section 19 in the

definitions, if we can have a bit of latitude here. We are defining winter tire in

section 18, the new

section 208, saying that “‘winter tire’ means a tire that meets the standards and specifications prescribed for winter tires.” It’s only in

section 19 that we specify what that might be.

The minister made an interesting comment that he and his ministry would recommend that in the high mountain passes and other areas of the interior of B.C. you be driving with the mountain-snowflake but that people obviously coming from the Lower Mainland, who don’t see much snow, may just have M-and-S, the mud and snow tire.

I’m wondering why it is purely a recommendation. If people are driving in areas where there are severe winter conditions and they are only driving with an M-and-S tire, which is effectively an all-seasons tire…. We’re talking about tire technology. It isn’t designed to deal with the severe cold and the snow in a way that a real winter tire, the mountain-snowflake tire, is. I mean, mountain-snowflake tires are engineered to deal with colder conditions and to be able to deal with the impact of colder conditions in a way that M-and-S tires aren’t.

I’m wondering why it is only a recommendation to have the M-and-S or mountain-snowflake tire.

Hon. T. Stone: Obviously, the number one consideration as we work our way through nailing this definition of winter tires is safety. I’ve said that many times. Again, I want to highlight — as with the changes to speed limits in the province, as with the changes to the “Slow down and move over” — that when we look at the myriad policy changes we have made just in the last couple of years that impact drivers, we only make these decisions if we are absolutely convinced they’re safe for the drivers of British Columbia.

[1455]

We have some of the most talented traffic and safety engineers in the Ministry of Transportation, who have spent their entire careers…. Their professional reputations are on the line in terms of what they sign off and what they don’t sign off. There isn’t a person in the ministry that would have signed off on the change in definition for winter tires if he or she did not believe that it was safe to do so.

Now, I say all of that. Certainly, the technical conclusions that ministry staff have come to with respect to tires is really this. Without question, the snowflake-in-a-mountain tire is an ideal tire, particularly for terrain that’s frozen. They’re not necessarily dramatically better than M-and-S tires in snow, but they certainly provide more traction on ice.

The M-and-S tires, and the member knows well that the M and S stands for mud and snow, are tires that consumers, if they’re in good working condition, can use year-round. I mentioned earlier in a previous response that we’re confident that because the technology in those M-and-S, those mud and snow tires has evolved and evolved quite significantly, they are safe. They are very safe to use in winter conditions.

The types of technical considerations that come into play involve a number of things — for example, the rubber composites that actually make up the tire. The composites in and of themselves have improved dramatically over a number of years. When we consider the tread pattern on mud and snow tires, there have been significant advancements there. When we consider sipes or the cuts that are actually in the rubber tire, these add to the traction that the tires provide.

Again, safety was the overriding consideration, and we approached this with an abundance of caution from the perspective of safety. That being considered, I will go one bit further and simply say this. I mentioned earlier that about 60 percent of British Columbians live in the Lower Mainland and don’t travel on winter roads very often. Many people in the Lower Mainland might make one trip up to Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George on an annual basis.

[ Page 7227 ]

Because the technology in these mud and snow tires has evolved so much in recent years and our technical engineers in the ministry believe that they’re safe, we’re not interested in imposing an economic hardship which would come as a result of a requirement to have a mountain-snowflake tire for those folks that would only be really needing them once or twice a year.

Those folks still need to drive with an abundance of caution. They need to still check the Drive B.C. website and understand what weather conditions they may entail and, obviously, drive to the conditions. But we believe, fundamentally, that this revised definition will strike that balance between safety first and foremost and recognizing the realities of who drives in winter conditions predominantly across the province of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: While recognizing that, and the minister talks about the evolution of M-and-S tires and the evolution of tire technology, a lot of people are driving on tires that have been around for a few years, that haven’t evolved. You’re still driving on tires that may not be the most contemporary design, and you’re driving into high mountain passes.

Particularly if you’re not used to driving in severe winter conditions, I think it is allowing people a bit of a false sense of security by saying, “It’s okay. You can use your all-season tires,” because M and S, as the minister well knows, was just a brand name, I believe, for Michelin at one time, and that’s what has become the common refrain for all-season tires.

Unlike some jurisdictions where they have distinct summer tires and winter tires, we have this hybrid all-season tires and winter tires, without the necessity to have everybody carry winter tires.

[1500]

I’ve got a couple more questions about this and the minister’s thinking on it. First off, because I just wanted to work through a logical chain here, we have individuals who are driving on all-season tires, M-and-S tires, into mountain passes. We also have people who are renting cars across B.C. and going out skiing. They may fly into Kamloops or Kelowna and go out skiing — again, driving into mountainous areas where they have never driven before.

Does the minister expect that rental car companies are going to be having M-and-S tires — because that is acceptable, according to this government’s legislation — or go for the high safety standard and have winter tires?

Hon. T. Stone: Again, I think an overriding consideration here which is important to keep in mind is the tread depth itself. The average tire, whether it’s M and S or mountain-snowflake, depending on how much a person drives on an annual basis, would usually be replaced at about 100,000 to 120,000 kilometres, if not sooner. I do mine a bit sooner than that. That’s governed or dictated predominantly by the tread depth, the amount of wear and tear that’s still available on the tires.

An individual who lives in the Lower Mainland who has a pair of M-and-S tires might drive those tires for 100,000 kilometres and end up wearing the tread depth down to one millimetre. They would be breaking the law by using those tires on any mountain pass in this province over the winter, over the defined period of time, because they would not have the required tread depth.

Again, fundamentally, we believe that the technology in mud-and-snow tires has evolved. Subject to that tread depth, assuming you have the 3.5 millimetres or more of tread depth, they are abundantly safe for use on winter roads.

Now, with respect to the question about rental car companies, we certainly expect — and it’s the law — that rental companies will also ensure that their tires have that minimum 3.5 millimetres of tread depth. We also know that many rental car companies provide an option to customers. I know I have rented vehicles in the past, and I specifically have requested mountain-snowflake tires because I was driving over a high mountain pass in the winter, and I was provided with a vehicle with those types of tires.

It is incumbent upon the consumer to make sure that he or she is comfortable with the vehicle and the tires that he or she feels that they need. It’s incumbent upon a rental car company to make sure that the tread depth is there on whatever tire it is that the vehicle has.

C. Trevena: Simply put, in this instance, when we’re talking about rental car companies, it is up to the individual renter to ask the rental company to make sure there are mountain-snowflake tires on, rather than saying: “This is the standard, that we have defined ‘winter tire’ in legislation under

section 208 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and we want to ensure that you are providing that for your customers.” It’s up to the renter.

Hon. T. Stone: Yes.

C. Trevena: I just wanted the minister to…. Again, I don’t want to belabour the point, but this is a very diverse province. I was just talking to my colleague from Kootenay-Boundary, who was talking about going through Salmo-Creston pass or, I believe, Blueberry pass. We were talking about tires, and she was quite shocked at the thought that anybody could consider going through these passes in winter on an M-and-S tire — that this could even be conceived of, even with the depth.

[1505]

When you are driving — as the minister well knows; he lives in the Interior — with winter tires, you do get a better sense of grip. You do feel more confident driving. The fact that you are still allowing this…. The onus is on a driver to make that decision, when we have the ability

[ Page 7228 ]

to legislate a little bit of extra safety here. I’m wondering why the minister is just saying that it’s okay to fix it, possibly in regulation — change the signs a little — but you’re going to be okay if you keep checking the depth, putting a quarter in your tire treads to make sure they’re deep enough.

Hon. T. Stone: British Columbia is actually one of the few provinces that even requires the use of a defined tire for winter use. There are a number of other provinces that do none of this and that, I would argue, are covered in snow and ice pretty much their entire province compared to our province, where the vast majority, or 60 percent plus, live in the Lower Mainland.

That all being said, the fundamental point here is that it is incumbent upon drivers to not drive on high mountain passes if they have tires that do not have the appropriate tread depth, regardless of what type of tire it is. The Motor Vehicle Act is rife with requirements that drivers have. Drivers also have a requirement not to speed, not to drive beyond the posted speed limits, or to dial back their speeds if the conditions warrant. There’s a tremendous amount of driver judgment that still fundamentally comes into play when it comes to striking out on any highways and roads in British Columbia.

Again, we believe that we’ve struck the appropriate balance here, recognizing that the predominant consideration is safety, but there is allowance or recognition here that in light of the fact that the vast majority of residents actually very seldom drive on winter roads, we are allowing for M-and-S and mountain-snowflake tires here — again, assuming the tread depth is, at minimum, the 3.5 millimetres.

C. Trevena: If the RCMP were on a winter road and doing just general road checks and they came across a driver who had M-and-S tires and it was…. Basically, if the situation was that you really had to have snow tires to get through this area, would the RCMP be in a position to turn back those drivers whose tires were not adequate? Forget the depth of the tread. Both tires have got the right tread. One’s using snow tires. One’s using M and S. But the RCMP, as the traffic officers, believe that the road is impassable with all-season tires. Would the RCMP have the right to stop people proceeding?

Hon. T. Stone: As the member knows well, law enforcement reserves the right to turn any vehicle back should they feel that that vehicle is in some fashion ill-equipped to continue to drive a particular road, whether it’s a high mountain pass or elsewhere in the province. I think, practically speaking, if a law enforcement officer — and that could be the police, it could be CVSE — was to determine that a particular vehicle did not have the appropriate tread depth, as one example, then he or she would be fully within their right to turn that driver back and tell them they can’t continue driving over the path that perhaps they had in mind.

In fact, that has been the case up to this point on a very regular basis. The RCMP and other law enforcement agencies are out there doing routine mechanical inspections of vehicles, including checking the tires that are on a vehicle, particularly in winter, and particularly looking at the tread depth.

[1510]

C. Trevena: We’ve now got these big signs since the minister has taken over, very big signs on the side of the road. I notice them very clearly. We have these new big winter signs — they went up last fall — with the graphics of the car or the trailer and then a separate one with the trucks. The ones for the cars and the campers say: “must use winter tires — M and S or mountain-snowflake.” The ones for the trucks say: “must carry tire chains.” Now, these replaced the much smaller signs that used to read — same period, I think it was — “must have good winter tires or carry chains.”

I’m wondering why there is now no longer the demand or the fact that cars should have chains, that it’s just good enough to have…. I’m thinking we could get around this if you get your M-and-S tires, your all-season tires, but you’re carrying chains and using chains. I’m wondering why we’ve taken off the onus for drivers to have chains except for truck drivers.

Hon. T. Stone: The member is quite correct. It has been, to this point, possible for motorists to carry chains. The old signs, which were a bit smaller, did allow for the provision to use winter tires or carry chains. The challenge with that in terms of the chains was that far too often motorists were finding themselves in a very terrible situation — i.e., in a ditch — after spinning out of control because they had their bald tires with a pile of chains in the back of the trunk. People were simply not putting the chains on.

It was the strong advice of law enforcement to eliminate that as an option and to simply require the use of a good tire, which again is either mud and snow or mountain-snowflake with 3.5 millimetres of tread depth. Again, that’s for cars and light trucks. But as the member rightfully pointed out, the use of chains is still acceptable for the larger commercial vehicles.

C. Trevena: I’m assuming that the use of chains isn’t prohibited for cars. If you do see yourself getting into a tricky situation and you’ve got your chains in your trunk, rather than weigh down the trunk and give you extra weight in the trunk, you put them on the car. That’s still acceptable.

Hon. T. Stone: The use of chains is not prohibited. Nothing that we’re doing here with this legislation ac-

[ Page 7229 ]

tually prohibits the use of chains on cars and light trucks. The requirement moving forward will be that the motorist must have winter tires — either M-and-S or the mountain-snowflake tire — on top of which they can put chains if they would choose to do so. Some motorists are continuing to do that. They have the right chains, they’re installing them correctly, and it’s providing them with that much more traction, which is going to be to their benefit from a safety perspective.

C. Trevena: Are there any highways…? I’m just reading section (2). It’s part (2) of

section 208. I’m not sure if I’m reading correctly, but I’m wondering if there are any highways where it is prohibited to drive without winter tires — if there is anywhere in the province where it says you must only have winter tires.

[1515]

Hon. T. Stone: If the member is referring to whether or not there are any corridors in the province that require just mountain-snowflake tires and mud and snow tires are not allowed, then the answer is no. But again, the definition of winter tire in British Columbia, as a result of the changes we’re making here today and then the regulation that we will bring in subsequently, will define a winter tire in British Columbia as a tire that is either mountain-snowflake or M and S, along with 3.5 millimetres minimum tread depth.

C. Trevena: I feel like we are completing a circle here. Then I will move on, I think, to the next section. Maybe some of my other questions can be answered under the next section.

Under this we are going to get a regulation that says a winter tire effectively means M and S, which is all-season — which we can use all the time — or a winter tire. There seems to be…. While I respect the engineers in the ministry, and I respect the fact that there has been a lot of work done on this, even linguistically — semantically — it just doesn’t seem to make sense that you can have an all-season tire as a winter tire and a winter tire as a winter tire.

It will cause, I believe, confusion for people who are looking for clarity when they are wanting the safest possible tires for their vehicle.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the decision that we are moving forward with here, which is entirely based on the technical and the safety analysis of our engineers in the ministry, is to update the definition of a winter tire such that that definition provides for tires that have been designated as mud and snow, or tires that have the mountain-snowflake symbol on them — assuming there’s the 3.5 millimetres of minimum tread depth.

That’s the definition. Should this legislation pass this House, that’s what our intention would be for the definition of winter tire to become.

I can’t speak to the specific wording of the regulation yet because we don’t have it. That’s a process that will take place once this legislation is dealt with here in the chamber. But as I’ve said, the intention, which I think is displayed on the signs now, is to provide for both the mud and snow tire and the mountain-snowflake tire with that minimum tread depth.

C. Trevena: The minister has just acknowledged something that I actually wasn’t going to bring up, but I will do since he’s acknowledged it.

This legislation is coming after the fact. The signs went up just around the beginning of October, end of September of 2014. Now we’ve got this legislation, and yet we’re not going to get the full definition until it’s done through regulation, which is outside this place. So we won’t know exactly what’s in the regulation, but it sounds like…. I think the minister is being pretty clear on what is going to be there. It’s going to be all-seasons. Winter tire means winter tire. I’m wondering about, literally, the process. The timings that have gone into this, that we’re getting…. If you might use a very old analogy, putting the cart before the horse.

Hon. T. Stone: The bottom line here is you can’t write the regulation until you actually have a law to which the regulation will refer. So this is not putting the cart before the horse. This is doing things in the proper order.

We are saying that we want to take the current definition of winter tire…. That is hard-coded in the Motor Vehicle Act and, therefore, very difficult and time-consuming to amend as and when required as technology develops. We’re going to take the definition out of the Motor Vehicle Act and replace the provision in the Motor Vehicle Act with the ability for the government, via regulation, to update the definition of winter tire as required and as technology changes. That’s fundamentally what’s happening.

[1520]

That regulation has not been developed yet and won’t be developed until we’ve actually got the legal basis to do so, which will come if the chamber passes this legislation.

C. Trevena: The cart before the horse was the fact that we’ve been advertising this since the end of September, beginning of October as law, although we haven’t actually passed the law until sometime, I imagine, in the next few hours.

That being said, the minister mentioned something that I wanted to refer to. I’ll briefly move on to one section, section (4), while I try and recapture what it was.

Section (4) of 208 — I’m wondering why there is a change. It was: “For the purposes of a prosecution under this section, the onus is on the defendant to prove that a tire alleged not to be a winter tire is in fact a winter tire.” That was reverse onus. Now it’s changed to, “A person

[ Page 7230 ]

who drives or operates a vehicle in contravention of a prohibition made under subsection (2),” which is prohibiting “any vehicle or a class of vehicles from being driven or operated on a highway” unless equipped with chains, winter tires or traction devices.

I’m wondering why this has been changed around.

Hon. T. Stone: A very good question. The prior requirement in the Motor Vehicle Act was that the driver had to prove that the tire was essentially sold to them and advertised — I believe the exact words were “advertised or represented by its manufacturer” — as a winter tire. The onus was on…. It was a reverse onus. It was on the driver to prove that the tire had been sold to them as a winter tire.

That made it very difficult for law enforcement, in the moment of checking someone’s tire, to determine, based on that requirement in the Motor Vehicle Act, if the tire was actually represented and marketed as a winter tire — very clunky.

Where we want to go with this is to actually provide a very clear definition of what constitutes a winter tire. In

section 19 we actually indicate that in doing that, we will be able to incorporate, by reference, a standard or specification, certification or designation published by a national or international industry association. This essentially means we’d be able to select a designation that tire manufacturers and the tire industry have deemed for different types of tires. In this case, what’s most relevant is mud and snow, and mountain-snowflake. We can define a winter tire based on the certification of the industry.

That’s going to make it much, much simpler for law enforcement to determine whether or not an individual is actually in contravention of that definition, because the law enforcement officer in question will simply be able to look at the tire, check the designation that’s on the tire and match that against the required designations for winter travel. The person will be abiding by the law or will be in contravention of the law.

C. Trevena: The minister has made reference, obviously, to the industry standard, and we’ll talk a little bit more about that.

[1525]

I know that there was consultation with the industry before this went ahead, and the industry talked to me as well as talked to ministry staff. A number of tire dealerships were involved in this. They are very concerned about this change in the regulation and change in the definition. They had hoped that some of the suggestions they had brought forward to clarify — not necessarily to change but at least to clarify — the position, once the government had made up its mind to the way it wanted to go, would be accepted.

They had been led to believe that there would be changes to the flyer that went out to all the body shops, the places where you get your tires done — the mechanics, and so on. They very disappointed that wasn’t taken into account, and I’m wondering if the minister can just clarify why that was.

Hon. T. Stone: With respect to the member’s question about the level of engagement and the manner of engagement with the tire manufacturing industry, I can say quite clearly that the tire industry has been very much engaged with staff in the Ministry of Transportation throughout this entire process. Indeed, the industry and different representatives from within the industry have offered their perspectives and their professional opinions on the definition of winter tires.

With respect to where we are landing on this, there are some in the tire industry that perhaps would have preferred a different solution. Again, we made the decisions based on the complete view of technical analysis that we had both within the ministry and that was provided to us from outside the ministry and have determined the definition based on the fact that tire technology has evolved so much — which, by the way, the tire manufacturers acknowledge.

They certainly acknowledge that a mud and snow tire, which the industry also doesn’t refer to as an all-season tire anymore…. The old notion of summer tires, which were more the all-season tire, are not tires that are sold that often anymore. Most drivers have either the snowflake-in-a-mountain-tire or they have the mud and snow tire. Manufacturers will tell you that those mud and snow tires provide much better traction today in snow and on ice than they did in years past.

I think we should also acknowledge that it would very much be in the interests of the tire industry if there was a requirement for British Columbians to go out there and have to purchase a second set of tires. I think tire manufacturers have acknowledged that point as well.

What I can say is that we’re going to continue to engage with the tire industry as we move forward. They certainly understand our position. I think they respect our position. But we’ll continue to work with them, and we will need to, frankly, as the regulation is developed. We’re going to be relying more heavily, in terms of defining a winter tire, on the standards and the specifications that tire manufacturers actually develop in tires themselves.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

[1530]

C. Trevena: I think we’re into some of the same areas here in

section 19, but I didn’t want to carry them all over into

section 18. We’re talking in

section 19 about amending

section 209, which are the regulations that will refer to what you need to ensure that you are using the right

[ Page 7231 ]

sort of tires. The minister did say that this is going be defined in the regulation.

I’m just wondering if the minister can explain why we are adding the two sub-paragraphs of (b.1) “prescribing standards and specification for winter tires” — I think we’ve gone through that — and (b.2) “regulating types of chains and other traction devices.” If the minister could explain what that terminology means, and then we’ll go on to the other section.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. T. Stone: Again, what we’re doing here in this particular section, specific to the member’s question…. First, we’re adding in the concept of studs as well as other traction devices. To the member’s point — what does “other traction devices” mean? If I’m correct — I’m assuming that’s where she was going with her question.

There is actually quite a bit of evolution taking place with respect to the other types of traction devices. There’s an evolving product called AutoSock. This is a device that is actually kind of a material. It’s not made from chain, but it’s a type of traction material that can be wrapped onto the exterior of the tire, which provides additional traction for those tires. Who knew?

There are other types of traction devices being developed. We wanted to provide ourselves with the flexibility here, when we go to define the regulation, to accommodate the potential for those other types of traction devices that may be developed by the tire industry.

Again, we’re adding in the concept of other traction devices. We’re adding in the word “studs” here, and then we’re also adding in the (b.1) and (b.2), which is providing the ability for us to incorporate by reference “a standard or specification…certification or designation…published by a national or international industry association.” That goes back to the different certifications that tire manufacturers come up with — mud and snow versus mountain-snowflake.

I will point out one other point of interest that I just thought of after my last response to the member’s previous question. As part of our engagement with the tire industry, as well, we suggested to them that if there’s really, truly a tremendous amount of angst in the tire industry about the use of mud and snow tires on snow, then why don’t they, as an industry, take the word “snow” off the tire?

[1535]

They didn’t like the suggestion, but I think it cut back to where the discussion really should be. That is, from a technology perspective, are these tires — the composites that are in them, the sipes, the tread design, and assuming you have the minimum tread depth of 3.5 millimetres — safe for use in snow conditions?

C. Trevena: I’ve saved one bit for this section, rather than the previous section. It might be not appropriate. However, I still wondered if the minister could give me an answer. This is when we get to the chains. The use of chains is mainly now for the trucking industry. From the graphic that we see on the roadside, it’s small trucks and large trucks need to have chains.

I’ve heard quite a lot from people who live in mountainous areas who are concerned about, particularly, cross-country truckers not being able to get chains on, just not knowing how to chain up. I’m wondering if the minister….

I mean, it’s great having the regulation, and we know we’ve got enforcement people out there. But still, is the minister looking at doing any serious enforcement on chaining up, training on chaining up and other ways of ensuring that trucks are chaining up through the mountains?

Hon. T. Stone: I hear the same concern expressed from time to time from British Columbians in different parts of the province who, at least anecdotally, indicate they have come across instances where a commercial vehicle operator was having difficulty putting chains on their truck.

This is a multifaceted challenge, and it will require a multifaceted solution. I can say for the member’s benefit that we have a number of strategies that we employ in the ministry to help commercial truckers know how to properly install chains. At all of our chain-up areas in the province, there are big signs which actually will provide instructions for a commercial trucker as to how to properly put chains on their truck. We have lots of other material, like pamphlets and brochures and things. We have a YouTube video on the ministry’s website which shows you how to do it properly.

We are also in regular contact with industry associations and with trucking companies — the B.C. Trucking Association, for example. The education, awareness and training that associations like the BCTA provide are also very important and are part of the solution.

The last point I’ll make is that we are committed in our B.C. on the Move, our ten-year transportation plan, to actually constructing more pullouts and chain-up, chain-off areas in the province, so that truckers have more opportunities, as well, where it makes real sense to have the opportunity to safely put chains on their vehicles. Obviously, at those locations we will ensure that the appropriate signage is in place to assist truckers who may need some additional help in knowing how to do it properly.

C. Trevena: While we’re obviously working on regulations and legislation for here in B.C., many of the truckers are coming from across Canada and coming along, usually, Highway 1. Are we in sync with the regulations in other areas where we have severe winter?

[1540]

I mean, obviously different terrain — whether we’re talking about northern Quebec, Ontario coming up

[ Page 7232 ]

through north of Superior or into the Alberta mountains. Are our regulations the same, so truckers aren’t having to think that they have to change their approach in each place?

Hon. T. Stone: We strive on an ongoing basis, largely through the new west partnership with Alberta and Saskatchewan, to ensure that wherever possible we can harmonize as many regulations respecting trucking, as one industry, as much as we possibly can. So whether you’re in Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, there is a requirement that is the same, very similar, with respect to the requirement for chains on commercial vehicles.

I would point out, however, that out of those three western provinces, British Columbia is the only jurisdiction that actually has a date range wrapped around that requirement for the use of chains. It’s much more general or nebulous in Alberta and Saskatchewan in terms of the requirement — the time frame during which the requirement for chains actually is required.

Section 19 approved.

The Chair: We’ll take a short recess and wait for the Attorney.

The committee recessed from 3:42 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

section 20.

M. Farnworth:

Section 20 is adding regulation powers related to the new mandatory driver programs. At the same time, it’s repealing broad regulatory-making powers dealing with remedial programs and ignition interlock programs.

Can the minister explain the difference between what’s being added and what’s being taken away and also the comment that some of the powers were, in fact, never exercised?

[1545]

Hon. S. Anton: The pieces that are taken out, under (2.1) and (2.2), were not used except for the prescribing fees section. That has been now added in as (k.5). The others — (k.1), (k.2), (k.3) and (k.4) — relate to the criteria for mandatory remedial programs.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

section 24.

M. Farnworth: This particular

section clarifies the period of a driving prohibition under

section 215.43, how it is to be calculated. Can the minister explain the clarification, what it is obviously trying to correct, why the clarification is necessary and what will be the new procedure and calculation process?

Hon. S. Anton: The purpose of this

section is to clarify exactly how you count the days of a prohibition. It wasn’t crystal-clear in the legislation before.

[1550]

This has been the practice, which is that no matter what time of day you get your prohibition, the counting of days actually starts at midnight on the next day, so it’s always three full days plus whatever portion of the day was remaining when you got your prohibition, if it was a three-day prohibition. The intention was always to count it in this way, and the goal here is to clarify that that, indeed, is the right way of counting it.

M. Farnworth: Okay. It is Saturday morning, let’s say three o’clock, which is probably a typical time that people would get pulled over and get a prohibition. The calculation would then take place from midnight that Saturday evening, and it would be all day Sunday, all day Monday, all day Tuesday, and it would end on Wednesday morning at one minute after midnight. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Anton: For a three-day prohibition that is correct.

M. Farnworth: Just to my colleagues whom I can hear conspiring to my left, no, I am not talking from personal experience.

The Chair: I’m glad that you have set the record straight, Member.

M. Farnworth: Exactly, just to set the record straight.

I thank the minister for that explanation. Does it still need to become…? Will it be by regulation, or will it be, in fact, through a specific…? So in the legislation it will clarify that?

Hon. S. Anton: No regulation. This is the

section right here.

Section 24 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

M. Farnworth: This adds that statements and evidence submitted by an applicant must meet the requirements of the regulations. Are the regulations still to be developed, or are the regulations going to be those regulations that are existing, or is there anticipation of any changes in the regulations that are currently used?

[ Page 7233 ]

Hon. S. Anton: This is the

section that says that the applicant’s application for review must meet the requirements of the regulations, but it’s actually not the regulation-making authority.

M. Farnworth: I just want to be clear. Statements and evidence submitted by an applicant must meet the requirements of the regulations. If I understood the minister correctly…. If she could just explain what the regulations entail, that would be helpful.

[1555]

Hon. S. Anton: The regulation-making authority is in

section 33 — the addition of paragraph (e), which refers back to this section. In the regulation-making authority it talks about…. The two pieces are: “(

i) establishing requirements for written statements and evidence and their submission, and (ii) respecting the circumstances in or reasons for which the superintendent is required to waive a requirement.”

One of the things which is being considered, as I said in the second reading statement, is that there is a consideration of limiting the number of pages that a person can bring with their application for review. It is the case that some of the submissions are very lengthy. In some courts the length of your submission is limited, and there’s a proposal that we consider that. One of the things in mind is that we would consider making that regulation change attached to these reviews.

M. Farnworth: I understand how and why the minister would want to see that change made. What’s the process the minister intends to go through in making a determination of that option?

Hon. S. Anton: The process will take into consideration such things as what the courts do now. For example, the British Columbia Court of Appeal limits the length of an argument to 30 pages. The Supreme Court of Canada limits the argument to 40 pages. Those seem to be numbers that work for those two courts. Sometimes the IRP adjudicators are receiving extremely lengthy applications for review, so it’s that which is being considered in this provision here and in the later provision for regulation.

M. Farnworth: The simpler the disputes, the longer and more complex the argument is. I think that is something that sometimes happens. So 30 pages or 40 pages for the Supreme Court. Can the minister tell us when she expects to have a decision made on this particular proposal?

Hon. S. Anton: If this act is to pass and the authority is granted, then our goal would be to have it done in six months to a year.

M. Farnworth: I’ll resist the temptation to say six months to a year to decide on 30 pages or 40 pages.

One final question. Will the decision-making process…? I mean, I am a little surprised it would take six months to a year.

[1600]

Will it require a legislative change, or will it just be strictly a regulatory change? Will there be public input? It does seem to be a fairly lengthy period of time.

Hon. S. Anton: There will be other regulations, not extensive. But there will be others that will be coming in, in that time. So it’s not only the number of pages.

I think the second part of the question was: what else would we be considering? We’d be considering, as I said, the practice in courts and other tribunals.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

M. Farnworth: This

section “requires the superintendent to revoke a driving prohibition that results from notice under

section 215.41 of the act and take related actions if a sworn or solemnly affirmed report under

section 215…of the act is not forwarded by a certain time.” This obviously relates to one of the earlier sections that we dealt with. My question would be: what are the related actions?

Hon. S. Anton: This is the matching

section to

section 7 that we dealt with yesterday. This is the

section which says that if the officer has not sent in the sworn report, then the superintendent must revoke the driving prohibition, cancel the mandatory penalty, release the vehicle…. Those are the kinds of things that are the related actions. And of course, when I say “send in the sworn report,” within the seven days.

Sections 28 to 31 inclusive approved.

section 32.

M. Farnworth: “Section 32…provides that the burden of proof in a driving prohibition review under

section 215.48 of the act is on the applicant.” I think that has been a standard in terms of the prohibition and of the changes that have been made that allow that to take place.

[1605]

My question on this particular section: are there issues around this

section that are here because of court challenges? Following on that, is the minister confident that this particular

section will, in fact, survive a court challenge, and is she anticipating or prepared for the likelihood of a court challenge on this particular section?

[ Page 7234 ]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, I am confident in this provision. It is a reflection of a principle of administrative law, which is that in administrative matters whoever asserts a proposition bears the burden of proving it. Of course, we’re talking about a civil burden of proof here, not the criminal burden of proof.

Section 32 approved.

section 33.

M. Farnworth:

Section 33 — one of the parts of this

section is “to require the superintendent to waive a requirement respecting the timing of submissions in certain circumstances or for certain reasons.” Can the minister outline what those circumstances are and what those reasons would be?

Hon. S. Anton: This gives the superintendent the ability to waive a requirement. Generally, it would have to be an extraordinary circumstance of one kind or another. For example, it could relate to a timeline. I don’t want to limit it to that, though, because there may be a number of ways in which the superintendent would like to have the kind of discretion which is offered in this section.

M. Farnworth: I understand what the minister said, but if she could be a little bit more definitive. It’s kind of like okay, yeah, I agree, the discretion and the ability, because there are always exceptional circumstances. But I’m just sort of wondering — a little bit more fulsome in what that might entail. Clearly, the ministry must have thought what that might be when putting together this particular section.

[1610]

Hon. S. Anton: Remembering that this is a regulation-making authority, so these things will be laid out in the regulations, an example might be — and, again, I don’t want to limit it because there may be any number of examples — that the superintendent found that the person was in a coma, was too ill to attend. He would then be required to waive the timeline requirement — that kind of circumstance.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for the clarification. I think it is important that there is at least some example on the record, because who knows in the future what was meant by this particular section. I think that is a legitimate example that the minister uses. I’ll be interested to see when the regulations come out, but that’s fine for this section.

Sections 33 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 38.

M. Farnworth: This particular section,

section 38, “exempts emergency vehicles and ambulances from impoundment under certain provisions of the act.” Does that apply to provincial emergency vehicles and municipal…? What is the definition of “emergency vehicle?” Is it, for example, only provincial emergency vehicles? Or does it, in fact, cover federal emergency vehicles — vehicles that might have a federal licence plate, for example?

Hon. S. Anton: The act defines “emergency vehicle” as “a motor vehicle, or cycle as defined in

Part 3, carrying rescue or first aid equipment…driven by a member of a fire department…driven by a peace officer, constable or member of the police branch of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.” There you are. Fortunately, federal emergency vehicles will not be impounded.

Sections 38 to 60 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[1615]

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:16 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Bill 15, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2015, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 26, in second reading.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong: I do move that Bill 26, the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Amendment Act, 2015, be read a second time now.

I think there are a couple of things that one can say about Bill 26. It is, first of all, an example of complexity, to be sure, in legislative drafting. That might be something of an understatement.

[ Page 7235 ]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

It’s probably one of those bills for which, in addition to the general comments that will be presented during the course of this second reading discussion, much of the analysis, criticism, critique will take place when we are in second reading.

I will make these general comments, however. The government made a commitment that it would introduce a new tax on income from liquefaction activities in British Columbia. Last fall we introduced the first piece of legislation relating to that, which represented the conceptual structure of what that tax was intended to look like and how it was intended to operate. I think it’s fair to say that that legislation and that structure was much anticipated, and the government was anxious to satisfy that interest by presenting in legislative form our approach to the issue of taxation.

At the same time, in the course of the discussions that took place in the House, I think it became clear — and I tried to make it clear from the outset — that there were aspects, administrative components, enforcement components, of the taxation legislation that were not included within that bill and that were continuing to be worked on. This Bill 26 represents the completion of that work and does, as I mentioned, include many of the technical and administrative provisions that are necessary to ensure proper enforcement with respect to legislation of this sort.

[1620]

Both, but particularly the legislation we tabled last fall in this House, debated and ultimately passed, are necessary for the industry to advance the process of making final investment decisions. We remain at that stage where work is being continued. Proponents are engaged in negotiations on a variety of fronts, and an analysis. Ensuring that they have a clear sense of the legislative package, in its entirety, is something that the government is ever resolved to ensure occurs.

This act does complete the tax framework by setting out the administration and enforcement provisions for the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. It contains many of the elements that are common to all tax statutes, such as filing requirements, requirements with respect to paying taxes, instalments, assessments, appeals, audits, collections, penalties, offences and anti-avoidance provisions. For those lucky souls who deal with taxation legislation on a regular basis, none of this will strike them as unusual.

One of the questions that did arise with respect to the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act is: how are you going to collect the tax? How does the government, the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia, intend to collect the tax from LNG taxpayers who may have no presence in British Columbia other than to own natural gas.

This bill is intended to answer that question. As well, it requires LNG income tax taxpayers to register with the province and to post a bond at the time of registration. The government then will be in a position to collect the amount owing from the bond if the taxpayer does not pay its taxes.

On the flipside, if an LNG taxpayer were not to register and, therefore, not post a bond, the act includes a mechanism to ensure that the amount that taxpayer owes will be collected from other taxpayers at the LNG facility, thereby ensuring that British Columbians receive a fair return for this shared resource. That being enshrined within the notions of joint and several liability will, I’m sure, be the subject of some discussion when we move to the committee stage.

The bill makes a number of other amendments to the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. It clarifies a number of

definitions in the act, including the

definitions of an LNG plant, an LNG facility, capital investment property, feedstock, spur pipeline, feedstock pipeline and liquefaction activities. All of these being defined terms, and as we reviewed last fall, relevant, pertinent and determining what activities are taxable and at what rate and when taxation begins.

This Bill 26 also clarifies that self-dealing and transfer pricing rules apply to deemed sales of LNG natural gas liquids and natural gas.

The bill also introduces a number of technical provisions for the Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act. These provisions, I think it’s fair to say, aren’t necessarily key components of the tax, but they do provide rules for situations that might arise from time to time. They include rules for debt forgiveness, bankruptcy, the rules for prorating exempt income if an entity becomes exempt or ceases to be exempt, and the exemption of trust income where the beneficiaries of the trust are exempt.

Again, very technical provisions that we can review in greater detail in committee relating to circumstances that may not occur frequently, but it is necessary to contemplate the possibility of them arising and have rules in place to deal with them if and when they do.

The bill also provides transitional rules for partnerships in their first taxation year. These rules, again, are very technical in nature and as with the clarifications that were referred to earlier are consistent with the intent of the act that we debated and ultimately passed in the chamber last fall.

Bill 26 also amends the Income Tax Act for the purposes of the natural gas income tax credit. The natural gas tax credit is currently calculated as 0.5 percent of the cost of natural gas owned by the corporation at the inlet to an LNG facility, but the amount of the credit cannot reduce a corporation’s effective income tax rate below 8 percent.

[1625]

The bill proposes to amend the credit inclusion rate to allow it to be 0.5 percent plus an amount prescribed by regulation. This amendment provides the government

[ Page 7236 ]

with the flexibility to ensure that the credit inclusion rate can respond to changes in the natural gas market, while maintaining the original intent of the credit.

Only from a brief conversation, I think I understand that there will be interest expressed in those provisions, and I think that’s appropriate. I’m hopeful that in the discussion that will take place, I am able to make a compelling case to members of the House for why that is an appropriate provision to include in this legislation.

The other thing I might say at this point is that the agreements and the investment contemplated here, if and when — we remain cautiously optimistic that it is when — these decisions are made, are of a magnitude that I think it is appropriate, and I’m happy to advise the House that it would be the government’s intention, to provide the House with an opportunity to examine in detail certainly the first of those agreements.

To the extent that I think…. I’m not critical. It’s the job of the opposition to be suspicious in circumstances like this. The….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: That is the appropriate role of the opposition. But I’m hopeful members will derive some measure of comfort from the knowledge that I actually…. Given the magnitude of what is being considered here — the extent of the investment and the need to properly balance the principles of certainty for a proponent or an investor with the ability and the constitutional authority of this assembly — in my view it would be appropriate for the House to have an opportunity to examine the government’s proposed answer to where that balance lies.

I’m sure we’ll have more opportunity to discuss that and how that aspect of the bill is intended to operate and facilitate the rationale behind it in the first place, but I did want to say at the outset that I’m alive to the interest. Hopefully, we can pursue that — and I’m sure we will — at the committee stage.

In summation, this represents

part 2, albeit perhaps a less compelling part than the first in terms of the structure of the tax, which was laid out in the fall legislation. But taxation legislation of this variety needs and requires a clear set of rules relating to the administration of the tax, the obligations that are imposed on a taxpayer — the operational obligations that are imposed — and the mechanisms by which the state, or the Crown in this case, are able to enforce those provisions. It is my belief that this legislation, in all its voluminous grandeur, will accomplish that task.

I will listen with interest to the comments of members of the House.

B. Ralston: I rise to address second reading on Bill 26. I want to thank the minister for arranging a briefing with his staff. Myself and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill were there this morning. Indeed, much of the bill, in terms of the framework of enforcement and administration, was explained.

[1630]

But I do want to set a bit broader context than simply viewing this bill as an administrative one which fleshes out some of the tax mechanisms to register and to collect the tax and to wrongfully avoid payment of tax.

Bill 6 was a bill that this bill amends. Bill 6 has not yet been proclaimed in force. The position that the government took was that it was important to have a tax framework for those proponents who were making or on the verge of making significant final investment decisions.

We accepted that argument. We agreed that given the abundance of natural gas, given the prospect of creating a new industry here and given certain conditions that the Leader of the Opposition set down — one of those was a fair return for the citizens of British Columbia — we were prepared to support that legislation.

Indeed, those who followed that debate…. The context in which it took place was the government had set out in the budget in the spring a hypothetical scenario about what the likely tax would be in terms of the LNG tax itself. When the legislation arrived in the fall, that framework had changed, and the total tax take and the specifics of the LNG tax had diminished. Nonetheless, in the interests of recognizing some of the market realities, we were prepared to accept that.

What is now clear is that the context in which we are operating has changed. I would suggest that that context is the political context in which the Premier is operating.

The significant part, really — aside from the administrative apparatus of this bill and the change and clarification of some of the

definitions — is

section 56, which amends the natural gas tax credit. This is a credit which was to be computed as 0.5 percent of the cost of natural gas acquired or notionally acquired at an LNG facility for tax purposes. The

section that is in this bill….

It was set at 0.5 percent in the statute — very clear, very straightforward. Just as much as one would pay sales tax, or you and I might pay our income tax, we know what the percentage is. It’s there, it’s transparent, and everyone knows what it is.

What is now proposed is to take this particular provision and give the government and the cabinet the power to amend that provision in the privacy of the cabinet room, where there will be no public discussion of it. Ultimately, it will be announced — although, I’m sure, probably on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend.

The rules in terms of public disclosure have changed. This is in the context of other legislation that is before the House and is going to come forward. In

section 46 of Bill 23 it’s now proposed that the government would give itself the power to enter into long-term royalty agreements. One can imagine…. This is part of the total package, I’m sure, that’s being offered to proponents. Long-term roy-

[ Page 7237 ]

alty agreements which will be, and therefore directly relate to, the bill before the House….

In that provision, in a long-term royalty agreement, one can well imagine a proponent saying: “I’m investing in a project that will be amortized over 30 years. I want to fix the royalty rate for the entire life of the project. I don’t want to be subject to the vagaries of government, the fluctuations of the market. I want to know at the outset, before I invest, what my royalty will be for 30 years or 35 years or 40 years out.” That gives the government the power to do that.

[1635]

On top of that, what it also says in that piece of legislation is that the minister “must, as soon as practicable, publish an agreement entered into under subsection (1) but may withhold from publication anything in the agreement that could be refused to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, if a request were made under that Act for disclosure of the agreement.”

A long-term agreement, a decision behind closed doors to raise the natural gas tax credit and the way in which the minister phrased…. That’s the first thing. The second thing is long-term agreements where the details will not be disclosed publicly.

Then finally, under the veil of secrecy and non-disclosure that the government seems to want to envelop these projects in, are the project development agreements.

I was here in the House, and the minister was, I believe, here as well — I’m certain he was here — when the Minister of Natural Gas said that under no circumstances could these project development agreements be disclosed. The Minister of Finance disagreed, but we have, in the interim, asked through freedom of information whether any project development agreements have been signed. If so, what is the deal? What are the contents of those agreements?

The request has come back with blank pieces of paper. In other words, everything has been…. The jargon term is “redacted,” that it’s blanked out — nothing. Why is this so? If the deals that are being struck are good deals for British Columbia, surely the government would be proclaiming from the rooftops the details of the return for the citizens of the province of British Columbia.

When one looks back at the debate that took place in the fall of 2014, in the material there was a chart which showed the total tax take of each of these individual projects — in other words, all the tax that was going to be paid by an individual project.

Some of the smaller accumulated taxes would be the motor fuel tax, property tax. PST would bump up during the development phase, when the companies are purchasing material and supplies to build a project. But the bulwark of the total tax take was corporate income tax and natural gas royalties.

Yet now before the House, in Bill 23 and Bill 26, this bill, is a mechanism to lower, dramatically, corporate income tax returns from these projects and natural gas royalties. The total tax return, the return from the publicly owned resource to the citizens of British Columbia is diminishing once again, and the mechanisms by which that’s done, the agreements by which this is entered into are not going to be disclosed publicly.

Project development agreements — I spoke about this in the fall — are more typically a mechanism that one encounters in the Third World, where companies investing typically in mining but also in oil and gas will enter into an agreement with the sovereign state that sometimes has various components. If they get a stabilized royalty rate, sometimes they will pay a premium above the existing rate in return for getting the assurance of the government that that rate will remain constant through the life of the project.

There are a number of variations, obviously, but these are widely known in the global mining world. Of course, because Vancouver is a mining hub, there are many people who are quite familiar with these kinds of project development agreements. But the approach that has been taken by the Minister of Natural Gas is that these are not going to be disclosed, under no circumstances. That’s what he said in Hansard, on the record.

I appreciate that the Minister of Finance’s view is different. But it would seem to me at this point, given our experience in going through freedom of information, that the Premier has clearly overruled the Minister of Finance and said: “It doesn’t matter what you say in the House. These agreements are not going to be made public.”

[1640]

For the public to have any confidence and to be able to judge the agreements, the project development agreements have to be and should be disclosed. There’s been some discussion in the media. Not a great deal of attention has been paid to this issue. But it seems to me that it is crucial, in a public evaluation of return to the public for a public resource, that the terms on which the taking of the resource from the province i