2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 22, Number 6
|
|
||
|
CONTENTS |
||
|
Routine Proceedings |
||
| Page | ||
| Introductions by Members | 9575 | |
| Introduction and First Reading of Bills | 9575 | |
| Supply Act (No. 1), 2004 (Bill 21) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 18) | ||
| Hon. G. Plant | ||
| Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 16) | ||
| Hon. B. Barisoff | ||
| Railway Safety Act (Bill 20) | ||
| Hon. M. Coell | ||
| Statements (Standing Order 25B) | 9577 | |
| Cowboy Hall of Fame | ||
| J. Wilson | ||
| Anniversary of Williams Lake | ||
| W. Cobb | ||
| Volunteer rate in B.C. | ||
| R. Nijjar | ||
| Oral Questions | 9578 | |
| Audit involving Doug Walls | ||
| J. MacPhail | ||
| Hon. R. Coleman | ||
| Hon. C. Clark | ||
| Call for public inquiry into case of Frank Paul | ||
| J. Kwan | ||
| Hon. G. Plant | ||
| Hon. R. Coleman | ||
| Audit services by PricewaterhouseCoopers | ||
| M. Hunter | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Financial implications of government caucus suspensions | ||
| E. Brenzinger | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Status of Bulkley Valley District Hospital | ||
| D. MacKay | ||
| Hon. C. Hansen | ||
| Petitions | 9581 | |
| K. Krueger | ||
| Committee of Supply | 9581 | |
| Supplementary Estimates (No. 4): Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services | ||
| J. MacPhail | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Hon. M. Coell | ||
| Introduction and First Reading of Bills | 9587 | |
| Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 4) (Bill 22) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Second Reading of Bills | 9587 | |
| Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 4) (Bill 22) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Committee of the Whole House | 9587 | |
| Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 4) (Bill 22) | ||
| Report and Third Reading of Bills | 9588 | |
| Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 4) (Bill 22) | ||
| Introduction and First Reading of Bills | 9588 | |
| Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 23) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Second Reading of Bills | 9588 | |
| Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2004 (Bill 5) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 6) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| J. MacPhail | ||
| Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 7) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| Ports Property Tax Act (Bill 8) | ||
| Hon. G. Collins | ||
| G. Halsey-Brandt | ||
| Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 13) | ||
| Hon. B. Barisoff | ||
| J. MacPhail | ||
|
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room |
||
| Committee of Supply | 9600 | |
| Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (continued) | ||
| J. Kwan | ||
| Hon. J. van Dongen | ||
| V. Roddick | ||
|
|
||
[ Page 9575 ]
TUESDAY, MARCH 23, 2004
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Introductions by Members
Hon. C. Clark: Today we are joined in the gallery by five social workers who are helping us celebrate the beginning of Social Work Week this week. These social workers are representatives of the 4,500 people we have working on the front lines in British Columbia doing social work every day, many times unrecognized or underrecognized for the tremendous work they do in contributing to building healthy families and making healthy homes for kids across British Columbia.
Today we're joined by Raylene Bryce from Prince George, in my ministry's north region; Mary Dowdell from North Vancouver, from the Vancouver coastal region; Nancie Hanson of Victoria, from the Vancouver Island region; Craig Hunter of Oliver, from the interior region; and Cathy Kwantes from Langley, from the Fraser region. We had a terrific lunch today. The Premier joined us and joins me today and, I know, all members of this assembly in thanking these five social workers for the incredible work they do every single day on behalf of all of us in British Columbia.
R. Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce a couple of people who have been in the legislative buildings today to meet with some ministries. These folks are involved in risk management including, among other things, earthquake preparedness. It is my pleasure to introduce operations manager for ER Plus, Scott Blessin, and general manager Jean-Francois Landry. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Weisbeck: In the gallery this afternoon we have a former Speaker from Saskatchewan, John Brockelbank. Mr. Brockelbank is visiting Victoria today with his wife, Ina. They are accompanied by Richard and Shirley Weigel and Mel and Wendy Person. Would members please make them welcome.
D. Jarvis: I have residents of my riding, about 70, in the audience today. They are mainly made up of 55 grades 4 and 5 students from St. Pius church school in North Vancouver, in the Seymour area. Accompanying them are their teachers, Ms. Francis Macapagal and Mr. Karl Rydlo. Also accompanying them are parents Rita Rella, Kaz and Alev Giannubilo, Kathy Campbell, Lilia O'keefe, Sandy Lee, Carol Lindsey and Khris Bjornson, and then there's my son and daughter-in-law Dan and Kathy Jarvis. Would you please make them welcome.
J. MacPhail: I had lunch with a wonderful young woman today, a student at UVic, the daughter of good friends of mine. Megan Stewart is joining us to observe question period. She is the daughter of Cindy and Charles Stewart. Would the House please make her welcome.
B. Kerr: I should just say that my little granddaughter has been accepted into St. Pius starting kindergarten next September. Looking forward to that.
The beautiful Cowichan Valley is a regional district, and it's made up of a number of electoral areas. These electoral directors work very hard in their communities to make it a better place for them all to live. Today we have the electoral area B director for beautiful Shawnigan Lake here visiting the gallery. I'd like the House to make Mr. Rick Spencer feel very welcome.
J. Bray: I would ask that the House congratulate a very special group of girls from my constituency. The First Emily Carr Trex Unit of the Girl Guides of Canada won the Scouts Canada — boy scouts — second annual Klondike Derby. They were the only girls group that was in the competition and entered into the boy scout event, which tested outdoor skills such as first aid, orienteering, shelter building and knot tying. The group was also headed up by two leaders, Leigh-Anne McIsaac and somebody well known to this chamber, a former member of the press gallery, Ms. Barb McLintock. Would the House please send a round of congratulations to these girls and their leaders.
G. Hogg: Thomas Jefferson once said that given the choice between democracy and newspapers, democracy without newspapers or newspapers without democracy, he'd choose the latter. While some would say that he was just plain wrong and others might suggest that his thoughts are no longer relevant today, others — like a couple in the House today — would, I'm sure, support at least his premise. Would the House please join me in welcoming a newspaper couple, one from the Peace Arch News and one from the Surrey Now. Please welcome Anita and Ted Colley.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2004.
Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Collins: This interim supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 2004-05 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial two months
[ Page 9576 ]
of the 2004-05 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. The interim supply is required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2004.
This bill, as in past practices, will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. The bill seeks supply for 50 percent of the year's financing transactions, requirements for capital asset expenditures and loans and investments, and 100 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2004.
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 21 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.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
Hon. G. Plant presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.
Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Plant: I am pleased to introduce Bill 18, which amends the following statutes: Business Corporations Act; College and Institute Act; Community Care and Assisted Living Act; Community Financial Services Act; Corporation Capital Tax Act; Crown Proceeding Act; Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act; Financial Information Act; Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; Health Professions Amendment Act, 2003; Hydro and Power Authority Act; the Interpretation Act; the Jury Act; Land Title Act; Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999; the Private Managed Forest Land Act; Royal Roads University Act; Social Workers Act; Tobacco Sales Act; Transmission Corporation Act; Trinity Western University Act; University Act and Workers Compensation Act.
This bill also validates a bylaw that was enacted and ratified by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during the second reading of this bill.
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 18 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.
WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
Hon B. Barisoff presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Water, Land and Air Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.
Hon. B. Barisoff: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. B. Barisoff: This bill contains amendments to a number of provisions relating to compliance and enforcement in five statutes administered by the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. These statutes are the Ecological Reserve Act, Environmental Management Act, Integrated Pest Management Act, Park Act and Wildlife Act.
Over the last three years the ministry has developed a broad program of legislative changes and has implemented a new environmental protection framework. Today's amendments clarify and harmonize a number of the authorities that will improve the administration of that framework. The changes will standardize limitation periods for prosecuting offences under these statutes, clarify the appointment process and enforcement powers of conservation officers and generally improve the wording of a number of provisions in order to provide greater clarity and certainty in the legislation.
I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day and read at the next sitting of the House after today.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is that the bill be put on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.
Bill 16 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.
Hon. M. Coell presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Railway Safety Act.
Hon. M. Coell: I move Bill 20 be read a first time now.
Motion approved.
[ Page 9577 ]
Hon. M. Coell: I am pleased to present the Railway Safety Act — legislation which reflects the province's current roles and responsibilities regarding railways.
Transportation and enhanced public safety are both vital to the B.C. economy and quality of life. The Railway Safety Act addresses both and reflects our commitment to economic revitalization through the reduction of red tape. The new act will result in the repeal of over 10,000 regulations and harmonize provincial legislation with the federal railway safety jurisdiction.
While enhancing rail safety in British Columbia, the new act will also provide for smarter regulation with rail companies and their employees together establishing a quality management system. The proposed act also provides for the delegation of railway safety administration to outside agencies such as the B.C. Safety Authority and Transport Canada.
I move that the Railway Safety Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 20 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)
COWBOY HALL OF FAME
J. Wilson: The B.C. Cowboy Heritage Society founded the British Columbia Cowboy Hall of Fame in 1998. The Hall of Fame is located at the Museum of the Cariboo Chilcotin in Williams Lake. That museum is the only museum in British Columbia that focuses on ranching and rodeo. Members of the Hall of Fame are honoured at the museum with photographs, biographies and memorabilia.
This year's inductees are credits to their communities. Peggy and Laverne McLeod of Westwold were introduced in the category of ranching pioneers. Laverne and Peggy have been ranching together near Kamloops since the fifties and operate their ranch with their son, Scott.
In the category of horsemen, the British Columbia Cowboy Heritage Society is proud to introduce Frederick James Alexander Long, known as Fred to his friends. Fred Long had a lifelong passion for horses, cattle ranching and western lifestyle. He was born in Belfast on December 28, 1938. At the age of 21 he immigrated to Canada, passed through Saskatchewan, Alberta and settled in British Columbia. He bought his first cattle in Vanderhoof. He hired on at the Alkali Lake Ranch to break horses. He chased wild horses south of Alexis Creek, and he caught nine by roping them one at a time. From '65 to '69 he worked at the quarter-horse barn at Douglas Lake. Then he set up a training stable at Barriere. In '74 Fred went back to the old country and joined the King's Troops of the Royal Horse Artillery, but he missed British Columbia so he returned. He started a stud farm at Barnhartvale, and he trained racehorses. Then he took on a job as deputy brand inspector.
In 1980 he moved to Williams Lake as a full-time brand inspector. That's when I met Fred. Fred passed away on October 24, 2003, and today he is up there on the big spread — no doubt breaking out a string of horses for some of us when we arrive.
ANNIVERSARY OF WILLIAMS LAKE
W. Cobb: This must be Cariboo day today.
On March 15, along with Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, I had the privilege of participating in the civic ceremony celebrating the date of incorporation of the city of Williams Lake. We had tea at that famous cowboy museum in Williams Lake.
This date not only marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the incorporation of the city of Williams Lake, but also this year the city has been named the forest capital of B.C. for 2004. The spinners and weavers guild presented a newly designed Williams Lake tartan and are having it registered. The Cariboo piecemakers quilt club presented an anniversary quilt in the shape of a cowboy boot.
As a city we are planting 75 trees to coincide with the 75 years and the 75 different events we have planned for this year. Some of these events include, later this month, a heritage gala event complete with an authentic chuckwagon-style dinner, followed with a multimedia performance by Jack Jackson. On June 13 we'll host the second annual Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion event with our hometown hero Rick Hansen in attendance. On the July long weekend the famous Williams Lake Stampede, of course, will happen once again. That's an annual event. On July 17 and 18 there will be Aboriginal Days celebrating our native heritage. The Canadian Forces Snowbirds will be performing on July 31. An old-time fiddlers and bluegrass festival with participants from across Canada and a pioneer dinner will happen August 1.
The long weekend in August will be the official homecoming weekend, with many families and school reunions planned at that time. September will bring the Williams Lake Harvest Fair as well as a Great Canadian Lumberjack Challenge with participants from as far away as Australia. I understand our Minister of Forests is being invited to participate in the axe-throwing contest, so we'll see what his skills are like. Last but not least, in September we will host the Cariboo fly-fishing tournament and trade show.
There are many fun-filled events planned over the summer, and I hope to see many of you at one or more of the events so you can enjoy the real Cariboo hospitality.
VOLUNTEER RATE IN B.C.
R. Nijjar: All my colleagues and I are proud to be British Columbians. I'm sure it would surprise many in B.C. to know that we have the third-lowest volunteer
[ Page 9578 ]
participation rate in Canada. B.C. has the lowest donor rate in the country. This is nothing of which to be proud.
I reckon this is as a result of B.C.'s reputed state of dependence on government to solve all of society's problems. We have seen this dependence on a sense of entitlement decay our social fibre, reinforced by a former government that believed British Columbians should rely more and more on Victoria as part of their "we know best for you" governance style.
Everything this current government has tried to do over the past three years is to build community capacity and community decision-making. We have taken decision-making away from Victoria and put it where it belongs — in local hands — from changes to the powers of the health boards to changes in education, with more powers to school boards, parents and PACs, to changes in community-based service delivery models in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The overall message is that all of us collectively must work together to make our communities healthier and that communities should be supported to find the solutions that work for them.
For this reason, I held an annual chili and charity and Variety Club Bowlathon event in my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. The chili and charity raises dozens of boxes of donated food for local families in need while serving free chili to those who bring canned or non-perishable items. The Variety Club Bowlathon, in conjunction with my East Vancouver colleagues, raises money through pledges for the children of Variety Club. This is my way of setting an example for my community, taking ownership of our own issues and giving something back of ourselves, leading the way by showing that our communities are our own responsibilities.
As this province strives to be number one again, I hope British Columbians will also make it their goal to have the highest rates of volunteerism and donations in Canada.
Oral Questions
AUDIT INVOLVING DOUG WALLS
J. MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development refused to say whether criminal charges would flow from the Doug Walls investigation. The police did not deny that they were involved. Can the Solicitor General please tell the House whether criminal charges may flow from the Doug Walls affair and if the police have had any involvement in the case?
Hon. R. Coleman: I am not aware of any information with regard to an ongoing investigation in this regard.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.
J. MacPhail: Well, we do know that there's an investigation going into Mr. Walls. It's an external audit investigation. We're talking about an investigation involving a top Liberal insider — a relative of the Premier — and a $400,000 loan that was magically written off, violating the Financial Administration Act. There are still many, many unanswered questions.
British Columbians deserve to know that every effort is being made to prosecute those involved in the misappropriation of public dollars. They don't want another B.C. Rail–style internal government whitewash. If there is the potential for criminal charges, can the Solicitor General then tell us if a special prosecutor has been appointed to get to the bottom of the scandal involving the Premier's relative? It's a very simple question. Hundreds of thousands of dollars apparently have been given away without appropriate oversight.
Hon. C. Clark: There are many unanswered questions that need to be answered. That's why there's an audit. That's why our government acted very quickly to make sure that an audit was done and initiated as fast as possible. Like every other British Columbian, I am looking forward to the results of those audits coming forward as soon as humanly possible, because as the member said, there are many questions that need to be answered. We are looking forward to having those answers.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.
J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, unlike every other British Columbian, that minister will actually see the full report. No other British Columbian beyond this most secret cabinet will see the full report.
Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development refused to say whether there were criminal charges. Today she still won't say that. It's another typical answer. The police raid of the Finance minister's office — "nothing to do with us," says the government. The B.C. Rail deal is the subject of a criminal investigation. "Don't worry; the fairness report takes care of everything." Now we have a relative of the Premier getting a huge government loan write-off — no scrutiny — and the B.C. Liberals want British Columbians to believe that a company with Liberal ties will make the problem go away.
To the Premier: will you now reverse your decision that you're going to keep the audit secret? Will you now commit to releasing all of the audit, from beginning to end?
Hon. C. Clark: There were dozens of audits of government activities that happened under the NDP, and they never released so much as a conclusion of those audits. Not only has this government moved quickly to make sure that this audit happens, to make sure that the questions…
Interjections.
[ Page 9579 ]
Mr. Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. C. Clark: …that have been raised are answered….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Interjections.
[Mr. Speaker rose.]
Mr. Speaker: Order! Hon. members, we will have order during question period, or we will terminate question period.
[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]
Mr. Speaker: Please continue.
Hon. C. Clark: Not only has our government moved quickly to make sure that this audit happens, we've also moved to make sure that the audit is looking at the full scope of the details. We will be releasing the conclusions of the audit. We will be fast-tracking an FOI release of as much information as we can possibly make public. I think the fact that this audit has been initiated and was initiated as quickly as it was is a credit to the fact that our government wants to make sure that as much information about as many questions that have been raised as possible is answered as quickly as possible.
CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO
CASE OF FRANK PAUL
J. Kwan: So much for openness and accountability. The minister just said that she would not release the full audit. Shame on the government on that.
On December 20, 2001, the Solicitor General rejected a request from the independent police complaint commissioner to hold a coroner's inquest into the death of Frank Paul. Why? Because he was worried that it might bring up charges of racial discrimination. God forbid that we discuss racial discrimination in the case of an aboriginal man left to die on the streets of Vancouver by the Vancouver police.
At the time it was the Attorney General, not the Solicitor General, who had the power to act on the police complaint commissioner's recommendation. But the Solicitor General blocked the recommendation, saying that he was concerned that the issues "of racial discrimination are likely to become the central features." Did the Attorney General agree with his colleague's rationale for blocking the coroner's request?
Hon. G. Plant: The Solicitor General is the minister responsible for the Police Act and for any of the provisions under that act that are of interest to the member.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.
J. Kwan: This is a serious matter. A man was left to die in the streets of Vancouver, and the Attorney General was in charge at the time, when the recommendation was made to him. He passed the buck then, and he's passing the buck now.
Since the Solicitor General denied this request, a new independent police complaint commissioner has now asked that a public inquiry be held based on new evidence and new witnesses. The new commissioner points out that the case of Frank Paul is not an isolated incident, citing the Stonechild inquiry in Saskatoon.
"Not my problems anymore," says the Attorney General. "I handed over responsibilities for this to the Solicitor General two weeks ago in cabinet through an OIC."
J. MacPhail: Secret.
J. Kwan: Secretly — with no fanfare, no public acknowledgment that he has passed the buck. Instead of passing the buck…
Mr. Speaker: Please, order.
J. Kwan: …on the death of the aboriginal man….
Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. member. Time for the question.
J. Kwan: Here's the question: instead of passing the buck on the death of an aboriginal man who was dragged from his jail cell and left to die alone on the streets in Vancouver, will the Solicitor General now call for a full public inquiry into the case so that we can face up to legitimate questions about racial discrimination and possible wrongdoing by the police — any possible wrongdoing by the police — so that the man who died, Frank Paul, is not in vain?
Hon. R. Coleman: Frank Paul died in 1998. The member was in government in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Her previous government saw fit to not do any more than take the advice of a coroner's inquiry. There was a coroner's inquiry done at the time that this took place. There was discipline given to the police. Two previous police complaint commissioners made it very clear that they did not request and did not ask for a public inquiry.
In addition to that, the chief coroner has reviewed the file from the police complaint commissioner and has come to the opinion that the coroner's inquiry acted correctly at the time of the incident. I think the member should recognize that what we'd like to do — and I've already started this process and will continue it…. We need to find long-term solutions for people who would be found in situations like Frank Paul in her constituency and others. That's what we need to do from this. I have not seen anything as yet that would actually lead
[ Page 9580 ]
me to see that in the public interest, a public inquiry would serve any purpose.
AUDIT SERVICES BY
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
M. Hunter: Yesterday and again today the Leader of the Opposition has called into question the integrity of a public audit into the affairs of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It turns out that rather than being a company with Liberal ties, PricewaterhouseCoopers and its predecessor companies actually got contracts from the last government of British Columbia to the tune of over $10 million between 1992 and 2001.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. In the circumstances, how can this House be comfortable that PricewaterhouseCoopers is a company capable of doing this audit?
Hon. G. Collins: I think the reputation of PricewaterhouseCoopers is well known internationally as well as in British Columbia. I suspect that's why the previous government, as well, used them extensively when they were in office.
The point that I found interesting in doing some additional research on this was the issue that was raised by the member for Vancouver-Hastings when she talked about the political contributions that have been made by PricewaterhouseCoopers to the B.C. Liberal Party. What she failed to mention was that in 1998, 1999 and 2000 they donated $12,150 to the New Democratic Party.
But, Mr. Speaker…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order, hon. members.
Hon. G. Collins: …the best is yet to come, though.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Finance has the floor.
Hon. G. Collins: I'm glad to let her go a little longer if she wants, because the point I found very interesting with this was that in the year 2000 apparently PricewaterhouseCoopers donated $3,700 to the B.C. Liberal Party but donated $5,000 to the leadership campaign of one Joy MacPhail.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The member for Surrey-Whalley has the floor.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF
GOVERNMENT CAUCUS SUSPENSIONS
E. Brenzinger: Suspensions from caucus have financial implications which are open to the scrutiny of the comptroller and the general public.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please, so I may hear the question and other members may hear it. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.
E. Brenzinger: My question is to the Premier: will this government come clean on the cost to taxpayers for all suspensions imposed on members of this government, including myself, by the caucus Whip?
Hon. G. Collins: Once again, that question is out of order. As well, there are no financial implications.
Mr. Speaker: The Chair has ruled on this, and matters pertaining to how caucus is run are out of order. Financial matters are in order.
STATUS OF
BULKLEY VALLEY DISTRICT HOSPITAL
D. MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. A couple of weeks ago in Smithers about 800 people showed up for a meeting having to do with health care and, more particularly, the Bulkley Valley District Hospital. I was quite surprised at the numbers, so I made some phone calls to find out why so many people turned out to this meeting. Some of the people I spoke to said they'd been phoned five times to say that the hospital was closing. Is it any wonder we have 800 people show up to a meeting?
It made me think back to what has happened in this House in the past also. I've listened to the Leader of the Opposition and her partner here talk about the health care system. I've heard her talk about what's going to happen to people on welfare, what's going to happen to people with disabilities and all those people that were going to be taken off the rolls.
Again to the Health minister: in spite of all those….
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, hon. member, so we may hear the question.
Would you please start over.
[ Page 9581 ]
D. MacKay: A couple of weeks ago there was a large meeting in Smithers attended by about 800 people. Eight hundred people showed up because they had been phoned.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
D. MacKay: Some of the people had been phoned several times to say that the hospital in Smithers was closing and that they'd better come to the meeting. If you stop and think about what has happened in this House lately — with the fearmongering by the NDP that thousands of people were going to be cut off welfare, thousands of people would be cut off disability allowances by our government, when in fact none of that was true… It made me stop to realize where those phone calls were coming from. I suspect they were coming from NDP supporters in my riding.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
D. MacKay: My question to the Health minister is: is the Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers closing?
Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member brings up an example of the kind of fearmongering that is going on in communities throughout British Columbia where there are individuals, for whatever purposes, scaring seniors, scaring individuals that somehow their health care services are being compromised.
I can assure the member that not only is the Smithers hospital going to continue to serve the residents of…
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C. Hansen: …the Bulkley Valley, but in addition, in fact, they're working with the medical staff to recruit new visiting specialists to that community. They are actually looking at expanding some new equipment and X-ray services in that hospital.
I think the member can go back and reassure his constituents that the hospital in Smithers is going to continue to serve the residents of that area and that, in fact, the services will be strengthened in the months and years to come.
[End of question period.]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the Leader of the Opposition seek the floor?
J. MacPhail: Am I alone in this, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: It appears so.
Petitions
K. Krueger: I rise to table a petition signed by several hundred of my constituents requesting upgrades to the Trans-Canada Highway between the communities of Pritchard and Chase because of a number of very unfortunate motor vehicle collisions.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be beginning with the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture. In this House I'll be introducing supplementary supply.
Supplementary Estimates
Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: supplementary estimates (No. 4) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.
Hon. G. Collins moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the same be referred to Committee of Supply.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply
The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The committee met at 2:46 p.m.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (No. 4):
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL
AND WOMEN'S SERVICES
On vote 16(S): ministry operations, $72,000,000.
J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, could we have a 15-minute recess, please, while the estimates are distributed and we have a chance to examine them?
The Chair: We will take a 15-minute recess and reconvene at 3 o'clock.
The committee recessed from 2:46 p.m. to 3:06 p.m.
[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]
On vote 16(S) (continued).
Hon. G. Collins: We're now 20 minutes, I guess.
[ Page 9582 ]
I want to speak for a moment, if I can, about supplementary estimate No. 4 before my colleague moves the motion. This is a fourth supplementary estimate in the fiscal year. There were a number of others earlier. The issue with regard to this one is funding for the Olympics. It was an expenditure that was identified in the budget of February 17 as a priority expenditure for government as we reached the end of the fiscal year.
There are a number of things that we're able to do with regard to the year-end funding based on savings that have occurred primarily through reduction in debt service costs. There is $72 million being requested in this supplementary estimate in order to fund a portion of the venues going forward for the Olympics, since we transferred to the Olympic authority, as well as fully fund the endowment that will continue to maintain those facilities in the years post-Olympics.
It has been a tough year fiscally, obviously, for government, but we are coming in, in fact, under budget slightly. I'm pleased to note that today we received an outlook change from Moody's Investors Service, one of the credit-rating agencies that rates the government's borrowings. You'll recall that British Columbia's credit rating was downgraded twice under the previous administration by two of the credit rating agencies: DBRS, Dominion Bond Rating Services, and Standard and Poor's, S&P. Moody's Investors Service only downgraded the province once during the previous administration. As a result, we are generally acknowledged to be a notch higher with Moody's than we are with the other two.
This afternoon we received confirmation from Moody's that they've provided an outlook change for Aa2 positive, which I think indicates…. Their press release goes into detail about some of the improvements they've seen in the accountability and fiscal management in British Columbia in the last couple of years. So that's very positive for British Columbia.
What it does is tend to provide opportunities and reductions in debt service costs and, therefore, opportunities for government to do other things with those funds. That's the case here where there is $72 million going to go into funding the Olympics.
These are expenditures that we obviously need to flow before 2010 so the facilities are up and running. Government made a corporate decision this year to use these savings from debt service costs to fund the Olympics in this fiscal year, and that is what brings this supplemental estimate to the Legislature.
With those introductory comments, I turn it over to my colleague the minister responsible for community, aboriginal and women's services.
The Chair: The Leader of the Opposition, speaking to vote 16(S).
J. MacPhail: Is the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services in charge of the Olympic secretariat after April 1?
Hon. M. Coell: No — until the new year.
J. MacPhail: And after that, it is who?
Hon. M. Coell: Small Business and Economic Development.
J. MacPhail: I'd like to refer to…. I think it's page 112. There's a summary, the third-quarter summary, of the forecast in the estimates for the fiscal year ending…. No, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. It is the '03-04 updated financial forecast, the third quarterly report in the Budget and Fiscal Plan, 2004/05 – 2006/07. It's at page 112, and then this estimate at page 11. I'd like to compare the two, if I may, for an explanation.
In the budget speech of the Minister of Finance on February 17, he predicted that there would be a deficit of $1.7 billion and said: "That's $590 million better than the target set in last year's budget." In fact, that is what the third quarterly forecasted as well. Can the minister explain the changes in the deficit as it's now listed in page 11 of this supplementary estimate?
Hon. G. Collins: I'm anticipating staff coming into the chamber, so I'll just wait a moment.
[1515-1525]
We are still waiting for staff, but I think I can answer the question for the member.
I went back and checked the supplementary estimates No. 3, which I'm glad to get a copy of to the member as well. Suffice it to say that the estimate is a spending estimate, so in estimate No. 3 there is no schedule that looks like the one on page 11, which actually has all the year-end revenue — that last column. There is nothing like that in the other estimate.
I'm not sure of the reason why; I'm glad to find that out for the member. For example, on this schedule that you see on page 11, there is no adjustment of other revenues that have come into government, improved Crown corporation returns, etc., which bring the deficit number down to what it was in the third quarterly report forecast. What you see here, for example, if you look at the top part of page 11, are all the revenues. They are unchanged, with the exception of the in and the out with the supp estimate last spring for health care of $319 million.
Normally, the last column that you see on page 11 would not be part of this type of a document. If you go back to supplementary estimates No. 3, which I'm glad to send over to the member, she'll see that in fact that is the case as well. There is no overall government in-and-out number across the board. I can send that over to the member. I don't know why it's been attached on this schedule. There's no need for it. But there are other revenues that have come in to government. The one-time land sale wouldn't show up here. The increased proceeds from Crown corporations and other tax revenue that have come in higher than forecast don't appear on this as well. The forecast that you saw on the third quarterly report stands. In fact, it's probably improved a little bit since the third quarterly report.
[ Page 9583 ]
J. MacPhail: The reason why I asked the question about who is responsible for the Olympic secretariat is because I'm trying to figure out what votes we're to compare here.
Does the minister want me to wait for staff?
Hon. G. Collins: If the member wants to ask questions about the Olympics and how that relates, I'm sure they can do that. She asked a question which baffled me, actually. I didn't know why that number would be there. In trying to find the answer, we've been trying to get somebody from Finance here.
Having looked at the third quarterly report, that's my assumption based on it. This schedule doesn't appear in the third supplemental estimate, so it's an additional column that's been added for reasons I don't know of, and it doesn't reflect the true state of revenue. I answered that question. If she has questions specifically on the Olympics, the minister is available here to answer that.
J. MacPhail: Well, I'm just going to ask my questions, and I'm fine to wait for staff.
In preparing to ask questions about the supplemental estimate, in the fiscal year ending '04 I am looking at vote 16, which has broken out culture, heritage and sport as a budget of $29.403 million, and the 2010 Winter Olympic-bid secretariat and community initiatives, which has a budget of $40.53 million.
When one looks at vote 18 of the budget for this upcoming year, this government has…. I mean, it's moved the vote because it's under the responsibility of a new minister — fair enough — but this government has now combined the B.C. Olympic Games secretariat, sport and culture together for, as I see it, a total budget of $30.503 million. Can I just have those figures confirmed?
Hon. M. Coell: I can confirm that for vote 16 those two numbers are correct. The other number you asked — could you ask that one again for me, please?
J. MacPhail: It's vote 18. Sorry — 18 of the estimates for fiscal year ending '05. What I have here under vote 18 is a combination. It says B.C. Olympic Games secretariat, sport and culture. The gross is $30.504 million; the net is $30.503 million.
The reason why I'm asking these questions is because, apparently, this supplementary estimate is a prepayment on future expenditures.
Hon. M. Coell: I think the problem is that when I look at vote 18 for this year's expenses, that's a transfer to the Royal B.C. Museum. I wonder which book you are using.
J. MacPhail: Why doesn't the minister just tell me what the vote is for the B.C. Olympic Games secretariat, sport and culture for this year?
Hon. M. Coell: It's the Ministry of Small Business and Economic Development, vote 34. The B.C. Olympic Games secretariat and sport and culture is $30.503 million.
J. MacPhail: Could I please have the details of what the debt servicing costs were estimated for the year '03-04 and what they're estimated for '04-05? Apparently, this is from debt service savings.
Hon. G. Collins: If the member goes back to the third quarterly report and looks at the expenditures to date, she'll find what the forecast was at the time the budget was put together, and then she'll find what they were at the time that the third quarterly report was issued. If she gives me about 30 seconds, I'll be able to pull it out of the document for her, but I think she has a copy in front of her.
If she looks on page 13 of the budget report from this year, from February, she'll see "Management of Public Funds and Debt." She'll see that for '03-04 there was a forecast of it being — at budget time last year, so it was little over a year ago — $926 million. The updated forecast at the time of the '03-04 budget — so a little over a month ago — was $755 million. I believe that's improved a little bit since then as well.
J. MacPhail: Is the estimate for '04-05 remaining the same?
Hon. G. Collins: The estimate for '04-05 was made a little over a month ago. It may have changed a bit. I'm not aware. It might have gotten better. If it's improved a bit for this year, there's a possibility that it may have improved a bit for next year. We haven't even started next year's fiscal year, so we won't, obviously, be adjusting that forecast until September at least, when the first quarterly report comes out.
J. MacPhail: That's fair comment. I would assume it would get better, because interest rates have fallen since that time.
The minister says, from his budget speech…. I'll just read into the record what was said in the throne speech and in the budget speech around this matter.
The throne speech, $30 million for the 2010 Games LegaciesNow fund: "Bringing out the best in sport, music and culture. As British Columbians prepare to host the Olympics, your government will embrace the spirit of 2010 with new initiatives to bring out the best in sports, music, arts, culture, literacy and volunteerism. Over $30 million in one-time exceptional funding will be invested to support those initiatives, largely under the auspices of LegaciesNow."
There is no other comment in the throne speech for other spending around the Olympics. Could the minister tell me where the $30 million in one-time exceptional funding is being made? Is that part of what has now become $72 million?
Hon. G. Collins: It's part of the $72 million. That's correct.
[ Page 9584 ]
J. MacPhail: In the budget speech the minister says: "In addition, we're using year-end savings from lower debt service costs to meet a significant part of our previous financial commitments to the 2010 Olympics…. We're investing $55 million to fully fund our share of the Olympic endowment, offsetting future costs for operating venues. We're also investing $51 million as the first instalment in our funding commitments for venue construction…."
I need help here. The original commitment in the throne speech, which was just a week before the budget speech, was for a $30 million advance payment. In the budget speech, we then had a commitment of $55 million to fully fund the share of the Olympic endowment, and then the government was saying that they're advancing a payment on venue construction, which I assume is capital. I would appreciate a detailed explanation of what happened between February 10 and February 17 and how that changes the books.
Hon. G. Collins: The $30 million for LegaciesNow is not…. I apologize. We thought it was a different question. It is not part of this $72 million. LegaciesNow is funded through other ministries. There's a commitment in year-end savings from various ministries. That is being flowed into LegaciesNow.
That's actually, I think, on page 118 of the budget document if the member wants to look there. The funding for the Olympics, the $72 million…. I can perhaps give the member a sense of what that is. In the 2003-04 estimates….
I will just wait, if you want. I can come back and walk the member through page 118 if she wants, but I can deal with the $72 million for a moment for the member. In the original budget estimate in '03-04 there was a total of $37.2 million for a range of items. There was $15 million for the athletes village. There was $21 million for Hastings Park, Hillcrest and others. That's for a total of $36 million for venues. A first nations….
Interjection.
Hon. G. Collins: Yeah, Hastings Park, Hillcrest and others. There are venues. There's a series of venues, so that's the one.
The total for the athletes village and the other venues was $36 million. There was also $1 million for….
Interjection.
Hon. G. Collins: Thirty-six. Sorry, I'm just trying to walk the member through.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Collins: Okay. Sorry. I'll try and speak up.
What I'm going to walk the member through first of all is what the breakout was in the original '03-04 estimates that were tabled with the budget at the beginning of last year — okay? Let's start from that. For venues, there was $15 million for the athletes village. There was $21 million for Hastings Park, Hillcrest and other venues, for a total of $36 million. That's for venues. There was also $1 million for the first nations legacy agreement and $200,000 for security, for a total of $37.2 million. That's what was in the vote last year that already passed the House.
The supplemental estimate does the following. There is an additional $15 million for the athletes village. There was $15 million, and we've added another $15 million. There is $55 million for the endowment fund and $2 million additional for the first nations legacy agreement. The $15 million additional for the athletes village, the $55 million for the endowment fund and the $2 million for the first nations legacy agreement come to $72 million. That's what's in the supplemental estimate that is before us now — okay?
J. MacPhail: In the budget speech it said that these are prepayments. I don't have the '03-04 to '06-07 budget and fiscal plan. I assume that these expenditures would be part of the '04-05 three-year fiscal plan, if they're prepayments. I would just like a page citing for it. I don't have the book here anyway — just a page citing where that is demonstrated. I'm trying to figure out in what year these were originally budgeted for that they're now being prepaid.
Hon. G. Collins: I don't have the numbers here. I can try and get those to the member. I just don't have it in front of me, the full service plan that we tabled last year. I'm sure the member has copies as well, but I don't have one here either.
Some of these are not new. They are not all new expenditures. They are expenditures that would have been in the plan last year for '04-05 and '05-06. That would have been the last two years of the three years. We said at the time of the budget that we were able to accelerate those contributions to the Olympics through year-end spending this year. We are accelerating those expenditures, and there have been lengthy discussions, I expect — or discussions, anyway — with the comptroller general and the auditor general to ensure that is an appropriate decision of government to make.
J. MacPhail: Well, I can go look. I must confess that I have trouble moving from book to book, so if the minister could provide me with what expenditures are prepayments. I want to know how much this Olympics bid is going to cost us — that's all. And I'm a supporter of the Olympics bid. If the minister could provide me with, out of the last year's three-year fiscal plan, where these expenditures were listed for what year that we're now prepaying.
In terms of the $55 million for the Olympic endowment, where in the documents — I would particularly like to look at it for this one for the supplements to the estimate of the year ending '04 — is the endowment listed? Or — I don't care — in any book.
Hon. G. Collins: I'm told if the member goes and gets last year's, the '03-04 to '05-06 budget document —
[ Page 9585 ]
the purple one — she will find at the front, I think, a table that talked about the Olympics. These expenditures you see are not additional. They're not sort of add-ons to the budget for the Olympics. The budget for the Olympics remains intact. We haven't sort of ratcheted it up.
What we have done is said that we have year-end savings this year, that we can accelerate the funding for venues, for endowments, etc., and try to take advantage of getting those done more quickly, reduce interest costs, etc., and reduce inflation risk. We will try and get for the member, if we can…. I don't know if I can have it right here, but she could find those numbers in last year's budget document. But I think in answering her question, we're not expecting that there is any…. There is no addition to the budget for the Olympics.
J. MacPhail: No, and I want to know what's being prepaid. I can find that information given the direction the minister's given.
In terms of what the comptroller general says, nothing's happened at Hastings Park in my riding. How does one prepay something that isn't even contemplated to be started for months? I think that's true of the village as well.
Hon. G. Collins: As the member mentioned very early in her comments today, the Olympics moves outside of the government's entity this year. As part of "now we've received, now we've won…." Previously in the budget there was the bid, the money that went to the bid, and then there was planning for the eventuality should we win it. Once we won it, then it makes sense to go ahead this year and actually move the Olympics outside of government's entity. It's a stand-alone. We're providing funding, the federal government's providing funding, and the local government's providing funding.
We obviously have a guarantee, but it does move outside the reporting entity. Therefore, it is a grant to the Olympics, and the accounting treatment under GAAP is appropriate.
J. MacPhail: How much is left, then, that government must…? If OCOG, the Olympic committee organizing…. O-C-O-G — I don't know what it stands for.
Interjection.
J. MacPhail: Anyway, whatever. It's OCOG; it's O-C-O-G.
The government is prepaying for venues, and then OCOG gets set up with its own budget. What was the budget for OCOG prior to this supplementary estimate, and what will it be after this supplementary estimate of government transfers?
Hon. G. Collins: First of all, what we're doing with this is paying for and making the contribution that we're required to under the agreement. OCOG is outside the government entity. The Olympics aren't run by the provincial government; they're not run by the city of Vancouver. They're run by the Olympic organizing…. Whatever. I don't know what OCOG stands for. I can't remember; neither can the member, I guess.
The Olympics organizing committee is out there on its own. They're pretty adamant about that. They would like to be at arm's length from government. So we have a funding commitment to them. That funding commitment hasn't changed, so we are able to flow the funds for some of the funding commitments with savings in this fiscal year. As I said, it's a commitment that we've made. It has not changed. Our obligation to the Olympics hasn't changed. The Olympic committee, to my knowledge…. OCOG's budget has not changed either, but after March 31 they're an independent entity.
J. MacPhail: If the minister could just confirm this for me. I'm looking now at the supplement to the estimates for 2010 Olympic-bid secretariat. Sorry. I'm looking at this book.
Interjection.
J. MacPhail: Oh, sorry. Fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, page 138. It's vote 34, ministry operations for the B.C. Olympic Games secretariat.
We have confirmed that the estimates for '04-05 are $30.503 million. Perhaps the estimates for '03-04 are $62.944 million. Perhaps the minister could explain the reduction in that.
Hon. G. Collins: The funding for our contribution to the Olympics will not necessarily be sort of a straight-line contribution. It may be higher in one year, it may be lower in another year. It could change throughout the year, as it just did.
I would hope — and I said on budget day as well — that if in future years we have additional savings, perhaps we can flow additional funds to complete our contribution to the Olympics ahead of schedule. Certainly, those numbers will change up and down. As I said, the total contribution that we will be making has not changed.
J. MacPhail: Perhaps just for my clarification, then, what will show in the '06-07 budget for Olympic expenditures?
Hon. G. Collins: If the member takes the green budget book from this year and goes to page 25, there's a section on the Olympics. In fact, table 1.11 has the Olympic funding for '03-04, '04-05, '05-06, '06-07, and the numbers are there for the member to see.
J. MacPhail: Okay. Mr. Chair, I need a little bit of help here. Looking at vote 34, it says the funding is $30.503 million for Olympics funding out of the secre-
[ Page 9586 ]
tariat of sport and culture. That's for '05-06. I can't find a number that matches that in this table 1.11.
Hon. G. Collins: I'll try and walk the member through this. I'm just trying to check the proper page in last year's budget document for the member, as well, because I know there was a section in there that dealt with the Olympics.
If you look at the table, the $30 million for '04-05 that's reflected in the estimates document ending next March — the current one that we're heading into — where it says $30 million. She can look in the same book for the number for last year. At the time the budget was $62 million. If she goes to page 25 of the green budget document from this year, she'll see that the '03-04 number has changed. It goes from roughly $63 million to $111 million — right? The $60 million got changed to $111 million.
There would have been contributions that in the original plan last year…. I said it will go up and down year to year, probably. The original $30 million — there would be expenditures in there that are now being made through this supplemental estimate in '03-04. That means that the contribution that's required in '04-05, '05-06, '06-07, you know, will possibly — maybe not all of them, but at least this year, '04-05, and I think '05-06…. It's lower than was originally planned last year. The '06-07 is a new number. It wouldn't have been in the plan last year, because we just added that fiscal year on to the three-year plan at this point.
[K. Stewart in the chair.]
So we have savings in the budget for this year, through debt service costs as well as ministry underexpenditures, and we said during the budget that we were going to accelerate the funding that was in the plan to the Olympics, to the entity which is outside government on the Olympics. We're doing that through the supplemental estimate, and as a result the contribution required in the out-years goes down as part of the plan.
I mean, then those numbers could go up again. You know, next year, in the year we're in now, if we find we get towards the end of the year and there are additional savings, government could choose at that point to come back to the House and seek approval for an additional appropriation to advance even further those funds to the Olympic authority. That's an option. But as I said earlier, the total contribution that's required by the provincial government has not changed.
J. MacPhail: The reason why I'm exploring so much of this is because, of course, once OCOG is formed, it's no longer subject to the Public Accounts Committee, and it's also no longer subject to freedom of information.
In this government document, the fiscal plan tabled about a month ago, on page 25, it seems to make sense, I guess, that the original budget for '03-04 was $63 million. Then the government is just now saying they're adding $51 million and $55 million. That makes a total of about $111 million, but if you look at what they tabled for the upcoming budget year, '04-05, they're planning on spending, theoretically, $30.503 million. Yet the budget in Olympic funding for '04-05 is $11 million. I can't figure out the discrepancy.
Hon. G. Collins: Let me take the member back to this document that ends in 2005 — so the year we're just heading into. She can look at that document.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Collins: Yeah. If she looks at page 138, she will see where it says B.C. Olympic Games secretariat, sports and culture. The secretariat is the $38.590 million number, and the $6.290 million number — that's right, though I scribbled on it so I can't read it very well — is the number that is for the Olympic secretariat. The other stuff is the sport and culture part of the vote for the ministry. When she looks at $62 million and the $30 million, there are other funds there for physical fitness. There's culture, an arts council, the Olympic arts fund special account and sports. There are a range of other things in that $62 million number. The one she needs to focus on is the $38 million. There are some other little transfers back and forth. It's essentially the $37 million number that if she goes to….
I'm sorry. I steered you wrong the last time. It's actually in last year's document. It wasn't in the purple one; it's actually the blue one. If she looks at page 3 of that, she'll find that in '03-04 the Olympics venue legacy was $37 million, which is pretty close. There's also $2 million for the bid, I guess, so that's what takes it from $37 million up to almost $39 million. That number is the same — the $37 million versus the $39 million here. They are basically the same number.
Then in '04-05 it was $21 million, and in '05-06 it was $45 million. Now, if she looks at page 25 of this year's budget document — the green book — she'll see that instead of '04-05 being $21 million, it's $11 million. And instead of '05-06 being $45 million, it's actually, all in, going to be $99 million. Then, of course, the 2006-07 is a new year, so there's a bit less in one and a little more in another year. But again, the contribution hasn't changed.
J. MacPhail: Given that OCOG is going to become a corporation that is not subject to the Auditor General Act or subject to freedom of information, is this the document upon which British Columbians will rely in order to figure out how much of taxpayer money is going to the Olympics — the table 1.11? I just need a point for future reference.
Hon. G. Collins: As far as contributions from the provincial government to the Olympics, the expenditures will be reflected in our budget. They'll be in the votes for the ministry. They'll probably be outlined each year as part of these budget documents. I expect it
[ Page 9587 ]
will be a topic box until 2012, when things actually wrap up and they're all finished and sent on their way. I expect it will be a topic of disclosure in the budget documents and the service plans going probably for the next six, seven or eight years.
J. MacPhail: I can ask this of the Minister of Small Business. Or, yes, I guess I'll have….
Has OCOG chosen its auditor yet?
Hon. G. Collins: No. I am advised they have not.
Vote 16(S) approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report resolution.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:10 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B reported resolution.
Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?
Hon. G. Collins: Forthwith, Mr. Speaker. I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on March 23, 2004, be now received, taken as read and agreed to.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $72 million. This sum is in addition to that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, 2003-2004, and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.
Motion approved.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
SUPPLY ACT, 2003-2004
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 4)
Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 4).
Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Collins: The use of the supplemental estimates is consistent with the spirit of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of the government programs for the 2003-04 fiscal year as outlined in the supplementary estimates (No. 4) discussed earlier this afternoon. The bill will provide the additional funds required to defray the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004. In accordance with established practice, the government seeks to move this bill through all three stages this day.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.
Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.
Second Reading of Bills
SUPPLY ACT, 2003-2004
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 4)
Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 22 be now read a second time.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be now referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
Bill 22, Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 4), read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
Committee of the Whole House
SUPPLY ACT, 2003-2004
(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 4)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; K. Stewart in the chair.
The committee met at 4:16 p.m.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
Schedule approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:17 p.m.
[ Page 9588 ]
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 22, Supply Act, 2003-2004 (Supplementary Estimates No. 4), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASES,
2003-2004, AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004.
Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Collins: This piece of legislation has a similar impact to what was done earlier in this session with regard to additional supplemental estimates that have been provided for the expenditure of ministers in the fiscal year just concluding. The ministerial accountability act requires that ministers come in on or under budget for the budget which they are responsible for in each fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, you'll know that just previous to this, just moments ago, the Legislature passed a supplemental estimate for the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services to permit the funding out of savings that occurred in this year's fiscal year that we're just concluding to fund the $72 million in commitments to the Olympics. As we've done in previous examples of these types of supplemental estimates — starting last year with the Ministry of Forests as well as with the Ministers of Health, through the contributions of the federal government — it's required to provide an exemption for those members when the in-year expenditure is increased for these types of occurrences.
I want to point out that the minister is forecast to come in on or under budget for the budget he started at the beginning of the year. We don't anticipate any problems with his budget whatsoever. This is a decision of government corporately to fund $72 million out of savings that have occurred in the fiscal year this year. Government as a whole will continue to hit its fiscal target, and ministers, as well, will continue to hit their fiscal target. That's the exemption that's being provided under this act.
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 23 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.
Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 5.
Second Reading of Bills
BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2004
Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 5, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2004, now be read a second time.
Bill 5 amends five statutes, repeals five statutes and contains a number of transitional provisions with respect to non-tax initiatives related to the 2004-05 provincial budget.
The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is amended to make provisions for government's move to full compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. The main change required is the inclusion of schools, post-secondary institutions and health care organizations in the government's reporting entity. Specifically, the definition of the government reporting entity has been amended, along with changes to other sections of the act, in order to clarify what sections are relevant to the SUCH sector.
In addition, this act includes a transitional provision under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act that allows for additional time to prepare accountability statements for the ministers of state. Under this transitional provision, ministers of state have until May 15, 2004, to table their accountability statements.
The reason for that, obviously, is that there was a change in the makeup of the ministers of state as the budget was being put together, and while there were new members appointed to a number of ministers of state, there was not sufficient time to put in place, prior to the budget going to print, the performance outcomes that are required and their accountability statement. This piece of legislation provides additional time, until May 15, 2004, for them to table their accountability statements. They'll remain accountable as they would have been had those statements been introduced with the budget on February 17.
The Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act is amended under section 5 to exclude expenditures of the B.C. timber sales program from the estimated amount for the Minister of Forests for the purposes of calculating the ministerial salary holdback. Removing the program effectively provides the Minister of Forests with the necessary flexibility to generate additional revenues.
Mr. Speaker, with that provision, you'll know from the budget speech and the documents that the goal with the B.C. timber sales program is to generate additional revenue to government, and obviously it's required to provide additional expenditures in order to do that. In a not dissimilar but not exactly similar way to some of the additional expenditures that were provided — although small amounts — in the Ministry of Energy and Mines for natural gas exploration, we anticipate that the new investments in the B.C. timber sales program will generate revenues over and above the costs of the expansion
[ Page 9589 ]
of the program. Rather than have the minister accountable for his expenditures, therefore resulting in an inappropriate or insufficient level of investment in the B.C. timber sales program, we've excluded that from his ministerial accountability provision and hope to generate additional revenues to the government of British Columbia as a result of the change.
The Build BC Act is amended to eliminate the Build B.C. special account on March 31, 2004. This is a housekeeping amendment to eliminate an account that has been inactive for many years and is no longer required.
The Financial Administration Act is amended to change the vote recovery provisions to allow ministries to spend excess credits, recoveries and receipts without seeking prior approval from Treasury Board unless otherwise directed. In addition, this act is amended to eliminate the provincial treasury program special account effective March 31, 2004. The program, which is related to the borrowing function, will continue to operate with all future transactions and related profit recorded under the MOPD, ministry of public debt, vote.
The medical and health care services special account is repealed effective March 31, 2004. This special account is eliminated because the reserve account used to facilitate arrangements to manage year-to-year fluctuations in payments by the Medical Services Plan to members of various health care professions is no longer required.
The Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act is amended to establish a new special account effective April 1, 2004. The provincial home acquisitions windup special account includes an opening balance of $15 million for the purpose of making expenditures for the winding-up of loans and other financial assistance under several other acts. These other acts are the Home Conversion and Leasehold Loan Act, the Home Mortgage Assistance Program Act, the Home Purchase Assistance Act, the Homeowner Interest Assistance Act and the Provincial Home Acquisition Act — all of which are repealed on March 31, 2004.
Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 5.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be placed on orders of the day for consideration by the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 5, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Collins: I call Bill 6.
TAXATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 6 be read a second time.
Bill 6 amends 13 provincial statutes to implement many of the tax measures announced in balanced Budget 2004. The measures encourage continued investment in research and development, improve fairness, protect revenue and confirm existing administrative practices. I am pleased to explain the rationale for each of these amendments.
Bill 6 amends the Corporation Capital Tax Act to clarify that property must have been used directly for a listed purpose in order to qualify for a deduction from the tax base. This confirms the original legislative intent and protects revenue collected in accordance with that intent from April 1, 1993, to August 31, 2002.
Bill 6 amends the Income Tax Act to limit the pension income, dividend and overseas employment tax credits to individuals that are resident in British Columbia. This change only affects people who have business income and who are subject to tax both in British Columbia and another jurisdiction. Bill 6 also amends the Income Tax Act to extend the scientific research and experimental development tax credit for a further five years to August 31, 2009. Over the five years the credit has been in place, qualifying research and development has increased by more than $700 million annually. Extending the tax credit will ensure that British Columbia continues to be a location of choice for research and development, one of the cornerstones of our new economy.
The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to improve the fairness and effectiveness of the exemptions for transfers of specified property to related individuals. In particular, the amendments achieve the following. The definition of "family farm" is expanded to include more familial relationships and also to expand to siblings and their spouses eligibility for the exemption for transfers between related individuals. The existing exemptions for transfers of family farms to related individuals are expanded to include transfers to family farm corporations where trustees are required to act as intermediaries, such as transfers related to a deceased estate. New exemptions are provided for transfers to and from the province's public guardian and trustee on behalf of minors, to ensure the minors are able to benefit from the exemptions for transfers between related individuals when they reach the age of majority. Amendments also clarify the longstanding administrative practice of applying the related individual test to the transferee, the recipient of the land, rather than to the transferor.
The Tobacco Tax Act is amended retroactively to December 20, 2003, to increase the tax rate for tobacco, other than cigars, by the equivalent of $3.80 per carton. It is our sincere hope this will discourage smoking, particularly among our youth, and that over time it will help to reduce health care costs associated with smoking. Some of the new revenue will be dedicated to augment anti-smuggling programs and improve tobacco enforcement in British Columbia. On the enforcement side, the director will now have the authority to deny a permit or retail authorization to sell tobacco products if the permit application is for a location where the previous permit was suspended or can-
[ Page 9590 ]
celled and the new applicant is not arm's length from the previous permit holder. Where denial of a permit is not clearly required but justifiable concern exists that illicit tobacco may be sold from that location, the director is authorized to require payment of a bond by the applicant.
The Motor Fuel Tax Act is amended to provide authority to implement by regulation a tax exemption for the alternative motor fuel portion of low-level blends of alternative fuels and either gasoline or diesel fuel. This will help to offset the higher costs of supplying these environmentally beneficial fuels and make them more competitive with conventional fuels. For the purposes of the motor fuel tax exemption for bona fide farmers, the Motor Fuel Tax Act is amended to expand the definition of "family farm corporation" to recognize changes that have occurred in family farm structures, while maintaining the original intent of the family farm fuel tax exemption.
The Community Charter is amended to grandparent an exemption for dust and particulate matter eliminators, other than equipment, for those properties which received the exemption in 2003. This grandparenting will improve the fairness of the exemption as amended in prior years in budget 2003.
The Home Owner Grant Act is amended to increase the property value thresholds at which the homeowner grant phase-out begins. For 2004 the thresholds are increased from $525,000 to $585,000. This will ensure that for the province as a whole, 95.5 percent of homeowners will continue to receive their full homeowner grant, the same percentage as last year.
Finally, a number of statutes are amended to establish that the limitation period for collecting unremitted or unpaid taxes begins on the date an assessment or reassessment is issued, rather than on the date the liability arises. This is consistent with longstanding administrative practice, protects revenue and ensures that the province is able to continue to efficiently collect taxes owed to the Crown.
Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 6.
Mr. Speaker: We are at second reading stage of Bill 6. The Leader of the Opposition.
J. MacPhail: Bill 6, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, is the point at which the opposition will show that they cannot support this government in the way it taxes British Columbians. We will be voting, by division, against this legislation for a couple of reasons.
It is what one might think of as a routine tax bill attached to a budget, but there was nothing routine about the budget that this Minister of Finance tabled on February 17. The trends in it were disturbing and the consequences devastating for certain families.
I want to take one example. In this bill it talks about defining who an income tax payer is, changing it — just little tweaks. That's what the bill says, but here's what the budget did to taxpayers in this province. Buried in this budget that was tabled on February 17 is news that B.C.'s provincial taxes for low- and middle-income families are going up this year. According to the government's own numbers, a two-income family of four making $30,000 a year will pay $435 more in taxes. A two-income family of four earning $60,000 pays $128 more. A senior couple with a pension whose income is $30,000 also pays $128 more.
When the Minister of Finance was pressed on that, he said: "Oh no, no. It has to do with the fact that property values are going up, and therefore people are paying more taxes in that area." So I checked. I checked in the neighbourhood in which I live now, Kitsilano, which is a very nice middle-income neighbourhood — not my riding, but the neighbourhood in which we're raising our son. Someone who's earning $60,000 isn't buying a house or an apartment in Kitsilano, so that didn't make much sense to me.
Then I checked in my own riding, where I lived for 18 years, where the property values are not as high as in Kitsilano but still substantially high and rising. I asked a family that was making $30,000 whether they were paying more in taxes. No, because they're renting; they can't afford to buy. I asked a person who was earning $60,000 whether that was why they figured they were paying more taxes. They were renting as well, because they can't afford to buy a house.
While the glib explanation may have worked to get the minister off the hook for himself, in his own budget documents, saying that families earning $30,000 and families earning $60,000 are paying more taxes from last year to this year…. It doesn't pass the nod test for British Columbians. It doesn't pass the nod test for people who live in Skeena, where in some towns in Skeena riding over one-third of the houses are on the market and property values are plummeting. It doesn't pass the nod test in Cranbrook, where property values are going down as well, while these same families are paying more taxes than they did last year.
Then the second explanation coming from the government caucus was: "Well, everybody's paying $200 a year less taxes than they were in '01" — when they point to me and they say — "when your government left office." Well, isn't that great progress? Isn't that great progress? Unprecedented high budget deficits, rapidly increasing debt — not because this government is building anything but because they're running operational deficits — and they say: "Well, at least we're, for some families, 200 bucks…. Those same families are 200 bucks better off than when you were tossed out of government, member." They say that to me. Well, no, that's not the complete story either.
Those same families, with incomes of $30,000 to $60,000, have had that measly $200-a-year tax break eaten up by ICBC premiums. My ICBC premiums went up more than $150 in the first price increase that this government brought in. It went up again in the second year, when my status remained exactly the same.
Families in my riding are coming to me now and saying: "John/Karim has got great grades in grade 12, but we can't afford to send him to university because of
[ Page 9591 ]
the tuition hikes and the elimination of grants. We can't afford to take on that debt." So Karim and John will be sitting this year out.
Hydro rates are going up, and those numbers were not included in the tax increases listed in the budget books. So even this government's feeble justification that they may have improved the lives of some British Columbians by $200 a year from 2001 doesn't cut it.
But who is paying less provincial tax this year than they did last year? Well, it is true that a single, unattached individual earning $25,000 pays $8 less a year. A two-income family earning $90,000 pays $154 less. The single, or I guess the new word for it is unattached, individual earning $80,000 pays $221 less this year than last — the very people that would be affected by property value increase, and yet they're still paying less tax. How is it that this government can say that the budget has worked, and yet low- and middle-income families are paying more tax this year than they did last year, as well as huge increases in fees and licenses, tuitions, premiums that aren't even calculated in this tax shift?
The concept of tax shift is an interesting one. Who knew that this government would institute a tax shift where the rich pay less and the poor and the middle-income pay more? Only a Liberal government, with their failed economic policies, would say that that's the kind of tax shift that works. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Finance earlier today tout the Moody's outlook, but I became suspicious because if it had been earthshaking, they would have had one of their backbenchers stand up and lob a question at the Minister of Finance — one of those soft lobs: "Please tell us what a great job your government is doing."
It is interesting that they need to rehearse those questions, that they need to use their time to rehearse the backbencher saying, "Here's the question I'm going to ask," and then the minister rehearsing and people watching them and critiquing them. My standard offer is that I will give this government professional acting advice. Maybe they will actually be able to then represent….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
J. MacPhail: Then maybe they'll actually be able to stand up and represent the interests of their constituents, instead of their dogmatic, blinders-on, ideological path they're hell-bent on going down, regardless of how it affects their constituents — regardless. All the nastiness, the personal nastiness particularly from the front benches of this government, serves them ill and will come back to haunt them. I guarantee it will come back to haunt them, because as they make personal attacks on people who are standing up for British Columbians, as they stand up and make personal attacks against those who are actually representing the interests of British Columbians, their own lack of representation is heightened.
I looked at the Moody's outlook, and yes, the minister actually describes it. It does move from a stable outlook to a positive outlook — not one iota of change in the credit rating. I actually checked to see what that would mean in terms of borrowing practices. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. After three years of brutal budgets in this province, the best the Minister of Finance can tout is an outlook that moves from stable to positive and doesn't change the rating at all.
The other thing that they're claiming, which was actually met with a little bit of perplexity by their own friends, was that 2,000 people moved into British Columbia from other parts of the province in 2003. That's the success they're claiming. The ridicule that could be foisted upon them perhaps knows no bounds, but the fact is that this government is standing up, and the great economic managers that claimed there was going to be such success have those two little things to claim as credit — two little things.
They sit there and say: "Look what a great job we're doing." Well, it's actually sad, I must say. It's actually embarrassing to see a Premier of a province stand up and repeat over and over again, "Look what a good job I'm doing economically because of these two factors," and at the same time families earning $30,000, families earning $60,000, are paying more taxes this year than last.
I listened to the president of UBC on the radio this morning, a woman I admire greatly.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, we've allowed considerable latitude on the bill. Could we return, please, to second reading of Bill 6.
J. MacPhail: All right, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry. I really do need brushing…. I accept your logic. I thought I was talking about budget and taxation.
Well, let me address my last part, then, given the direction from the Chair. The tobacco tax. On December 19 the Minister of Finance started collecting a tax. He claims this is standard practice. Well, no, Mr. Speaker. It's not standard practice to announce a tax, say, "I'm going to bring in legislation," and then start collecting it. At best, one could describe the practice of previous or different legislatures as announcing a tax and introducing legislation at the same time or at least before the tax starts being collected.
This government stretches it right to the nth degree, claiming they're just doing what every previous government did before. Well, in fact, I checked. Going back to 1956, I can't find any examples of that — where they actually stand up in a brazen, arrogant fashion and say three days after a legislature rose, "Oh, by the way, we're starting to collect taxes from you now. But don't worry, we're going to introduce legislation," and they start collecting those taxes.
[ Page 9592 ]
And then the Minister of Finance says: "Well, vote against it. It is a tobacco tax increase. Why don't you just vote against it? Are you against tobacco tax increases?" I was the Minister of Health who took on the tobacco industry on behalf of a government….
[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Yes, it's the division bells in Committee A. We'll just pause for a couple of moments.
Hon. members, we are at second reading of Bill 6, and the Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance starts collecting a tax that he says is going to be about 40 million bucks a year. He says: "Well, vote against it. Are you against tobacco taxes?"
Even though the Minister of Children and Family Development sneers at this, it was a huge step to take on the tobacco companies and to institute a very successful program to reduce tobacco use, particularly amongst youth, and to generally try to reduce tobacco use. It met with huge success and support from the then opposition. It was exactly the right thing to do. We also know that raising the price of tobacco is the most effective tool to reduce tobacco use.
I'm not against this tax — the collection of this tax or the amount of tax. I'm against the way in which this government announced this — 72 hours after this House adjourned, and the Minister of Finance starts collecting the tax. When we vote against this legislation, it will not be against the tobacco tax. It will be against the arrogance of this government at almost every level when it comes to taxation changes this government has made.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling with which I agree, and I want to quote from it. This morning the Speaker ruled in this fashion. This is how the Speaker characterized the government's actions. I'm reading from the decision:
"Speaker Rogers's decision of April 10, 1990, makes it clear that the announcement outside the House of pending legislation does not amount to a breach of privilege but may, according to the nature of the announcement, involve a contempt of the House. In that decision, the Speaker stated in part as follows: 'It is apparent, however, that Mr. Speaker Fraser, in the course of his ruling of October 10 last, did deliver a stern warning that the general public must not be given any impression that proposed changes to the taxation system were a fait accompli and that parliament, in fact, had no role to play in examining and approving any proposed changes.'"
Then to carry on with our Speaker's ruling:
"'To give such an impression,' Mr. Speaker Fraser said, 'may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.'"
Our Mr. Speaker concluded his ruling this way this morning:
"After a careful examination of the authorities and Speakers' decisions in this House and elsewhere, I am persuaded that the transaction relating to the Tobacco Tax Act does not constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House. I do, however, agree with the observation of Speaker Fraser that proposed changes to the taxation system, absent statutory authority or an opportunity to debate the matter in this House, would be unacceptable in a parliamentary democracy."
I agree with the Speaker's ruling. However, it is true that legislation is introduced to retroactively collect taxes, but I don't know of an example where a government has actually collected the tax and then introduced legislation, even retroactive legislation. This government didn't do it at the first opportunity. They waited until February 17. That's when this legislation that we're debating now was introduced, with the budget. We had sat for four days previous to that, and the tax started being collected on December 19. In fact, on December 19 of last year the Finance minister announced an increase in the tax on tobacco effective at midnight the next day. The government started collecting the extra revenue — some $10 million to be added to the bottom line of this fiscal year that we are now just concluding, the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004.
Nearly two months later the Minister of Finance introduced legislation legalizing this tax grab, and here we are, over three months after the announcement, finally getting around to second reading of this bill — a bill that wasn't even introduced at the first opportunity.
At issue here is not what the retail price of tobacco should be or whether or not price is a deterrent to those who might consider starting to smoke. At issue here is the arrogance of the Minister of Finance and the executive council, of which he is a part, that feel free to flout the practices of this House and, in the process, demean the very nature of our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, was quite correct in stating that retrospective legislation is not foreign to our system of government. However, in most if not all cases, retrospective legislation is first passed by parliament and then applied retroactively. What this Minister of Finance has done is collect a tax first and is now here today to pass that authority. In the coffin of B.C. Liberal openness and transparency, we see many, many dead bodies. If the coffin of B.C. Liberal openness and transparency were not already buried so deeply that it will be another millennium before it is uncovered, this action would be its last nail.
Government has the right to raise revenue through taxation. However, its legitimacy in doing so is predicated on the fundamental principle that it does so only with the consent of the government. We know this government cares little for most British Columbians. What astounds us is that they are so blatant in their contempt for them.
Mr. Speaker: On second reading of Bill 6, the Minister of Finance closes debate.
Hon. G. Collins: I don't want to comment too exhaustively on the ruling of the Speaker because it's not
[ Page 9593 ]
appropriate, but I do want to just deal with the issues raised by the member opposite.
The fact of the matter is that the contempt allegation and the privilege allegation that the member opposite made against the government failed on all counts. She may not like that, but that's the reality. The member continually stands up in this House and launches all sorts of allegations against members opposite, almost as if she were handing out peanuts. Those allegations are repeatedly, over and over and over again, proven to be nothing more than hysterical rhetoric that comes from the member opposite.
We saw that with regard to the hysterical rhetoric that member put forward in this House, she and her colleague, around the number of people with disabilities who, she alleged, would be taken off the social assistance rolls. In fact, more people were added. People weren't taken off; there were more at the end of that process than there were previously.
I recall the member standing up — again, with hysterical rhetoric — talking about the hundreds of thousands of senior citizens she alleged were going to be thrown off Pharmacare. Not one of them was thrown off Pharmacare. The thing that makes it so hysterical and so irresponsible is the fact that repeatedly, day after day — for weeks if not months, if I remember correctly — the Minister of Health responded to her allegation with the facts saying that no senior would be thrown off Pharmacare. Yet the member opposite continued in her hysterical rhetoric to try and frighten seniors. We saw a little bit of it again today, just a moment ago, in response to Bill 6. Again, hysterical rhetoric put forward by the member. The facts end up being proven to be false.
So let me just touch on the area that the member opened her comments with today when she talked about taxation revenues and two-income families, four-income families, etc., earning $30,000 and $60,000. This is something the NDP put out a couple of days after the budget. It took them a couple of days to respond to the budget, and they put forward some information that said the government was raising taxes on low- and middle-income families. It simply was not the case.
To rebut the comments made by the member opposite, I'm glad to know she did a survey of exactly three people — actually, two people in her constituency — and came to the conclusion that in the community she lives in, Kitsilano, nobody there could afford a house earning $60,000. What she fails to take into consideration is that there may well be people who have incomes of $60,000 in her community who have lived in those homes for a long time, since well before the rapid appreciation in housing over the last 20 years or so. I think that's inaccurate, first of all. The comprehensive, broad survey that she did of her constituents, comprising two individuals, again is not the basis upon which to analyze a budget.
What we do is collect data from across British Columbia, using StatsCan numbers, B.C. Stats numbers, taxation numbers, revenue numbers, assessment numbers that government has at its disposal.
In response to her issues, there were three factors — which I stated the day she made, again, her hysterical allegations about what government allegedly, according to her, was doing to the low- and middle-income families. The fact of the matter is that this year, relative to last year, in the taxes that are laid out there's a series of taxes that are identified and measured year to year. It's true that property taxes went up marginally in British Columbia, and that was as a result of the way the calculations are done for that data and the assessed values and as a result of the property tax revenues or levies that are applied by municipal governments as well.
I happen to live in Vancouver, with that member. Lots of her longtime colleagues are now in control of Vancouver city council. I know that her taxes and my taxes are all going up in Vancouver. As well, I think the city of Vancouver's credit rating was just downgraded this last year. This isn't just provincial taxation; this is the tax burden of British Columbians.
There are other ways that taxes get levied as well. A big component of that comes from city councils, municipalities, etc. Again, this is average. The member will undoubtedly be able to find some communities where the amount of property tax people pay went down. It's very possible that their assessed values probably went down in some parts of the province. Their total tax revenues or tax bill on property may well have gone down, depending on what the local government's doing in that community, although they adjust those up and down based on their needs or what they perceive to be their needs, not just on assessed value.
That refutes, I think, the first comment the member makes — the first of those three taxes — and explains why some property taxes for an average family may well have gone up.
There are two other taxes that were a factor in moving up and down. The other one is sales tax. The total amount of sales tax that those families would be forecast to pay this year went up, and it went up slightly. The reason it went up is because their disposable income went up. They're taking more home, and they are able to spend more. The assumption is — and the elasticity is different for different income levels in doing the statistical comparisons — that lower-income families tend to spend more of their additional disposable income, and that is what drove the sales tax numbers.
The third item where there was a tax change was, actually, that personal income tax rates went down.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Collins: I hear the little cackle coming from the member opposite; she doesn't believe it. Those are the stats. If she'd like a briefing, I would be prepared to provide it for her so that when she stands up and makes comments in the Legislature, they're based on fact rather than based on her survey of two people. I
[ Page 9594 ]
think it does a discredit to herself when she makes those kinds of comments that are clearly inaccurate.
She also made a comment on ICBC premiums going up post-election. We've been through this before in the House; we've had this discussion. The member continues, much like Rumpelstiltskin, to forgot the fact that she was in government for a decade and forgets the fact that her government, in a brazen attempt to get itself re-elected, sent cheques to British Columbians from ICBC — refund cheques — at a time when they knew they had an unsustainable revenue stream. They knew that; ICBC knew that. The new administration at ICBC made that very clear right after the election. That was clearly just an attempt to buy votes. She was part of that government. She sat, I think, actually in this seat at the time when that was done. Then she wonders why, in an effort to put the company on a sustainable footing, costs rise.
The other thing she fails to mention is that she was the minister responsible for ICBC at the time those cheques were sent. She was the minister responsible for ICBC who tried to buy votes with $100 cheques to British Columbians, with money that ICBC didn't have, in an effort to get re-elected. What she also fails to mention is that while she was the minister responsible for ICBC, under her watch — she sat on the board of ICBC — they invested $250 million in a building that's worth $150 million. As a result, the shareholders or the ratepayers of ICBC had to come up with $100 million to pay off the costs of the building that was constructed under her watch.
She was the minister responsible. She sat on the board of ICBC. People on the board of ICBC made it clear to the then chair and others that it was an unwise investment, but she chose to go ahead with it anyway. As a result, the ratepayers in British Columbia now pay additional funds in order to pay off the debt she incurred as the minister responsible for ICBC.
The hysterical rhetoric we get from the member opposite…. It's always really enlightening to go back and actually look at the facts and look at the truth behind some of the comments she makes. I think it is enlightening.
The member also talked a little bit about the credit rating agencies and how she thought it was completely insignificant that Moody's Investors Service had actually provided a comment today that adjusted our credit rating from an Aa2, stable, to positive. Historically, that is generally the precursor to a credit rating upgrade, and the positive component of that is in itself a huge feather in the cap of the province, I believe. It says that the people who invest here, who lend us money as a government, but more importantly the people who invest money in British Columbia and lend that money to businesses who are hoping to build here, have a far more positive outlook on where British Columbia is headed, where our economy is headed and where future growth may lie.
It's also important to note that our credit rating would have been a lot better had that member not been Minister of Finance and had the NDP not been in government for ten years, because actually, under her watch and under the watch of the NDP — partially while she was Minister of Finance — British Columbia's credit rating was downgraded by Moody's. More importantly, I would say, or more dramatically, it was downgraded twice each by the other two credit rating agencies: DBRS, Dominion Bond Rating Services, out of Toronto and Standard and Poor's out of New York. Both those credit agencies downgraded British Columbia's credit rating twice in the ten years that her government was in office.
I find it interesting that she failed to mention that in her comments when she talked about credit rating agencies and the reflection on British Columbia's economy. That's an important component, because you'll recall that earlier this afternoon we actually had a discussion about debt savings, interest savings. The government was able to put money into the Olympics, and last year there were other things, other expenditures government was able to make, because its interest costs have been coming down.
Interest costs have been coming down, well, worldwide, but what's important to note is how British Columbia has been doing relative to other jurisdictions. When we took office, British Columbia was paying a higher interest rate than many other provinces. Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan were close. What's happened in the intervening period is that now British Columbia trades not only as low as Ontario but actually lower than Ontario. Our interest rates have come down now.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Collins: Well, in response to the comments the member opposite made, I think it's appropriate to comment appropriately.
The interest rates that British Columbia's bonds trade at are now lower than Ontario. They're lower than Quebec. They're lower than Manitoba, lower than Saskatchewan — lower than every other province with the exception of Alberta, which really doesn't trade because they virtually have no debt. That's a major improvement. The fact that the member opposite didn't get that is an indication of how reckless her government was when they were in government and the damage they did to British Columbia's credit rating and British Columbia's reputation internationally.
She commented, as well, on another indicator. She said it was pathetic, and she said it was embarrassing, that members on this side of the House would raise the fact that people are starting to return to British Columbia for the first time in seven years. In fact, in 1997 a longstanding historical reality changed. Prior to 1997 more people came to British Columbia from other parts of Canada than left British Columbia for other parts of Canada, so there was a net inflow here. People were voting with their feet. They chose to come to British Columbia. Through the nineties, when that government was in power, you could see that trend start to
[ Page 9595 ]
decline. In 1997 it flipped. More people actually left British Columbia than came to British Columbia. That persisted through 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. We could start to see the trends change to come back, and this year we just completed, 2003, we restored the historical standard, which is that more people came to British Columbia from other parts of Canada than left British Columbia for other parts of Canada.
Now, that's people voting with their feet. That's people choosing to come to British Columbia. Those are the facts. Those are StatsCan numbers. The member may not like that….
Interjection.
Hon. G. Collins: I hear once again her hysterical rhetoric flowing across the House here — not based in fact, just based in her own revisionist history.
The reality is that British Columbia is turning around. The tax changes this government brought into effect when we took office are part of that. A sense of confidence we see in British Columbia is part of that. We lead the country in small business investor confidence. We've led the country in job growth over the last two years. We've led the country in new housing starts.
All of those things are part of turning the economy around. There is no secret. There's no one thing you need to do. You need to do a whole bunch of things. We've been doing that, and the tax changes that are contained in this bill are part of that.
I move second reading.
Second reading of Bill 6 approved on the following division:
[1720-1725]
|
YEAS — 60 |
||
|
Falcon |
Coell |
Les |
|
Chong |
Brice |
Hansen |
|
Bell |
Bruce |
Santori |
|
Barisoff |
van Dongen |
Bray |
|
Roddick |
Wilson |
Masi |
|
Lee |
Thorpe |
Murray |
|
Plant |
Collins |
Clark |
|
Bond |
Christensen |
Abbott |
|
Neufeld |
Coleman |
Penner |
|
Cobb |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Orr |
Hogg |
Nuraney |
|
Nebbeling |
R. Stewart |
Hunter |
|
Chutter |
Mayencourt |
Trumper |
|
Johnston |
Bennett |
Belsey |
|
Krueger |
J. Reid |
McMahon |
|
Stephens |
Locke |
Bhullar |
|
Wong |
Lekstrom |
MacKay |
|
Halsey-Brandt |
K. Stewart |
Bloy |
|
Suffredine |
Sultan |
Hamilton |
|
Sahota |
Hawes |
Kerr |
|
NAYS — 2 |
||
|
MacPhail |
|
Kwan |
Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 6, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]
Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 7.
SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 7 be read a second time.
Bill 7 implements a number of amendments announced as part of Balanced Budget 2004. The amendments improve fairness, enhance competitiveness, protect revenue and clarify the application of tax.
The application of tax to sales of taxable and non-taxable goods and services sold for a single price is amended to minimize the imposition of tax on the non-taxable or exempt portion of the purchase price. Most businesses itemize their sales and only collect tax on taxable goods and services. For example, when somebody buys groceries, which are exempt, and paper towels, which are taxable, at the local grocery store, the purchaser is billed separately for each item and only pays tax on the taxable goods.
However, in some circumstances transactions can be quite complex and involve a combination of both taxable and non-taxable goods and services sold for a single price. Under the previous legislation, if more than 10 percent of the total value was taxable, goods and services tax could be payable on the full purchase price, including a significant value of goods and services that were not intended to be taxable.
Bill 7 changes the application of tax so that tax is generally only payable on the fair market value of the taxable goods and services. Exemptions are provided for packages under $500 where more than 90 percent of the total value is either taxable or exempt. Fairness is also improved by addressing an inappropriate use of the tax exemption for gifts to avoid tax on goods — particularly automobiles purchased outside the province.
The sales tax helps to pay for all the services government provides, including health care and education, and it's only fair that all British Columbians pay their share of those costs. The amendment will have no af-
[ Page 9596 ]
fect on British Columbians who purchase gifts in B.C., because they pay tax at the time of purchase. Similarly, it will not change how the tax applies to gifts British Columbians bring home for friends or relatives from outside the province, because like most jurisdictions with retail sale taxes, the obligation to pay tax on those goods has long been in place. Rather, the amendments disallow the gift exemption in a narrow set of circumstances to deal with a very specific and contrived transaction that has been used by some people to avoid paying tax that is paid by others in similar transactions. In those cases where the new provisions apply, tax will be payable on the fair market value of the gift.
Fairness is also enhanced by excluding interest charges from the definition of purchase price under conditional sales contracts. Under these contracts, the purchaser makes payments to the seller, including interest payments, over the term of the contract and only obtains title to the goods after all payments have been made. The application of tax to the interest payments is different from the application of tax to purchases using third-party financing, because under the latter no tax is paid on the interest charges. The result of this amendment, which is consistent with the application of tax in other provinces with retail sales taxes, is to treat purchasers under conditional sales contracts like purchasers who obtain third-party financing.
Bill 7 reduces the percentage of qualifying content to qualify for the newspaper exemption from 25 percent to 20 percent, and this change is effective December 18, 2003 — the date the government announced its intention to introduce legislation to make this change. This change and related regulatory amendments, effective April 1, 2000, ensure that applications that are generally considered to be newspapers qualify for the exemption.
The current exemption for purchases of software which is incorporated into other software for retail sale is also expanded. The amendments expand the exemption to include software incorporated into other tangible personal property for resale and software that is relicensed to others for resale. These changes bring the application of tax to software acquired for resale into line with the longstanding application of tax to other tangible personal property and will enhance the competitiveness of businesses that purchase software for those purposes.
The application of tax to returnable and reuseable containers is clarified to provide a level playing field for British Columbia's suppliers, to protect revenue and to enhance the competitiveness of provincial exporters. Returnable and reuseable containers are generally subject to tax because they are purchased by business for its own use. Prior to these amendments a technical flaw in the legislation only imposed tax on returnable and reuseable containers purchased in British Columbia. Containers purchased outside the province were not subject to that tax. Effective February 18, 1998, the act was amended to impose tax on purchases of such containers for use in British Columbia, regardless of where they were purchased. The amendments also provide authority to exclude from tax containers unlikely to be returned or reused. As a result, tax will no longer be charged on glass beverage containers, such as beer bottles, that are shipped out of Canada as part of our growing export market.
The definition of sale is amended in response to a court decision to clarify the treatment of services that are not subject to tax under the act. Architectural, accounting, research and many other services are not subject to provincial sales tax. However, when a person hires an architect to design a building, for example, the end product of the service is often a drawing, which is considered tangible personal property. The legislation is amended to clarify that tangible personal property that is incidental to the provision of a non-taxable service is not a sale and is not subject to the tax.
The application of tax to manufactured homes is amended retroactively to 1997 to impose a constitutionally direct tax on the final consumer. The amendments maintain the longstanding arrangement to treat manufactured homes and portable buildings like conventional buildings for tax purposes and, because they validate tax paid in the past, have no impact on past purchases or sales. The overwhelming majority of sales of manufactured homes will not be affected by the amendments. Only where a manufactured home is sold as tangible personal property under a time-and-material contract — a relatively rare occurrence — will sellers and buyers be affected. In these cases, the change will be limited to requiring the seller to collect tax from the purchaser on a percentage of the purchase price rather than paying tax on a percentage of the seller's purchase price.
Nevertheless, these amendments make important changes. They correct a constitutional problem by imposing a direct tax, bring British Columbia's tax into line with that of other provinces with retail sales taxes and allow exempt purchasers, such as members of first nations, to obtain the benefit of the Indian Act exemption on purchases of manufactured homes for use on reserve.
I move second reading of Bill 7.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by a Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 7, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 8.
Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 8 now be read a second time.
[ Page 9597 ]
British Columbia's ports are crucial to the province's economic future. The port of Vancouver already generates over 20,000 direct jobs and moves cargo valued at $29 billion annually. In the right environment significant further growth is possible. Our bulk, break-bulk and container port facilities play a crucial role in the efficient and competitive transportation of goods to market, which benefits all areas of the province. In addition, our ports are important for Canada to realize the full benefits of our status as a trading nation.
It became apparent in recent years that municipal property taxes were a contributing factor, making it difficult for many B.C. port facilities to compete with other ports along the west coast. This lack of competitiveness has made it difficult to attract the investment required to secure the long-term viability and development of this vital economic infrastructure.
Bill 8 is designed to address the challenges identified after extensive consultation with local governments, federal port authorities and port terminal operators. The main objectives of the ports competitiveness initiative and this bill are to encourage new private sector investment in our ports while maintaining the integrity of the local property tax system, to protect affected municipalities from reductions in existing property tax levels and to address the major property tax concerns raised by port terminal operators.
The proposed legislation will meet these objectives through a five-year municipal property tax cap on existing port property of $27.50 per $1,000 of assessed value, a ten-year municipal property tax cap on all new investment occurring before the end of 2008 equal to $22.50 per $1,000 of assessed value and legislated compensation to local governments for revenue forgone due to the tax cap on existing port properties.
Because the competitiveness of our ports is a concern to both the provincial and local governments, we've consulted with the ports' municipalities in accordance with the requirements of section 2 of the Community Charter. The province has also agreed to a review during the third year of this initiative involving all the principal stakeholders. The review will measure the success of the ports competitiveness initiative and determine how to proceed after the initial five-year rate cap and compensation program ends.
In October 2003, when the ports competitiveness initiative was first announced, it covered only the lower mainland terminal operators. At that time the government committed to consult with British Columbia's other port communities to see if the initiative should be extended beyond the lower mainland of the province. As a result of these consultations, the property tax reductions in Bill 8 will also extend to ports in Squamish and Prince Rupert. This will enhance the competitiveness of all British Columbia's major terminal operators.
I move second reading of Bill 8.
G. Halsey-Brandt: I want to speak this afternoon in support of this bill, because I know when it was first conceived in terms of moving into port competitiveness, it was of great concern to many of my friends and colleagues in local government. Before I was elected to this Legislature, as many of you know, I was a mayor in greater Vancouver, and we did discuss the competition between the port in greater Vancouver and those of Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and other areas. As we know, the taxation structure is quite different between Canada and the United States when it comes to ports. Therefore, we had some tough competition, and we wanted to do look at what we could do.
I appreciate the independence and responsibility of local government, but on occasion I think we sort of have to take a broader view of that universe. Sometimes when you're focused on one particular city in local government, you kind of forget what's happening around you, as I said, in terms of the broader view. Secondly, sometimes there is a provincial or federal interest that I think should be taken into account, along with truly a balance of responsibility to the local taxpayer.
Port taxation is, I think, a very difficult subject, and I'm very pleased with the consultation that the Ministry of Finance went through with our colleagues to resolve this. It's difficult because of three basic areas. The first, obviously, is that the lands and the structures on them are very fixed, on shorelines. They've generally been built up over a number of years and improved on, so their capital value is usually very extensive. Of course, they're sort of captured to that point — site specific, if you wish. Unlike many other businesses, they don't have the ability to just pack up and move and perhaps go somewhere else.
The second is the way that communities have generally regulated their tax structure. Often industry, utilities and businesses are at least equal to the residential tax rate but, more often than not, one and a half, two, two and a half, three times as high for the same dollar value. They pay two or three times as much tax for that same dollar, but there is a limit, certainly, that we can tax our industry on before they start to cut back on expansions or, in fact, ultimately close down.
I know each community in our province is a little bit different in terms of their balance of industrial to residential to commercial. Some communities like an equal balance; some have far more industry. Some in fact have very little industry in their community, and that's a deliberate attempt by those communities over the years that they have built, because they wanted to be perhaps just a residential community and not…. We have to be understanding about the way communities shape themselves, but they also have to be understanding in terms of the results of the tax structure that they bring in.
I think sometimes the taxes don't bear a particular relationship to some of the services those industries place demand on in those communities. I'm thinking particularly of parks, for example. In terms of port facilities, what demands will they put on parks for a community, although they pay taxes for those parks? Perhaps more importantly is schools. I know in my community about half the municipal tax bill goes to the school system in British Columbia. Of course, ports or
[ Page 9598 ]
industry or commerce really don't produce the children that go to school, but we know, as good corporate citizens, they want to participate and pay taxes towards that. Again, it's a matter of balancing how much tax we should levy on our industry to remain as healthy communities.
The final area, I think, which makes it very difficult — and around this one particularly — is how indeed we focus the federal and the provincial interest with local communities. This primarily resonates around port facilities, which we have in this bill today — things like airports and railway infrastructure across Canada and British Columbia. This is usually infrastructure that's in place to serve the broader community that indeed all of us can use, and therefore there has to be a larger oversight into the operation and taxation of those facilities.
An example I would like to use this afternoon is the Vancouver International Airport, because it's the largest single taxpayer in my community of Richmond Centre. I think it contributes something like $6 million to $7 million to the local tax base, and as I said, that's the largest single taxpayer in my constituency. There's got to be a fairness, a competitiveness, because that airport is a competitor with Portland, Seattle, L.A., San Francisco. You can only tax so far, and then they won't go into their expansion mode. Of course, you end up reducing the taxes you're going to get in the long haul anyway by cutting down on their expansion.
I think this bill brings tax stability to the port of Vancouver — really, of course, that's made up of several different communities — and as the Minister of Finance mentioned, certainly to Squamish and Prince Rupert, as well, for five years for existing infrastructure and tax relief for ten years for new improvements.
I think the provincial government has been very responsible. I'm thinking back to past administrations that simply wiped out any assets that municipalities were owed by the province but certainly very responsibly by the Ministry of Finance and by this government in paying out the difference between the tax-cap rate and the funds that the municipalities would have lost. In fact, British Columbia is going to be paying that money.
It's got a limited time span for the existing infrastructure of five years, and then we can see if it makes a difference on port development. If not, of course, there's a sunset clause for those existing improvements. As we all expect with this cap in place, in fact we'll have new port development, and we know what that means. That's just going to be additional taxes for those municipalities over the longer run.
I believe it's a good piece of legislation that protects the local taxpayer and the council, both from the point of view of dollars and cents and through consultation with them. Secondly, it will stimulate new development of our port infrastructure that will benefit all of us in British Columbia. I commend the Minister of Finance for bringing this bill forward. I know it has been a difficult experience. It's always difficult working with a lot of local governments, but I congratulate you on resolving this very difficult port taxation issue.
Hon. G. Collins: I thank my colleague from Richmond for his comments. As a former mayor, he brings sort of a viewpoint that perhaps we in provincial government don't always carry, although there seems to be an awful lot of mayors or former mayors in this House from time to time — not that I hold anything against them. We're glad to have them, but we tend to be an overrepresented segment of society.
I do appreciate his comments, because it's fair to say that this was a tough negotiation or a tough conclusion to get to. Various municipalities, obviously, don't take very kindly to the provincial government stepping in and dealing with and capping their tax rates. I understand that, and I'm very sympathetic to it. That's why we tried to compensate them. We have compensated them 100 percent for any revenue loss that those municipalities would have.
I think it's important to note that when we do this, ports aren't just the economic drivers in those communities in which they're located; they are a key component to British Columbia's economy as well. They are the gateways through which our wood products, our manufacturing products, our mining products, our minerals, our coal, etc., make it to market. The rest of British Columbia — the 4.2 million British Columbians — also have a very significant interest in the long-term viability and the capital investment that goes into those ports, because the forest workers or the miners in Prince George or the Elk Valley have a direct relationship to the viability of those ports. Those communities are involved; those jobs in those communities are affected by it.
There was a role for government here, provincial government. I would say that there continues to be a role for the federal government as well, although they've been absent to a certain extent in trying to resolve this issue, in that there's potash from Saskatchewan that comes through here, there is beef from Alberta — although not as much right now, but it will return again from Alberta — and there's wheat from across the prairies that comes through the ports in British Columbia in the lower mainland and elsewhere. Certainly, we hope that there's going to be more goods coming through the port in Prince Rupert and Squamish as well. Certainly, with some of the initiatives that are being brought forward and the infrastructure that we're working on, we expect that to happen.
It's important that this be moved forward. It would have been ongoing for years and years and years, and everybody seemed to be pointing the fingers at everybody else as if it's their responsibility. We felt it was important to step in, take the lead, actually make something happen here. I'm pleased to note that there have been some significant commitments to new capital investment across the ports. Hopefully, we'll see a lot more, and then we'll be able to review it in three years and see if in fact it succeeded in doing what we expected it to do.
I want to thank those mayors who worked on this. As I said at the time, I understand their concerns. I tried to allay their fears as much as possible, but I also wanted to treat them fairly. I do understand their con-
[ Page 9599 ]
cerns, and I appreciate the constructive nature with which we had this dialogue in almost every case. I think there was one exception that wasn't as constructive, but generally, the mayors and communities were quite positive. I want to thank them for that as well. I'm sure that the British Columbians who rely upon the ports will want to thank them as well.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Collins: I just want to make a brief statement, if I may. Earlier today in the debates surrounding the supplemental estimates, in response to a question by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to page 11 of the supplemental estimate and the revised number for the deficit this year, I operated under the assumption — without input from staff at that point, which was evident from the debate — that that was a column which hadn't appeared in the previous supplemental estimates. In fact, I've gone back, and that's not the case. It did appear in each of the three previous supplemental estimates that came before the House.
Indeed, to respond to the gist of the member's question, one can track the supplemental estimate and the addition of the expense and the resulting forecast in the increase in the deficit in a direct relation through each of those supplemental estimates. There is not a corresponding revision done to the revenue side in the supplemental estimates, because it's a spending appropriation that's being asked for. Suffice it to say that the answer I gave her with regard to the overall deficit for government has, in fact, come down. It will be $1.7 billion as forecast in the budget — or lower, we hope, by the time we close the books at March 31.
I just wanted to correct the record on that, and I would be more than happy to make that information available to the member opposite, if she'd like it.
With that, I call….
Deputy Speaker: Minister, we have to move Bill 8 to committee stage, so if you would do that.
Hon. G. Collins: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 8, Ports Property Tax Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 13.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 2004
Hon. B. Barisoff: This bill, entitled Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, builds on the Environmental Management Act enacted last October, replacing the outdated, inefficient Waste Management Act. Our government, under the Premier's leadership, has committed to bringing out the best in British Columbia. The changes being introduced today help communities across British Columbia do just that, by creating opportunities for new investment and job creation.
The Environmental Management Act is the main environmental protection management statute in British Columbia. These amendments address improvements to two parts of the act: part 2, "Prohibitions and Authorizations," which regulates industrial waste and discharge; and part 4, "Contaminated Site Remediation," which regulates the identification and cleanup of contaminated sites.
Two years ago the government convened an expert panel on contaminated sites. With these amendments government is taking another step toward implementing their recommendations and moving these sites back into productive use, thereby creating investment and job opportunities. Amendments to part 4 will accelerate the redevelopment of contaminated sites, returning them to productive use and restoring opportunities in communities that need them.
The current definition of contaminated sites unnecessarily includes a reference to hazardous waste, meaning that sites could be subject to contaminated sites regulations as well as hazardous waste regulations, a needless duplication. Under section 39 amendments will eliminate this reference to hazardous waste. Eliminating the duplication will improve client service, decrease the regulatory burden and, additionally, provide greater flexibility for on-site management of cleanup operations.
Also, under section 39 the amendments will allow approved professionals to assume a greater role in certifying the cleanup of low- or medium-risk sites. The ministry will use this summary of the evidence and recommendations — known as a summary of site condition — to confirm a low- and medium-risk site has been satisfactorily restored, alleviating the processing backlogs and allowing a more efficient and streamlined process.
Communities and industries have said that the current process that initiates a site investigation is too broad, capturing sites where an investigation is not warranted. Amendments to section 40 provide greater flexibility, simplifying the process so circumstances for mandatory investigation are clear, consistent and predictable. Amendments to this section make the site investigation process more responsive to changing circumstances.
Amendments to section 44 streamline and consolidate the legislative provisions and reduce overlap between the act and its regulations with respect to determining what qualifies as a contaminated site. The changes offer greater flexibility by establishing protocols governing this determination process and will ultimately reduce the approval backlog. Our expert panel recommended approvals-in-principle and certificates of compliance be issued for low- and medium-risk sites, once an approved professional has provided
[ Page 9600 ]
the ministry with a summary of site condition. We are acting on these recommendations with amendments to sections 44 and 53.
Finally, amendments under part 4 enable the creation of a land remediation fund and indicate the purpose for which the fund will be used. Many jurisdictions in North America have established dedicated trust funds to cover the costs associated with remediation. These trust funds allow the cleanup of a variety of sites, which may otherwise be remediated. Our experts panel has recommended that such a fund be established. Government will work with industry and communities to identify funding sources' levels of funding in the structure.
These amendments provide greater acceptance for the work of approved professionals and improve ministry efficiency for the industry and communities. They lay the foundation to address other issues, such as liability, dispute resolutions, appeals and the cost-benefit analysis in the next phase of our reforms, which the ministry plans to implement in future legislative sessions.
Amendments to part 4 deal specifically with codes of practice for minimum-risk activities. These codes replace the need for case-by-case permits for individual businesses and instead provide rules governing waste discharge for the entire sectors of the industry. Under section 19 codes of practice will be added to the list of authorizations from which the ministry may order temporary relief.
Currently, the minister can offer relief from an order, a permit, an approval, a licence or a waste management plan. In some cases, relief from these requirements is necessary to avoid substantial economic hardship or job loss, making temporary relief an important tool. The amendment will extend the use of this tool in codes of practice.
Further, amendments under section 22 bring the requirements for monitoring or reporting under regulations and codes of practice into line with those already available for permits, creating parity between the various types of authorizations and providing a level playing field and a greater certainty.
Finally, amendments under section 138 will allow the minister, rather than cabinet, to designate the medium-risk activities that will be subject to particular codes of practice, making them more responsive and allowing the codes to be changed as circumstances require.
I move second reading.
J. MacPhail: Of course, Bill 13, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, amends legislation that is still not in force and effect, which we just debated earlier last year, so there's much to be discussed and much to be examined.
Noting the hour, I move adjournment of debate.
J. MacPhail moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Collins moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Trumper in the chair.
The committee met at 2:50 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND FISHERIES
(continued)
On vote 10: ministry operations, $44,682,000 (continued).
J. Kwan: Just prior to the lunch break, my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, the Opposition House Leader, was canvassing questions with the minister with respect to the situation about the minister having to resign. An investigation was launched into the handling of the aquaculture file in the fall of 2001. My colleague had actually put on record and recapped what led up to the investigation and caused the minister's resignation.
At the time when estimates debates were up, my colleague was asking the minister questions about issues around political interference at the highest level which compromised justice and the processes designed to protect our natural heritage — that is, the wild Pacific salmon fish stocks. From documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, it became clear that the minister had directly interfered in an investigation pertaining to that issue.
The opposition, as I mentioned…. When they tried to run through the CBC story with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and to get to the truth of what happened during the estimates, the minister at that time had deliberately blocked the opposition's effort at every turn. The minister said he could not answer these questions, and then he said that the Attorney General would be able to provide some answers related to that.
But on April 9, 2003, the Attorney General said: "There is no restriction I'm aware of that flows out of
[ Page 9601 ]
the special prosecutor process which in any way constrains the ability of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to answer questions with respect to what the reason for the investigation was — as he understands it — what actions he may or may not have taken or what policies existed in the ministry with respect to those matters." That was directly from the Attorney General.
We do have a number of questions for the minister now with this matter. The special prosecutor's report is now out, at least for the minister's access, even though I understand from my colleague that prior to the lunch break, when she asked the question about whether the minister ever read the special prosecutor's report, his answer was no. It is shocking, seeing as the special prosecutor's report was written explicitly about the minister's action and it investigated that matter. When the findings are finally available for the minister's information, he wouldn't even take the time to read it. I find it astounding that a minister of the Crown would be so lax in his responsibilities as to not read the special prosecutor's report about his actions. I find that shocking.
Having said that, let me ask the minister this question: did anyone in his ministry read the report?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to make a comment, first of all, about the previous statements by the member's colleague. She claimed to have a copy of the media statement by the criminal justice branch. That media statement makes it clear that the report of the special prosecutor was forwarded to Assistant Deputy Minister Robert Gillen of the criminal justice branch.
As the member knows and her colleague knows, reports of Crown counsel to the criminal justice branch are not released. That is a matter of practice within the justice system. That is not a political decision of the government or the Attorney General or anyone else. That is a factor of the justice system. I find it very creative: the line of questioning that the member's colleague took in suggesting I would have that report or have access to that report. I've never had access to that report. I'm not aware that any member of my staff or ministry have had access to that report.
[1455]
J. Kwan: What information did the minister get out of that entire process from this special prosecutor's report? Did he have no information whatsoever from the special prosecutor's report?
Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said to the member's colleague previous to the break, I have the same media statement that the public has and that everyone else has.
J. Kwan: The minister is saying that he never had access to that report and his ministry never had access to that report. So he doesn't know what's contained in that report, because they have had no information about it other than just a press statement. Is that what he's putting on record now?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I could confirm for the member that I have not had any access to that report. The way the justice system operates is that the special prosecutor is named by the assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Attorney General, in the criminal justice branch. That special prosecutor reports to that assistant deputy minister. It is structured that way in the legislation intentionally to provide complete separation and independence between elected people in government and the administration of justice when an elected person is under investigation.
J. Kwan: Well, I find that difficult to believe. The minister is saying that he'd never had access to the report and he had no information from that report other than the press statement that was put to him. Well then, in that case, how could British Columbians be sure that the minister in fact learned anything about this entire process? In fact, did the minister learn anything from this entire process?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I can assure the member and the public and the members of this House that I did learn something from the process, and I acknowledged my mistake to the public and to the members of the Legislature. Through the process of the investigation and two interviews with the RCMP, certainly, I learned about the handling of confidential documents — in particular, reports to Crown counsel.
J. Kwan: Okay. The minister says he has learned about the handlings of Crown counsel matters in terms of reports related thereto. He says he has learned about the handling of confidential material. Could the minister explain for this House, then, the issues about interference into an investigation by another ministry — Water, Land and Air Protection? What did the minister learn about that?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to put on record again, as I have done previously, that certainly, there was no intent on my part to interfere with an investigation or a charging process. In having the benefit of reviewing the interviews with the police — and I did review the freedom-of-information material — I don't believe I did interfere in an investigation or a charging process. Certainly, my ministry is taking appropriate steps to ensure the complete independence of the investigation process within our ministry and in collaboration with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection under our memorandum of understanding that we discussed previously in these estimates.
J. Kwan: Let me just go back to some questions, then, that the minister would be free to answer now given that the special prosecutor's report is out. These questions are still very valid.
[1500]
Let me begin with this most recent situation, though. Looking at the lobbyists registration, it shows that a person named Gary Ley of the Stolt Sea Farm
[ Page 9602 ]
Americas is registered as a lobbyist and lists the Minister of Fisheries by name as a target. The nature of the lobbying is stated as: "Activities related to Stolt's interests in B.C." The dates provided are February 2003 to February 2004. Can the minister tell us if he has, in fact, met with or had any type of communication with Mr. Ley or Stolt Sea Farm Americas?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I do not recognize the name of Gary Ley. In the past 12 months I have been in, in my recollection, possibly two or three meetings involving people that represented Stolt Sea Farm.
J. Kwan: Who did the minister meet with from Stolt Sea Farm?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I know that I met with…. I do recall one meeting involving senior management in Stolt Sea Farm. I don't recall the names of management people, other than Dale Blackburn and the general manager of Stolt Sea Farm in British Columbia.
J. Kwan: What did the minister discuss at these meetings?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't recall the specific discussion in the meeting, but the issues would have dealt generally with the issues in aquaculture.
J. Kwan: That's convenient. The minister says he doesn't remember what was discussed, but it dealt generally with aquaculture. He doesn't remember. He said he had two or three meetings, but he only recollected a meeting with somebody by the name of Dale Blackburn, who is a senior management person from Stolt. It's, quite frankly, rather convenient for the minister to say that he doesn't remember.
Because the investigation of Stolt Sea Farm earlier, back in January of 2003…. In April of 2003, when the estimates debate was up, questions were asked of the minister related to the Stolt Sea Farm situation. Since the investigation and since the special prosecutor's report, we now learn that the minister has had several meetings with Stolt Sea Farm, but he doesn't remember who he met with necessarily, with the exception of one person, and he doesn't remember what he talked about, except that it was generally about aquaculture.
Let me ask the minister this question. Has the minister met with or communicated with any representatives of any other aquaculture companies?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I think it's important to put on record the fact that as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, I remain open, and I've always had a policy of openness and access for people to meet with me. That policy has remained in place for everyone from environmental groups to farmers to MLAs to fish farms and anyone that has any reason to want to meet with myself. I have maintained that policy.
The two or three meetings that I referred to, as I recall, involved other players in the aquaculture industry, not just Stolt Sea Farms — other farm operations. I would say that I am as open to environmental groups and people who have concerns about aquaculture as I am to people who are supportive of aquaculture and looking to practise aquaculture. That includes communities and mayors and councils and economic development officers who support the development of aquaculture in their communities.
[1505]
I have stuck very, very clearly to that policy. I reject any notion that I have played favourites in term of access, and I think the record will show that. I'm prepared to defend that record. As I've said, people who have asked for meetings…. We have always tried to provide those opportunities.
J. Kwan: Actually, it's interesting that the minister himself made a mention of issues around access and about whether or not the minister is open and accessible to the public. Well, let the public judge that.
In the spirit of openness, given that that is what the minister says he's committed to, let's go back to the issue of fish farms owned by Stolt, which is the biggest player in the B.C. salmon farming industry — and a major Liberal donor over the last two years, I might add. It was reported that this farm suffered a massive escape and thousands of Atlantics poured into our waters. According to the CBC documentation, the television program Disclosure, this was Stolt's second major escape in the past year.
Could the minister explain why his ministry chose not to lay charges with this escape?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is correct that there were two escapes. Both of them happened under the previous government. Certainly, there was an investigation done, fully done, by the ministry at the time. As I recall the sequence of events — and certainly she would be free to check the record on this — the decisions of whether or not to proceed on an investigation by the minister…. The decisions of whether or no to recommend charges by the ministry were made prior to June 5, 2001, when I became minister.
I should inform this House that there was, certainly, a decision made to upgrade the regulations. In fact, Stolt Sea Farm agreed to spend $185,000 to upgrade all of their facilities based on the information that was learned about the management and the anchoring of the nets. They did spend significant dollars to upgrade their facilities to prevent, in the future, the kind of flaw or fault in the net cage system that allowed the escape to happen in the first place.
J. Kwan: No, actually, I would contradict the minister's answer in terms of the investigation into the matter, because it was this minister who tried to interfere when the two ministries were trying to look into the situation of the escapes, which happened — at least one of the escapes — under this government's and this minister's jurisdiction. I just want to be clear about that and clear about the investigation.
[ Page 9603 ]
Charges were not laid, even though the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was conducting an investigation. Internal documents obtained by the CBC show that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was going after Stolt's — that there were great concerns. This was the minister's action that triggered the special prosecutor's investigation and the reports since.
[1510]
Could the minister tell this House how he tried to interfere in these investigations? What did he do?
Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said earlier in these estimates, I did not try and interfere in an investigation. Clearly, there was never an intent to interfere in the investigation. I was questioned about that by the RCMP. I don't believe, even having read the documents that the member refers to, that I interfered in an investigation. There were certainly a few people who had the opinion that I had interfered in an investigation. That was simply a matter of opinion. I don't believe it was a valid opinion.
J. Kwan: Well, the minister claims he did not try to interfere. Let me then put the question to the minister this way: what exactly did the minister do when he learned of the escapes from Stolt's and that there was an investigation by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection? What did he do? What actions did he take?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The specific incident that triggered the RCMP investigation involved the release of a document. It was a release of a document on a decision that was made by myself — a very quick and instant decision based on a misunderstanding of the process. The rationale for the decision — it was a spur-of-the-moment decision — was that I believed it would help the fish farm better understand the rationale that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was pursuing, which was the basis for their investigation.
In fact, again, if the member reads all of the documents she refers to in the CBC freedom-of-information request, she will see that virtually all of the information in that prosecutor's or Crown counsel's report had come from Stolt's. She will even see letters where Stolt's had asked for disclosure or discussion of that information. There was nothing in that Crown counsel report that wasn't fully known to Stolt's people.
J. Kwan: The minister just said that he's never seen the Crown counsel special prosecutor's report because he does not have access to it, and then he just now contradicted his own answer by saying that there's nothing new arising out of this special prosecutor's report. Well, if he hasn't read it, how does he know that? Or if nobody else is allowed to read it, how does he know that Stolt's doesn't take any issues with it or what information is contained in that special prosecutor's report? Which is it? Is it public or isn't it public? Did he read it or didn't he read it? Who got access to it? He claims nobody, but yet he seems to know what's in it or that other people might know what's in it. How could that be?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is talking about two different reports. The report done by the special prosecutor into my conduct was not released. It was not available to anyone, and it went strictly to the assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Attorney General.
J. Kwan: Okay. The minister says that he did not try to interfere. What he did was release some confidential information to Stolt's which pertained to the investigation of the escape. Will the minister release what confidential information he gave to Stolt's, then, to this House?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't know if I have those documents. If the member reviews the documents, she will see there was a letter written by Stolt's lawyer to someone in government that basically provided the information that was the subject of the investigation. All of the information in the report came from Stolt's. They were fully involved in the investigation that the ministry did — that both ministries did. They were aware of the information. There was nothing new in the report.
[1515]
J. Kwan: Did the minister at any point in time put pressure on his staff not to proceed with charges in the Stolt's escape?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I have always, before and after this incident, given staff the direction to properly investigate and enforce the regulations we have in place. That has been a consistent policy from the time that I became minister on June 5, 2001, and I've never attempted to influence staff as to the appropriateness of investigations or recommendations of charges.
J. Kwan: Well, that's interesting, because members from Public Service Employees for Environmental Ethics were concerned and in fact raised the issues of contradiction — contradictory issues that this minister is now telling this House. People in that organization claim that there was a great deal of secrecy surrounding the decision of one ministry to press charges versus another ministry not to. Maybe the minister can explain where the discrepancy comes from. Why does it exist?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is correct that there were different views within both ministries. There were some differences of opinion about the appropriateness or otherwise of using the federal Fisheries Act to pursue some kind of an investigation and charge in this situation. That was part of the difficulty that existed at that time. At the time of the previous government that situation also existed, but subsequent
[ Page 9604 ]
to that, there was a memorandum of understanding developed between the two ministries, which we have canvassed in these estimates, that provided much greater clarity of roles and responsibilities between the two ministries.
Certainly, we have had, I think, a very good working relationship between the compliance and enforcement staff in both ministries. The roles are much clearer, and it has been designed to maximize effectiveness and to make sure that we regulate properly and effectively and do so in a cooperative manner with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
J. Kwan: Who gets to take the lead around these decisions? Is it this ministry or WLAP?
[1520]
Hon. J. van Dongen: Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, the investigators and ministry inspection staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries do all of the compliance and investigative work. If there is an enforcement issue, then that aspect of the work is led by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. If it's an issue under the Waste Management Act, they would do the enforcement work under that act, and they would also make the decision. If it's an issue under the provincial Fisheries Act — for example, an escape issue — then they may pursue the enforcement or they may delegate it to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to do that enforcement.
J. Kwan: Sorry. What did the minister say about the issue around compliance? Which ministry took the lead? Sorry — I missed that in the beginning.
Hon. J. van Dongen: The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries does all of the compliance work, as I understand it, under the MOU.
J. Kwan: So in a nutshell, compliance is done by this ministry, and enforcement is done by Water, Land and Air Protection, with the exception of if the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection asks this ministry to take over the enforcement side. Okay. So that's the lay of the land.
Let me ask the minister this question. According to the CBC story on their written account of the disclosure story, it said: "We know Stolt wanted the investigation stopped." Did the minister know that Stolt wanted the investigation stopped?
Hon. J. van Dongen: Yes, I was aware of that.
J. Kwan: When did the minister find out that Stolt wanted the investigation stopped, and how did he find that out?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I generally became aware of that in the fall of 2001. I don't recall whether I would have learned that information from my staff or from the phone call from Stolt's, but I became aware from one of those two sources.
J. Kwan: That's convenient too — for the minister to say he doesn't remember if he actually received that information from his staff or from a phone call from Stolt's. That leaves the possibility that Stolt's had actually placed a phone call to the minister, then the minister had a conversation with them to learn that Stolt's had actually wanted the investigation stopped. That leaves that possibility wide open.
Is it the minister's practice to take calls from stakeholders who have concerns about anything regarding his ministry?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I should mention to the member that there was also a letter from the Stolt Sea Farm to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection on which I was copied. My staff reminded me that I may have become aware of their position on the investigation from that letter. As I said to the member earlier, I am open to meetings and phone calls. I take phone calls from all stakeholders, including members of the public, including environmental groups, including everyone that has an interest in the issues that I have responsibility for.
J. Kwan: How does that process work? A person phones up the minister's office, and then he just picks up the call and says: "Hello. This is the minister. What can I do to help you?" Or does it go through a number of people — his staff, for example; his ministerial assistants, etc. — who screen the call and then set up a schedule time for the person to phone back and then also advise what they're going to be phoning about? What kind of procedure does the minister follow?
Hon. J. van Dongen: Calls are generally received in the minister's office through the general line. They may be reviewed by ministerial assistants or other staff, who will try and deal with whatever issues they can deal with. Certainly, they will decide whether or not to pass on a call to myself.
J. Kwan: Did that happen in the case with the Stolt's telephone call? Did that go through his staff, who made an assessment on whether or not the minister should take the call or when the minister should take the call, and then the minister spoke with the folks from Stolt? Is that what happened in terms of this particular phone call? The minister says he might have had a conversation with them and learned from them that they wanted the investigation stopped.
Hon. J. van Dongen: No, that's not the way it happened in this case. This was a phone call that I received directly from Stolt's.
[1525]
J. Kwan: I was just trying to figure out the process here with the minister. How does it work in his minis-
[ Page 9605 ]
try when a person phones through? He says he has an open line to him in the ministry. It's obvious, then, that some have more of an open line than others, because Stolt's got through directly to the minister without the interference of his staff, without them canvassing with the caller why they were phoning and what they were phoning about, then to set up, following the call, to assess whether or not the person actually gets access to the minister. That's a two-tier process we have now established that exists with the ministry.
Stolt's has a direct line to the minister, so when they phone…. In this instance, when this call came through, they did not have to go through staff. The minister just got to them right away and talked with them. It seems to me that…. Well, let me ask this question. Who did the minister speak with in this particular telephone call?
[K. Stewart in the chair.]
Hon. J. van Dongen: The telephone call that was the subject of the police investigation involved a conversation with Dale Blackburn.
J. Kwan: That's the same person the minister met with two or three times prior to that, and he has had direct phone calls with this person. Given that he remembers the detail about that but couldn't remember what they talked about…. He could not remember whether or not Dale, who seems to have direct access to the minister by telephone…. The minister could not remember whether or not he learned from that conversation that Stolt's wanted the investigation stopped. That's, quite frankly, hard to believe. Maybe I'll let the minister reflect for a moment to think back about this conversation to see exactly what took place and what transpired.
Hon. J. van Dongen: The meetings I referred to in the past year were meetings, generally, with the aquaculture industry. There were other players, as I recall, from the aquaculture sector in the meetings, and I do not remember the specific conversations in those meetings. Certainly, with any of the matters that were part of the police investigation, I would have a somewhat better recollection of those. As minister, you deal with a lot of different issues, and I certainly don't remember the details of the meetings in the past ten or 12 months with the aquaculture industry.
J. Kwan: No, I wasn't asking the minister if he remembered what took place in those meetings with the aquaculture industry. I was asking if the minister remembered the telephone conversation that he had with Stolt's potentially about their request for the investigation to stop. The minister remembered that he had a direct phone call from a representative from Stolt's. He remembered that the phone call did not go through any of the staff.
Stolt's had direct access to him, and he says it might be from that telephone conversation where he learned that Stolt's wanted the investigation stopped. Well, did he learn that from that telephone conversation? It seems to me that the minister remembers the telephone conversation, but he doesn't remember whether or not that particular piece of information and request had transpired during that call. I would ask the minister to reflect on that particular detail relating to the telephone call.
Hon. J. van Dongen: I would remind the member that it is now March 2004. These events took place in the fall of 2001. My recollection is that the first indication of Stolt's concern about the investigation by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was the letter that they sent to the minister responsible, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. As I recall, I was copied on that letter.
[1530]
J. Kwan: Correspondence was copied to the minister. The minister said his staff could have told him, but he could also have received that information from a telephone call with Dale — what did the minister say his last name was? — Blackburn, Mr. Dale Blackburn.
If the minister doesn't remember from that telephone conversation if Mr. Blackburn had requested or had discussed with the minister the investigation and let the minister know that they wanted the investigation to stop, what does the minister remember from that telephone conversation? What did they talk about? I would believe it was probably more than just the weather.
Hon. J. van Dongen: I can assure the member that it was a brief conversation, and as I indicated, I offered the report, the investigation, that had been done. It was not marked confidential. It was a spur of the moment decision. It was based on the understanding that he would receive a copy of that report. It was a very quick conversation.
It was the subject of a full investigation by the RCMP in the report that they had done, or certainly under the guidance of a special prosecutor. The recommendations of the special prosecutor to the criminal justice branch, to the assistant deputy minister responsible, were very clear. It's in a media statement that the members have. That really is the sum total of the investigation into the allegations that were made. There's no way that three years later I could recall any specific details of that conversation.
J. Kwan: Based on what the minister has told us now in this House, I think it's very possible that from that conversation the minister learned from Mr. Blackburn that they wanted the investigation stopped — in fact, to the point where the minister, during this conversation, offered up a confidential report to Mr. Blackburn.
Is it the practice of the minister to offer up confidential reports to people who request them or people who might have an interest in them? What guidelines does the minister use for confidential reports?
[ Page 9606 ]
Hon. J. van Dongen: As I indicated, the report was not marked confidential. I was under a misunderstanding about the significance of the report. That matter has been fully investigated through the process that was put in place under the special prosecutor. I don't know that there's anything to be added. I've been upfront with the member about the sequence of events, as I recall them. That's the extent of my recollection on the issue.
J. Kwan: There's a lot of information that is not public in terms of what happened there. There are still a lot of people who want to know what happened and the role that this minister played.
Let me ask the minister this question. According to one e-mail exchange from Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection employees, a letter stated: "A great deal of discussion is happening at" — and it uses the minister's name — "the minister's level regarding the follow-up investigation we initiated into the Sergeant Pass Stolt fish escape." What were those discussions?
Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said earlier, that comment reflects the opinion of a staff person in another ministry. Those matters, as I understand it, would have been part of the investigation. Certainly, those documents were available to the police doing the investigation, and they would have taken all those things into consideration in making their recommendation to the criminal justice branch.
J. Kwan: I'm not asking about the criminal investigation into that matter. I'm not asking about the special prosecutor's report. I'm not even talking about recommendations from that report. I'm asking the minister directly: what discussion was happening at the minister's level with respect to the follow-up investigation that was initiated into the Stolt Sea Farm escape?
That's what I'm asking of the minister, and the minister has direct information about that. He knows exactly what discussion took place, because he was there.
[1535]
There's no police investigation into this matter that blocks the minister from answering these questions, and the public has the right to know. That's openness and accountability. I would like an answer from the minister, Mr. Chair.
Hon. J. van Dongen: The documents the member has will show — and my staff just reminded me — that there was one meeting that involved the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management talking about this issue generally. I don't remember the details of the conversation, but there certainly was discussion about the opinions of the staff in those ministries about what would be the appropriate action to take in this case.
Certainly, I reiterate, as I have before in this House and as I did in my interviews with the police, that I've never had any intention of interfering in an investigation. I don't believe I ever did interfere in an investigation. Again, all those matters were fully investigated by the special prosecutor and the RCMP.
J. Kwan: With all due respect to the minister, he says that the matter has been investigated by the RCMP. There was a special prosecutor's report. What we do know is that the Attorney General refuses to release the special prosecutor's report, so we don't know what's contained within it. The minister himself admitted that he's never read the report, so we're not even quite sure if he actually learned from the findings of that report and where he went wrong, more specifically.
We are not sure what role the minister played with respect to the investigation on this whole matter. What we do know is that Stolt has wanted the investigations to stop. What we do know is that Stolt had personal phone calls to the minister, a direct line to the minister. What we do know is that the minister took calls from Stolt and had a discussion about it. What we do know is that the minister released a confidential report to Stolt about the investigation. What we do know is that there was a great deal of discussion happening at the minister's level regarding the follow-up investigation that was initiated into the fish escape situation. What we don't know, and what the minister won't provide answers for, is what the nature of those discussions were.
Did the minister, at any point in time, form an opinion about the investigation — whether or not the investigation should proceed or be stopped?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The member states all of the things that she claims to know in terms of this investigation. All of those issues were reviewed, or certainly the opportunity for them to be reviewed existed, through the investigation done by the RCMP and the special prosecutor. On her question of whether or not I had formed an opinion, I was guided by the advice of my staff on that matter.
[1540]
As I said, there was one meeting involving the three ministers. Out of that process, certainly, it was recognized that for many years there had been conflict and differences of opinion between the two ministries.
We now have in place a memorandum of understanding that is working very well, that is working effectively. We now have in place an annual reporting process that not only involves a report from both ministries but one that has now been merged into one report that provides a complete report into the work of both ministries on compliance and enforcement.
This matter was canvassed very extensively, not only through the investigation that took place that was set up for the purpose but also in estimates last year. It is now being canvassed again. We are here to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for '04-05, and I would encourage the member to consider questions about the budget estimates for the coming year.
[ Page 9607 ]
D. Jarvis: I want a point of order, Mr. Chair. The direction the questioning is going now…. To me, it's being very repetitive, not only in the fact that we're talking about the future budget of '04-05, but these were discussed last year in these same estimates. I think the point has been well covered. I think the minister is being very cooperative at this time, but I think we should be getting on to the present estimates that we're here to talk about.
J. Kwan: You will note that questions were asked of the minister about these things last year in estimates, and the minister did not provide any answers. The minister said, "Don't talk to me. There is a special prosecutor into this matter," or "I can't deal with the matter. It goes to the Attorney General." The Attorney General referred it back to this minister and said that the minister is completely open to answer these questions. The minister claims all this information is public information so he's been open and accountable. Well, nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Chair, because the public did not know what happened.
It makes the minister and the government very uncomfortable, I understand, when the opposition is asking these questions, because it is exposing the minister's wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing in this area. If there's no wrongdoing, then the minister should be able to tell the public what took place in these discussions and why there was interference and what kind of interference. He says, "No, there was no interference," yet discussions took place.
The background that I lay out happens to come out of estimates debate in the last ten minutes or so in terms of the information I have been able to garner from the minister. That's new information. It's new information, so I would like answers from the minister around these.
These issues are current, as well, insofar as they relate to the minister's meetings with the agriculture community. He admitted — what, half an hour, 15 minutes ago? — that he met with the Stolt's people on a number of occasions and that he continued to meet with people around these issues. They're on the lobbyists' register in terms of what happened there. I think it's fair enough that we get to ask these questions.
By the by, when we did the Ministry of Health estimates, I asked the Health minister in terms of budget-related items for several years, because they have ramifications over the course of the years to today. There are definitely relationships in the estimates debate in terms of what happened in previous years and how they impact today in terms of the budget proceedings and the issues we're dealing with today.
The Chair: Okay, member. With regard to the issue which was brought up by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour with regard to the repetitiveness — the year of the budget — I will look to the minister to respond to the point that he feels he's fully responded to the questions and they're getting repetitive. I'll leave that to the minister to decide when he feels he's fully answered the questions and they're repetitive, and we'll continue on with your questioning.
[1545]
J. Kwan: Let me ask the minister this question. In the same e-mail exchange another public servant states: "I'm also curious as to why the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries would be criticizing us for undertaking an investigation." I would ask the minister to answer that question.
Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't recall that specific memo, and I don't recall criticizing the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and their investigation. There were only very minimal conversations about this, as I recall. It was the one meeting. I was guided by the advice of my staff.
The member would have available to her all the documents that were in the CBC disclosure. It records all of those conversations. There is enough documentation there to show the somewhat different views by different individuals in both ministries. As I said, both ministries, I think, took very positive and constructive steps to develop this memorandum of understanding, which had been under discussion for some time but had not been concluded. That was further developed and completed, and it provides a much better working relationship between the two ministries on compliance and enforcement issues than was the case in the past.
J. Kwan: Well, there was a memo that was sent. The memo from the Ministry of Ag, Food and Fisheries was criticizing the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection for their investigation and for undertaking the investigation. The minister says: "I don't remember that memo." Well, that memo exists. I can certainly give a copy of that memo to the minister to refresh his memory, but it came from the minister's own ministry, from his bureaucrats.
The minister earlier said, as well, that he was guided by his staff with respect to this issue, but he did not say what his opinion on this investigation was. Did he support the investigation? Or did he oppose the investigation? I'd like an answer from the minister on that.
Hon. J. van Dongen: I have always respected and supported the authority of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to initiate and do investigations under the act. In fact, if the member again looks at the whole of the documents disclosed to the CBC, it will show that the ministry staff within the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries cooperated fully with the staff of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection in terms of sharing of information and in terms of sharing all the evidence that had been gathered in the investigation conducted initially by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
I've always encouraged our enforcement staff to work closely with staff in other ministries, and the record will show that they did that, even though there
[ Page 9608 ]
were some differences of opinion about the appropriateness of the investigation that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was considering. There is always legitimate discussion and debate within government about how to proceed, and the documentation reflects that.
I want to be very clear that ministry staff cooperated fully with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection in sharing evidence and in offering to act as witnesses, etc.
J. Kwan: No, my question was to the minister about his opinion. He said his opinion about the investigation was guided by his staff. What was his opinion? I'm not clear on what the minister's answer is to that.
Hon. J. van Dongen: I think there was sufficient basis to question what the basis was of the investigation that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was pursuing. The advice I was given was that they were considering using a section of the federal Fisheries Act that had never been used for this purpose. It was never, in its original form, intended to be applied in this kind of situation. That was the advice I was given, and I accepted that as legitimate advice.
[1550]
J. Kwan: One could presume, then, on that basis, that that is the minister's position. He said he accepted that advice from his staff, and therefore, he did not support the ongoing investigation of the Stolt Sea Farm. Am I right to draw that conclusion?
Hon. J. van Dongen: No, the member is not right in drawing that conclusion. What I have said, in all cases, is that I respect and support the right and responsibility of ministers and staff whose responsibility it is, under a particular act, to make decisions as to investigations and recommendations for charges. I may have a opinion about that that's different from that ministry, but I respect their authority, and I've always supported their authority to initiate an investigation for things they are responsible for.
J. Kwan: Did the minister, at any point in time, have his ministry convey their view to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection about the enforcement issues of this escape and therefore the investigation? What I gather from the minister's comment is that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection wanted to use a section of a federal act to pursue the investigation and that the minister's staff advised the minister they did not agree with that approach. At any point in time in this process did either the minister or his staff convey that opinion to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection?
Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, there was discussion between the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. As I said, I was very clear with my staff — I always have been since June 5, 2001— to work cooperatively with other ministries. The record and the evidence will show that our ministry did that. I don't recall what my personal role was in terms of discussions with the other ministry, but those discussions did take place between our staff in our ministry and the other ministry staff. Again, the documents that were disclosed — which apparently the member has access to — would show a record of that.
J. Kwan: The minister says that his staff and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection staff had discussions about this investigation and that in this process, communication would have been made about the ministry's opposition to using a section of the federal act to pursue this investigation. Could the minister advise: who are the staff members that engaged in these communications, from his ministry, and who did they speak with at the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection?
Hon. J. van Dongen: My understanding is that there were conversations between the Assistant Deputy Minister of Fisheries in my ministry and his counterparts in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
J. Kwan: Was the deputy minister involved?
Hon. J. van Dongen: He may have been, but I can't confirm that based on my memory.
[1555]
J. Kwan: Was the minister involved?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't remember. Certainly, I don't recall making specific representation as minister to either the other minister or senior staff in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. I'm advised by my staff that the deputy may not have been involved in those discussions, but we can't confirm that.
J. Kwan: For sure the ADM had those discussions, but the minister himself cannot recall whether or not he was involved in these discussions. It's rather convenient the things the minister is forgetting, namely the conversation with the Stolt representative himself. He doesn't remember what discussions took place regarding the follow-up investigation, and he doesn't remember whether or not he engaged in discussions with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection around this investigation. It's rather convenient the sets of facts the minister is forgetting. I think that certainly paints a picture as well.
All right. The ministry takes the lead on compliance. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection takes the lead on enforcement. Given that's the case, why would the ministry even interfere with another ministry's role with respect to enforcement? Why would these meetings even take place, and why the communication for the ADM to convey to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection that they did not think the investigation should proceed?
[ Page 9609 ]
Hon. J. van Dongen: The memorandum of understanding currently in place on compliance and enforcement was signed in March of 2002, and certainly, it sets out a very clear procedure now for the roles and responsibilities of both ministries and the working relationship. In the absence of that document, certainly for a number of years there was a lack of clarity in the relationship and the procedures. That is now much improved, in part relating to the experience we're speaking about with the Stolt Sea Farm case.
J. Kwan: Prior to this, this ministry, I believe, had responsibility for compliance and enforcement. Is that correct? Is that what the minister is saying? It's only subsequent to this incident that the memorandum of understanding was created, in which case the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection took over the enforcement role.
Hon. J. van Dongen: Prior to the signing of the MOU between the two ministries, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries did have responsibility for compliance and enforcement under the provincial Fisheries Act, including the aquaculture regulation. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection had enforcement responsibility for legislation under their mandate, which in the case of aquaculture included the Waste Management Act.
[1600]
J. Kwan: Given that is the case and that there's another ministry that wanted to do the investigation on the basis of the information they had, why would the ministry criticize another ministry for wanting that investigation?
[G. Trumper in the chair.]
Hon. J. van Dongen: As I've indicated and as the record will show, there were different views about the appropriateness of using the federal Fisheries Act in this particular application. It would have been a very expensive process, and the federal Fisheries Act was not designed for this purpose. The section that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was looking at was not designed for this purpose, and that was the advice I've been given by my staff.
J. Kwan: What section of the act is the minister referring to? Could he give the House the specific name of this act?
Hon. J. van Dongen: My understanding is that it's a section under the federal Fisheries Act, and I'd have to ask staff to get me the specific section. We don't have that information here at the present time.
J. Kwan: If the minister could provide that information, I would appreciate it.
Could the minister advise what triggers the system for action within the ministry for non-compliant fish farms? Does the ministry only do an investigation when the offence is large enough for the public to see and, therefore, for the public to demand a response? What exactly triggers the system to launch investigations into non-compliant fish farms?
[1605]
Hon. J. van Dongen: All farms are inspected, at a minimum, once a year, regardless of whether there has been a complaint or an issue brought forward. The inspectors go through a checklist on all aspects of the compliance and enforcement issues. Then, depending on the nature of the non-compliance, the inspector would initiate the appropriate action. All of this information is collated into an annual report on the state of compliance and enforcement within the aquaculture sector.
J. Kwan: I apologize for jumping around. I forgot to ask this last question, related to the federal Fisheries Act, in the section that applied with respect to the investigation. The minister also mentioned that it would have been very expensive to use that act. What does he mean by that?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The issue with respect to the federal legislation is that it was designed to deal with a situation where someone intentionally released species to the environment that weren't appropriate. It was not designed as an enforcement tool for an escape on a fish farm. In fact, after this incident of the second escape, certainly, we took steps to significantly improve the effectiveness of the escape regulation under the provincial Fisheries Act, which was designed for the purpose of dealing with the situation of an escape. It was designed for that purpose and, hence, would be a much more efficient way to deal with the issue.
Again, I restate the fact that our ministry felt that it wasn't possible to get a conviction under the regulation the way it was, but the fish farm involved had agreed voluntarily to spend $185,000 to upgrade their facilities, which is something we were not in a position, with the legislation as it was at the time, to enforce. There was a very significant improvement in the facilities and in the equipment that was faulty and gave rise to the escape.
[1610]
Certainly, there was a view within our ministry that this attempt to use the federal legislation was something which was not designed for the purpose and, hence, would involve a lot of additional legal work by the province to do something which had already…. The compliance objective had already been achieved through the work of the ministry, through the investigation we had done and by the upgrading of the facilities by the fish farm involved.
J. Kwan: Does the minister often have conversations with major fish farm operators that are under investigation or potentially under investigation?
Hon. J. van Dongen: As I've said to the member, I'm open to conversations with all stakeholders who
[ Page 9610 ]
have an interest in aquaculture issues. I am not always aware of whether they are under investigation or not. Certainly, we have put in place within the ministry now a more appropriate separation between myself as minister and the compliance and enforcement effort.
I want to remind the member that people are free to talk to their elected representatives. I also want to restate that I don't play favourites in terms of access, despite what impressions she may have, or it may be some impression that she may be trying to create. I've been very open with people, including environmental groups, who absolutely disagree with aquaculture policy. They disagree with the policy of this government. They disagreed with the policy of the previous government.
I've been open to them and having conversations with them about their concerns about aquaculture and explaining our government's policy of supporting a sustainable aquaculture industry; of supporting an effective regulatory regime, which I know we have put in place; of putting an increased number of staff in inspection; and of doing effective regulation as government. We have been open and conversing with all parties on those issues, and I have not played favourites in terms of access.
J. Kwan: The issue I'm trying to canvass with the minister is not necessarily about playing favourites but about conflict. Surely, I think the minister can appreciate this point. If a fish farm operator is under investigation or potentially under investigation and the minister has a conversation directly with the operator in the instance…. We'll use Stolt as an example, which has a direct line to the minister by just placing a telephone call and through that conversation can get the minister to release information that's pertinent to that investigation. It does create, I think, a huge question of potential conflict here, where the minister is compromising the work of his own ministry in that process. That's exactly what happened with the Stolt situation, to the point where the investigation had to be abandoned because of the release of information that was inappropriate.
To the point about having conversations with major fish farm operators that are under investigation or potentially under investigation, it is key in terms of a practice of this minister and how it affects the duties and responsibility of this minister. The minister says he's open to talk to whomever they want, whenever they want, and particularly the record will show that major fish farm operators have a direct line to the minister by just placing a phone call. In the case of Stolt, they don't even have to go through the ministry staff to access the minister; they'll just place a direct call to the minister.
Let me ask the minister this question. How many farms were under investigation last year, and how many farms are under investigation this year?
[1615]
Hon. J. van Dongen: The compliance and enforcement report prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, a joint report dated August 2003, does list the enforcement actions that took place — the fines that were levied and the enforcement actions that took place. The future report similarly will list the outcome of the current investigations that are taking place. When that report is released, that will also be public information. I'm not aware of the details of that report at the present time.
J. Kwan: Okay, so that report is a public report that the minister references. It has a list of fish farm operators that have been investigated. If the minister could advise, then, looking at the list — and I see that he has the list before him: who has he had conversations with out of that list about investigations?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm not aware of any conversations with any of the farms listed about an investigation or charges that may or may not have been laid. As I indicated to the member, this was one incident. It was a very specific incident. It was fully investigated by the RCMP under the guidance of a special prosecutor, and all of the issues the member raises or the documents she referred to, as I understand it, were available to that process and were considered.
I have acknowledged to the public and acknowledged to this House the mistake I made. We have put in place appropriate separation on issues of compliance and enforcement, and I have not had any other conversations, either before or after, with fish farms about compliance and enforcement issues.
J. Kwan: With the exception of Stolt, which had a direct line to the minister. As the Suzuki Foundation, Jim Fulton, said: "A company like Stolt has huge clout. When they call and then want to go to the Premier's office or the minister's office, they're in. They're in at the top. They don't deal with bureaucrats. They don't deal with enforcement."
Clearly, this is an accurate statement, because Stolt had a direct line to the minister, didn't have to go through ministerial staff or the bureaucracy in trying to get access to the minister. A phone call was placed, and the minister was there. They talked about compliance, and a confidential report was released. That's what happened with Stolt. Since that time, the minister says that he meets with all kinds of fish farm operators or anybody, for that matter, who wishes to meet with the minister or talk with the minister, for he keeps an open line to his office.
That's what he said. In my last question to him about who else he has met with that has been investigated and found to be in non-compliance with respect to sea farm issues, the minister says that he doesn't talk with anybody about pending investigations or potential investigations. Yet in the same breath, he also said that he doesn't limit what they have conversations about. So which is it?
Is it the case that when someone phones him up and they're being investigated and they say, "Hey, min-
[ Page 9611 ]
ister, I'm being investigated for this," or "What information do you have for me about this investigation, because we're being investigated?" or some sort of conversation like that, does the minister at that point then terminate the conversation and say: "I can't talk to you anymore, because this might compromise the investigation"? Or does the minister carry on the conversation with these individuals? How does the minister deal with those situations, if he says on the one hand that he doesn't talk about investigations with operators but on the other hand that he keeps an open line and will talk with anybody who wants to have a conversation with him?
[1620]
Hon. J. van Dongen: What I indicated is that I maintain open access for all stakeholders to talk to me about aquaculture issues. I also want to confirm that, to the best of my recollection, I have not been approached by any fish farms about investigations or enforcement actions. If I were approached by them on investigation and enforcement actions, I would simply refer them back to the compliance and enforcement team we have in our office in Courtenay, headed by a staff person who is very capable of dealing with these issues and in whom I have confidence. I would simply refer them back to that unit to deal with their issues — that is, the compliance and enforcement issues.
V. Roddick: I have a couple of questions I would like to ask that are relevant to this year's budget, seeing as how last year we went through exactly the same type of questioning on this same exact issue. This is a new year and a new budget, so I'm going to ask questions to do with today's budget.
There are some real concerns in the communities about the use of blueberry cannons, which are normally used in a shorter time frame for blueberries. Because of the lack of light abatement in sports fields and increased lighting in urban-rural areas in towns and along the roadways, the birds are now flying at night, especially widgeon, which is a form of duck. There is concern that cannons are being used not just in the six-week time frame that normally has to do with the production of blueberries.
Is there something that is being looked at to assist the farming community with this issue, especially in Delta, where we are on the Pacific joint flyway? How is the minister and the ministry going to handle this particular issue?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The member has raised something with respect to the use of propane cannons for blueberries in particular and the attraction of birds flying at night because of lights from golf courses and that kind of thing. I have to say that I'm not familiar with that phenomenon. It isn't something that has come up in discussion with staff.
Certainly, what our staff are doing is working very actively and closely with the industry and with stakeholders in this situation to find options in terms of various methods that could be employed to prevent the loss of crops to birds. There is a whole set of guidelines that has been developed — best practices which are designed to encourage farmers, as much as possible, to use cannons sparingly, to use them only when they're necessary when there are birds present and to use a mix of tools. There is a range of tools that can be employed. Certainly, the propane cannons are more effective if they're used in combination with a number of other methods and tools.
[1625]
I just spoke yesterday, for example, to a blueberry grower that was here in the Legislature. There are many, many different situations. There are many different regional situations where you're dealing with different species of birds and different levels of intensity of birds, so it is legitimate and appropriate to employ a range of different methods. There are many different situations on farms in terms of the situation of whether it's handpicked or machine-picked. We have tried to retain the reuse of propane cannons but at the same time to develop best practices that minimized their actual usage. We've tried to retain it as a tool for situations where it was appropriate and, at the same time, minimize their actual usage to make the situation as reasonable as possible for neighbours.
V. Roddick: Is there any possibility that the minister, with the ministry, could work with communities on this light abatement? It is becoming an extremely serious issue as far as the agricultural community is concerned — certainly in Delta South — because of the growth of the bird population. It's not just as far as the agricultural community using these cannons. It is also the use of light, which, as I said, was coming from the sports community. It's coming from, for instance, the Vancouver Port Authority's Roberts Bank terminals. It's a huge light problem — B.C. Ferries terminal plus all the lighting that's going along all the highways, etc.
This has just sort of built up, and it's now actually affecting agriculture in the fact that the farmers now have to, to save their crops — the grass crop and the overwintering crops that then come on first thing in the spring to feed the cattle. They need to have some method of control.
Perhaps this is something the minister and the ministry could work on with communities, especially urban-rural communities like Delta South, to discuss this issue and how we could work out light abatement, etc., to try and control these birds so that things like blueberry cannons…. My colleague for Delta North has come here for several years with the same issue because of the blueberry farms just below North Delta. If there could be something done by the minister and the ministry to help agriculture contend with this issue, it would be much appreciated.
Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said, that is not an issue that has come to my attention — the impact of light from many other sources on bird populations. We have asked ministry staff to review the lighting issues with
[ Page 9612 ]
respect to the use of light in greenhouses. We're doing that review at the present time. Certainly, all those other sources of light are from sources that I wouldn't be involved in.
J. Kwan: I'm sorry; I just stepped out for a moment. Has the member for Delta South finished her questions?
Normally, it is the practice in this House to respect members in their flow of questions, to allow the member to finish their line of questioning before they get interrupted into another area. That's a practice that I certainly know. The member from Chilliwack, who is working with the House Leader, just advised me that there is no such courtesy or practice in this House at all and that, in fact, members are interrupted all the time when this kind of thing happens.
That, of course, is not true, Madam Chair. It is obviously not true. It is the practice and the courtesy of this House to not interrupt a flow of questioning from another member. Nonetheless, it does happen regularly with this government because there is no regard whatsoever for opposition MLAs with their questions.
[1630]
Before I interrupt — and I don't want to interrupt members in their line of questioning — I was just out of the chamber for one moment, and I wonder whether or not the member for Delta South had finished her questions.
V. Roddick: That's most kind of the member. Yes, I do have more questions, and they are relevant to this budget, so I will continue with my questioning.
The BSE and the avian flu have affected our border and some of B.C.'s agricultural products — or the financing thereof. I noticed that the budget allocated to industry competitiveness has been reduced slightly. With these issues of BSE and avian flu, can the minister tell me what is being done to ensure B.C.'s competitiveness in the agricultural sector? Or can the minister tell me what plans are in place to encourage B.C.'s agricultural products worldwide?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The member has raised an issue that is a very significant concern to our poultry industry, and that is the avian flu. We are working very closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to ensure that the objectives of food safety are met, to ensure that our need to maintain a high standard of animal health is met in our industry and to ensure the long-term economic viability of our farmers and our industry. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is clearly the lead on this issue within Canada.
The avian influenza that is the subject of the current quarantine is considered to be no risk to the human population. I think it's important to emphasize that. But certainly, it is a highly contagious virus from an animal health and a bird health perspective. That is the focus of the zones that the CFIA has set up — the high-risk zone, the surveillance zone and the control zone that they have put in place in order to monitor, to further test and to depopulate as required flocks that have been demonstrated to be positive for this virus.
The industry is very supportive of the CFIA's efforts and of their role. We as a ministry work closely with them in a support role. It is a very serious matter for our industry, and we will continue to work very actively to support the CFIA to get the situation under control and to protect the long-term viability of our farmers.
J. Kwan: Other members in this House might not be interested in the situation around the matters related to the investigation, the actions that flowed from it and what the minister had done, but certainly, the opposition is very interested in that and so, too, is the public. Every member has the right to ask these questions in this House.
[1635]
Following on the questions I was asking the minister before I was interrupted, I would like to ask the minister this question. When fish farm operators phone and if a matter of an investigation or a potential investigation is raised in this conversation, then he refers those individuals back to staff and he does not engage in discussions with them about these investigations. We know that did not happen in the Stolt situation, and we know that the Stolt folks had a direct line to the minister around their situation or any matters they wished to raise. They could phone the minister directly.
Now, the minister says he has open access for the rest of the community who wish to engage in discussions with him. Earlier, I was asking him in terms of the process and what that process is, and he outlined a process in which staff would be involved in getting that information from whoever the caller or the stakeholder might be who has made the request for a meeting. Then they would make a determination of what follow-up action to take and how or if the minister would be accessible.
There is a two-tier approach here. The Stolt's individual, Mr. Blackburn, was able to contact the minister directly without having to go through these steps with staff. What about environmental groups? Do they have to go through these steps with staff in order to access the minister, or can they actually just phone up, like Mr. Blackburn does, in trying to access the minister, and then the minister will take their call directly?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I outlined what generally happens, but the fact is that the meetings are set up from many different sources. I have both a minister's office and a constituency office. I go to meetings. I meet people at meetings. I meet people on the street. Sometimes someone asks me for a meeting directly, and we try and establish a meeting. Sometimes they talk to my staff. There are many different ways that meetings can be set up. As I said, I followed a policy of open access.
I quite frankly don't recall a specific request for a meeting by an environmental group which wasn't met. There may have been one, but I don't recall one. Cer-
[ Page 9613 ]
tainly, if there's an environmental group that wants to meet with me about the fish farm issue, I'm open to that meeting.
I just reject the notion that some people have better access to meetings than others. Meeting requests come from many different sources. There are times when I'm in my constituency office on Fridays or on weekends. I take phone calls. I may make a commitment right there for a meeting, and it would be irrespective of who that person is.
I stand by my commitment of access to the public to talk about issues of interest to the public — aquaculture being one of many issues that we deal with in this ministry.
J. Kwan: Okay, the minister says people can access him for requests for meetings. Fair enough, and I'm not going to dispute that. What I'm asking the minister is this question. Some people have direct access to the minister by the minister's own admission. Take as an example the Stolt fish farm organization. They have direct access to the minister. Mr. Blackburn can phone up the minister, and the minister will take that call. There is no rigmarole in terms of direct access.
My question is: could environmental groups…? Let's say David Suzuki or Jim Fulton. Could they phone up the minister directly and speak with the minister directly without going through staff, as an example? If they can, great, but I don't believe that's the case. If they can't…. The minister says he maintains an open-access policy in his office. Then perhaps he'll offer the phone numbers by which the public, environmental groups or otherwise, could phone him up directly and access him directly without having to go through staff — like Mr. Blackburn was able to do.
[1640]
Hon. J. van Dongen: My phone numbers, both the minister's office and the constituency office, are a matter of record, and certainly they're free to phone. I say very specifically to the people the member has cited that I'd be more than happy to meet with them if they make that request.
My staff knows what our policy is. My staff knows that I want to know who requests meetings. I don't allow my staff to screen out calls. I provide full and open access. I want to know who made requests for meetings so that I can judge for myself whether it's appropriate to meet or not.
J. Kwan: I'm not talking about meetings. I'm talking about telephone calls. The minister admitted on record that Mr. Blackburn has direct access to him. I asked him about that conversation. He said the telephone conversation had occurred with Mr. Blackburn. He just phoned the minister. The minister picked up the phone and answered that call, and he did not have to go through staff.
Now I'm asking this question. The ministry's phone number and the constituency office phone numbers — when people dial those phone numbers, they get their staff. They don't get the minister who is sitting there answering his own phone.
Interjections.
B. Penner: He answers his own phone.
The Chair: Order, please.
J. Kwan: Maybe the wannabe minister, the MLA for Chilliwack-Kent, when he gets the minister's office some day, hopefully sometime soon…. As the polls are changing rapidly, he may never see that day under this Liberal government. Maybe he'll get there one day. Who knows? He sure as hell wants to be there, but he could keep trying. Let me just say he could keep trying. So far he gets to carry the Minister of Finance's, the House Leader's, bag around the halls in the Legislature. That seems to make him feel very good about things, but so far all he gets to do is carry somebody's bag.
Let me ask the minister this question. He says that there are people who can…
Interjection.
The Chair: The member has the floor.
J. Kwan: …access the minister directly. Mr. Blackburn was one of those individuals. Who else, then, could access the minister directly through the telephone — not a request for a meeting but through the telephone? Who else is on that wonderful list of open access and direct link to the minister through the telephone?
Hon. J. van Dongen: There is no exclusive list as the member suggests. There are many people that get through to me directly, as I said, on Fridays, Saturdays at the constituency office. Many times I answer the phone personally in my office, whether it is the minister's office before and after normal office hours. Many people do get direct access.
I took a phone call this morning at 7:30 from a rancher in Williams Lake in my own office, in the minister's office. That's the kind of access I try and foster. Quite frankly, I find the line of questioning repetitive and non-productive. This issue was fully investigated. I have been very open about the circumstances, and I think the member should move on to another line of questioning.
J. Kwan: I'm sure this minister would find these questions tedious and annoying, because they probe exactly the minister's practice and how he has conducted himself. By the way, it does, through an investigation, highlight the wrongdoing. That investigation, in terms of the results from the report, is not for public consumption. The minister himself admitted that he hasn't seen the special prosecutor's report. The public has no access to that report.
[ Page 9614 ]
These questions were questions — yes, they were canvassed with the minister last year — which the minister refused to answer. The minister referred these questions to the Attorney General, to which the Attorney General said: "The minister should answer these questions, and there are no reasons why he should not answer these questions."
[1645]
Do you know what? Through this set of estimates with the minister, the minister's answers are full of contradictions. He says, on the one hand, there is open access to his office. Then he says, on the other hand, there is a process which people have to go through in talking with his staff. Then he says: "Mr. Blackburn just phones me up, and I just chat with him regularly, routinely." Then I ask: "What about other people, in terms of those folks from the environmental community? Can they just phone up the minister?" He said, "Yeah, they can just phone me up," but there is no guarantee that he would actually take their calls directly. But there is a guarantee that the minister will take Mr. Blackburn's call directly.
That's exactly what the minister has done. So there is a two-tier process. I'm sorry that the minister might see it differently. Same thing that he saw differently when he gave confidential information to the Stolt's farm about their investigation. He saw there wasn't a problem with that. Well, it turns out there was a problem with that. It turns out that he compromised the investigation as a result of those actions.
Interjection.
J. Kwan: For the member who takes issue with how I'm laying out the background here, saying that I have to ask a question…. The member might actually want to learn the rules of the House, in which members do have 15 minutes to lay out their issues before they ask the question. All members have the right to do that during estimates debate — 15 minutes.
Interjection.
J. Kwan: The member for Delta South goes: "Fifteen minutes. We've been here since quarter to three." Maybe she'll look in the record to see how many questions I've asked since that time. It's 15 minutes for the opening of the debate for a question to be asked. Those are the rules of the House. Members have been in this House long enough that they should actually learn the rules of the House.
Interjection.
The Chair: Member, order, please.
Interjection.
The Chair: Order. Order, please.
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, I would ask the member, please. Order.
Would you please state your questions. We have had a lot of repetition. I would ask you to consider that, please.
J. Kwan: Yes, within the rules of the House I do have 15 minutes, as has been noted, to raise my question. This is not question period, in which you have to put your question right away. Laying out the background is, I think, very important. The members take issue with my questions.
Actually, I've just noted that there's no quorum in this House, Madam Chair. I'm going to call quorum.
[The bells were ordered to be rung.]
The Chair: We have a quorum present, so now the committee can continue.
J. Kwan: There are only 74 government MLAs, and we couldn't keep quorum in this House. It only requires ten members. And the pressure is on for the opposition to thin out questions.
Interjection.
J. Kwan: Excellent. Welcome. Join us. Please do, now that there is quorum in the House. Only 74 MLAs from the government side — great.
[1650]
Let me get back to the questions to the minister about this situation. There was a letter sent from Stolt's vice-president to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, the Attorney General and this Minister of Fisheries. This stern letter…. I'd like to quote from it: "In addition, the recent meeting our industry had with yourself" — the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection — "and your colleagues" — the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and the Minister of Fisheries — "buoyed myself and other salmon farmers, as the tone of the meeting indicated a strong willingness on everyone's part to repair and rebuild troubled relationships."
Could the minister elaborate on what this meeting was about? What did Mr. Blackburn feel buoyant about? What was the promise to him and other salmon farmers?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The member appears to be quoting from a letter written by Mr. Blackburn. I don't recall the meeting that he refers to, and that would have been his impression of the meeting. That would not necessarily have been my information about the meeting, and I don't recall the details of the meeting that he appears to be referring to.
J. Kwan: Well, isn't that convenient? The minister says he doesn't recall. Does he recall that meeting at all?
[ Page 9615 ]
Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm advised by my staff that there were meetings involving fish farms and staff and the ministers dealing with the work that was going on with new regulations, both with respect to the escape regulation and the waste management regulation. The member will be aware that our government went through and did a comprehensive review of all of the regulatory aspects of the fish-farming industry before the government decision was made in September of 2002 to begin to receive new applications for potential new sites.
J. Kwan: The meeting actually took place with ministers. The minister was at this meeting. The minister says his staff reminded him that here's what took place at this meeting. What staff were present at this meeting?
Hon. J. van Dongen: There were staff from three different ministries: the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management — all of whom were involved in various aspects of the regulatory review for regulating the fish-farming industry.
[1655]
J. Kwan: Specifically relating to the escape regulations that the minister referenced at this meeting, what was discussed in terms of the escape regulations?
[K. Stewart in the chair.]
Hon. J. van Dongen: With respect to the escape regulation and the review of the escape regulation, there were a number of aspects discussed, such as reporting requirements, net strengths and ways to measure the net strengths and, generally, what kind of due diligence would be required by the fish-farming industry and operators of fish-farm sites to comply with the regulation.
J. Kwan: In this letter from Mr. Blackburn, which I'm now quoting from again, it also states: "Instead of working with us, I see this recommendation to lay charges as just one more effort to discredit B.C.'s salmon farming industry and our operations here in Campbell River." Is this quote that Mr. Blackburn is referring to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's decision to recommend charges against Stolt? Could the minister please advise?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't have the letter in front of me. I presume it represents Mr. Blackburn's perspective on the government's intent, generally, to regulate. I can't speak specifically to what might have motivated Mr. Blackburn or what was in his mind when he wrote that sentence in that letter.
J. Kwan: The minister obviously had conversations with Mr. Blackburn. In fact, as outlined earlier and as admitted by this minister, Mr. Blackburn has a direct line to the minister. He could just phone up the minister, and the minister would be right there to take his call. Given that's the case and the minister has had conversations with Mr. Blackburn, what has this minister done to work with the industry that charges would impact negatively? Obviously, from Mr. Blackburn's point of view, if charges were laid against the salmon farming industry so that it would be negative for the salmon farming industry, if that's the case, what has the minister done to work with the industry that charges would impact negatively?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is relating what she believes is Mr. Blackburn's opinion. Our government has always been very clear that we felt it was important that the industry be properly and effectively regulated. I have always been clear with the industry about that, both prior to being in government and since becoming minister. I believe the reputation of the industry is enhanced if it is properly regulated.
We as a government took immediate steps to do a full review of the whole regulatory regime of the aquaculture industry. We made significant enhancements across the board in that regulatory regime, and we have put in place more effective regulation than ever existed under the previous government. I believe that taking that approach enhances the reputation and the quality of our industry.
[1700]
J. Kwan: Well, let me tell you. The entire investigation that this minister was under the cloud of earlier did nothing to enhance the reputation of this government or the ministry. The fact that the minister actually leaked confidential information to a sea farm operator who was being investigated did nothing to enhance the reputation of this government and this ministry and, I may add, this minister. The fact that the minister admitted that Mr. Blackburn has a direct line to him and he does not have to go through staff in order to access information or raise issues with the minister does nothing, I think, to enhance this government's and this minister's reputation. The fact that the minister conveniently forgets all of the pertinent issues that have been put to him about what happened and what transpired relating to this incident really speaks to the issue about the reputation of this ministry and this government in relation to this minister's ethics, I would say.
The minister says: "I don't know what Mr. Blackburn means when he says, 'Instead of working with us, I see this recommendation to lay charges as just one more effort to discredit B.C.'s salmon farming industry in our operations here in Campbell River.'" He says he doesn't know what he means. I think it's pretty self-explanatory on the basis that it so happens that Mr. Blackburn's firm was actually under investigation at that time, that there was a meeting with these various ministers about issues related to the fish farm industry and that the minister had private conversations with Mr. Blackburn about this situation.
Let me put another quote to the minister, which reads: "I'm requesting that the recommendation to lay
[ Page 9616 ]
charges against Stolt Sea Farm be dropped. At the same time, I would like to suggest that your staff be asked to work with us rather than against us." What happened to the recommended charges against Stolt? Were they dropped? Why or why not?
Hon. J. van Dongen: The decisions with respect to whether or not the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection was to proceed were made within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. I don't have direct knowledge, other than what was in the documents, about the basis for those decisions. Certainly, if you look through the documents, they will indicate a significant level of discussion about whether or not to proceed. There were different opinions. I don't believe, in reading the documents, there were any actions I took that were of any impact on the decision to proceed with charges by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. It's Crown counsel that makes the decision as to whether or not to proceed, and the documents will show that staff at the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection had discussions with Crown counsel about the charging issue.
J. Kwan: I'll bet you that part of the reason why the charges were not laid at the end of the day was because of the compromising situation the minister caused this entire investigation to be in and the fact that the minister leaked confidential information — gave confidential information — to a firm that was under investigation. That, I bet you, has something to do with the fact that the charges were not laid, because the minister's action compromised the investigation in and of itself.
[1705]
Now, the minister says that everybody has open access to his office. There was this meeting with Mr. Blackburn and a number of ministers — the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection; the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management; and the Minister of Fisheries himself. Can the minister advise whether or not the environmental group — or environmental groups, if you will — or the aboriginal community groups had an opportunity to meet with a number of ministers around aquaculture issues?
Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, since June 5, 2001, there have been a number of meetings with environmental groups, sometimes with individual ministers and sometimes with a group of ministers and staff. I do recall one specific meeting where we had presentations from both the environmental groups and the industry on different parts of the regulatory review. The ministry did have the Salmon Aquaculture Advisory Committee that was in place. I know that the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, in his area of responsibility at the time for tenuring, did have many meetings with first nations people. Again, I think if you review the record of the last three years, there have been a number of meetings with first nations people and environmental groups on these issues.
J. Kwan: That is with all of these ministers at the same time at a meeting?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I do recall one meeting that involved certainly more than one minister. It involved staff from different ministries. I don't recall precisely which ministers were in attendance, but it was a significant representation of both elected people and staff to receive submissions from both the environmental groups and the fish-farming industry.
J. Kwan: And I might add the aboriginal community.
If the minister says that he has an open-access office and anybody can phone him and he'll be there to answer the phone, I'm actually going to tell the community that. Let them put this to the test and see how many people, like Mr. Blackburn, could access the minister directly without a whole bunch of rigmarole through his bureaucracy and staff before they can actually talk with the minister on the telephone. Let's put that to the test, and we will see whether or not this open-access policy that the minister claims he has is actually in use and is equally accessible for all the people in the public — equal to the access that Mr. Blackburn was able to have with this minister.
I'd like to ask the minister this particular question. The minister says that when he released the information to Mr. Blackburn, the report about the investigation relating to Mr. Blackburn's fish farm, he had no criminal intent in terms of comprising the investigation — so he says. What exactly was the intent when the minister gave that highly sensitive document to Mr. Blackburn about the investigation that was occurring with his fish farm?
Hon. J. van Dongen: As I had indicated through the course of the investigation that was established for this purpose and as I've previously indicated in this House, the intent of releasing the report was to enable the fish farm operator to better understand the rationale for the ministry pursuing an investigation. It was as simple as that, as I've acknowledged publicly. It was a decision made very quickly — a spur-of-the-moment decision. It was a decision made on a misunderstanding of the process and, certainly, a lack of understanding of the significance of the report. The report was not marked confidential, and it was, as I've said, a very quick decision. It was as simple as that.
[1710]
J. Kwan: The document was released to Mr. Blackburn so that they understand the rationale for the investigation. If there was a criminal matter under investigation, is it logical for the minister to think that the release of a report pertaining to why that criminal investigation might be taking place with a particular individual to that person is actually a prudent thing to do? Does that make sense to the minister? What the minister has done here, in this case, is an equivalent of an investigation of someone, and the minister took
[ Page 9617 ]
information that says, "Here's why we're investigating you," and gave it to the person.
You take that into another scenario — let's say on a criminal matter — to the potential person that's under investigation, and the police say: "Well, here's a report that says why we're investigating you." Does that make sense to the minister?
The Chair: Minister, I just want to remind you of my earlier comments that if you believe the questions are getting repetitive or that you've answered them, it's your prerogative whether you continue answering the same question over and over again.
Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly, if the member wants to ask her questions, I will live with that, although they are repetitive.
That matter was fully investigated by the special prosecutor, who was named for the purpose. As I indicated, both in the Legislature and in the interview with the police — and to the public and the media — it was an error on my part. I was clearly not intending to compromise the investigation. I don't believe that I compromised the investigation. I believe that all those issues were canvassed by the investigation that was set up for the purpose. The report, as released in the media statement by the criminal justice branch, was very clear. It indicated that the special prosecutor concluded by stating, and I quote from the media statement: "I do not see there being a probability of conviction, let alone a substantial likelihood of conviction."
[G. Trumper in the chair.]
I would think that if the matter were fully investigated and reviewed by people who are appointed under our legislation through a very independent process to investigate the actions of an elected person like myself, I would think that those people are qualified to make those decisions. This was the outcome of that report.
J. Kwan: I think that the minister's answer just shed some light on this situation. He said that he released the report to Mr. Blackburn because he wanted to provide information to Mr. Blackburn so that he understands the rationale for the investigation that's taking place into his fish farms.
If you take that analogy to another situation where the police, for example, are investigating someone for a criminal act and the police release the report to that individual who is under investigation and say, "Here are the reasons why we're investigating you," a logical person will arrive at the conclusion by that action that you would compromise the investigation greatly. However, the minister says: "I didn't understand the process, and I didn't understand that I would actually compromise the investigation."
Let me just say that the minister's answer fails a basic head-nod test with the public. Let me just say, on that basis, that it really does raise the question of the minister's ability to make these judgments in relation to his responsibilities as the minister. I must say it is rather shocking, because the rationale for releasing that information is clear for everyone to see — all but the minister — and that is to say: "Hey, heads up. Here's why we're investigating you, and the investigation may well proceed to charges."
[1715]
The minister further added information to say that he's concluded in his own mind that the probability of conviction is very low. He's already made the judgment on that. There is no independence in terms of the investigation. There is no independence for his staff to make that determination, because in his own mind, he's already arrived at the determination that probability of conviction is likely going to fail.
Then he's aided that process by releasing critical information to Mr. Blackburn. Is it a wonder the probability of conviction is even lessened in that situation, if charges were to proceed, given that the minister has released pertinent information, given that the minister has already made the determination that conviction is likely not going to happen? He has already decided in his own mind the outcome of potential charges.
That's the background here, Madam Chair, in terms of the minister's direct action in this situation and the minister's role in compromising that entire investigation into the Stolt farm. I might add that it caused the Stolt farm investigation to not proceed to charges — directly, in my own view, as a result of the minister's direct action.
The minister says….
[The division bells were rung.]
The Chair: We will recess. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 5:16 p.m. to 5:29 p.m.
[G. Trumper in the chair.]
On vote 10 (continued).
J. Kwan: Just prior to the vote, I was simply providing some final comments about this situation in terms of my view that the minister's inappropriate actions caused further discord, I think, in the fish farm situation in British Columbia, which did nobody any service. I think that for this government it aided to discredit the government even further because of the imprudence, if you will — a lack of judgment, if you will — of this minister.
[1730]
The minister's revealing of the information about what led to the release of the information to Mr. Blackburn continues to be disturbing. As I said, it simply does not meet the head-nod test. When a minister releases sensitive and confidential information to someone who is being investigated by the government, by the ministries, about why they are being investigated, I think a logical person would arrive at the place to make the determination that by releasing that information it would
[ Page 9618 ]
compromise the investigation. That is exactly what this minister has done. It isn't as a result of, in my view, a misunderstanding of process but rather really poor judgment and conflict — conflict, in my view, that this minister has acted upon in terms of compromising the work in the role of his ministry in providing this information to someone who is under an investigation.
We've also identified that the minister provides direct access to Mr. Blackburn. I'd like to have a final question on this matter, and that is the phone number in which Mr. Blackburn was able to access the minister directly. Was that through his constituency office phone number? Was it through his minister's office phone number, or was it through his cell phone number? What number was it that Mr. Blackburn used, was able to access the minister directly and had a conversation with the minister without interference with his staff?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't recall the exact circumstances. It may have been a call that had been placed to the minister's office that I was returning. I don't recall whether…. I know the call had been initiated by Mr. Blackburn, but I don't recall if it was received directly or whether I was returning the call that had been made earlier.
J. Kwan: Then just a follow-up question on that. Does Mr. Blackburn have the minister's cell phone number?
Hon. J. van Dongen: Many people have my cell phone number, and Mr. Blackburn is one of the people that had my cell phone number.
J. Kwan: That just triggered another question. Who from the environmental community has the minister's cell phone number, and who from the aboriginal community has the minister's cell phone number?
Hon. J. van Dongen: There are people who have my cell phone number that I'm not aware of that may have it. I have, as I said, always been very open with access, and many people do get my cell phone number. I have two cell phones, and many people do get my numbers from other sources. Members of the media have the number. The number is fairly widely available.
J. Kwan: Does anybody from the environmental movement or the aboriginal community that the minister knows of have his cell phone number?
Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm not aware if members of the environmental community have my cell phone number, but certainly, as I've said, I've provided open access to members of the environmental community. They are free to call me at any time.
J. Kwan: Does the minister care to give his cell phone number to the people in the environmental community and those from the aboriginal community? Mr. Blackburn has the minister's cell phone number. He could access the minister directly via his cell phone. If anybody can have it and he is so open and accessible, surely then, the minister will be happy to put it on the record so the public could have his cell phone number and access him directly.
Hon. J. van Dongen: I have made the member aware and the public aware. They have phone numbers whereby to access me, and I'm not going to provide my two cell phone numbers. I don't provide those willingly. There are lots of people that have them, but I am not going to provide those numbers.
[1735]
There are at least two phone numbers that are on the public record that people can use to access me. As I've said, I've been open with the community, with all stakeholders in terms of access for meetings, for phone discussions and for conversations on issues of concern to the public.
J. Kwan: Well, isn't that interesting. Mr. Blackburn can have the cell phone number of this minister. Knowingly, by this minister, Mr. Blackburn can have direct access to the minister through his cell phones, but other people cannot, particularly those from the environmental community and the aboriginal community to which the minister claims that everyone can have equal access to him, open access to him. The numbers to which he refers these other people so that they could have access to him happen to be the office phone numbers — his constituency and his ministry office phone numbers — but not his cell phone number.
I dare say that there is a two-tiered process in terms of access to this minister, as has been demonstrated by the minister's action as well as by his latest answer. He's not prepared to share his cell phone numbers with the people that he doesn't want to have those phone numbers. Mr. Blackburn can have it, but nobody else — not from the environmental movement and not from the aboriginal community.
Madam Chair, there you have it. That's what the minister is…. In terms of his approach and certainly what he says and what he does, they're two different matters. As they say, the minister might talk the talk, but he certainly does not walk the walk. The minister also does not, in my view, through these estimates, have a full comprehension of the ramifications of his actions in releasing confidential information to a fish farm that was under investigation by his own ministry and his own government.
Hon. J. van Dongen: The member has significantly canvassed this issue, but again, I restate that it was fully investigated by an independent special prosecutor and the RCMP, whose job it is to investigate these matters and who have a full understanding of all of the issues involved. I restate that all of the aspects were part of that investigation and available to the investigators, including the issue of whether or not the investigation by Water, Land and Air Protection was compromised. Cer-
[ Page 9619 ]
tainly, the media statement that was released by the criminal justice branch stands as the record on the validity of the allegations that had been made against me. Included in that, I believe, was the fact that the investigation was not compromised by my actions.
J. Kwan: I was actually going to let it go, but let me just say clearly: the Attorney General, who released the findings of the investigation, stated that there was no direct criminal intention, and that was the reason why charges weren't laid, etc. — because there was no direct criminal intention.
Having said that, based on the canvassing of this issue with the minister during this estimates process, it is clear to me that the minister has failed to understand the ramifications of his actions. He paid lip service to making an apology. He paid lip service, I would say, even to his resignation, but it is clear from his answers today that he failed to understand the ramification of his actions.
There may not be direct criminal intention, but the intention of what this government and this minister were trying to accomplish was clear. He released confidential information to someone who was being investigated by his own government, by his own ministry, and through that, he wanted the people that were under investigation to understand the rationale behind it. One could only arrive at the conclusion that by that action he was directly compromising the investigation undertaken by his own government and his own ministry, that he was trying to, I think, provide pertinent information — a heads-up, if you will — to those that were under investigation so that they would take action to deal with that accordingly.
There you have it, Madam Chair. That is my summary of the actions of this minister pertaining to this case.
[1740]
Vote 10 approved.
Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:41 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright ©
2004: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175