2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 5

[ Page 3703 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2010

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: In the gallery today are two constituents of mine, two individuals who are very active in the James Bay community and in the James Bay New Horizons. I would like the House to please welcome Irene Paris and Aileen Miller here today.

J. Les: I have four visitors with us today in the Legislature. They are Ed Helfrich and Tom Crump with the B.C. Care Providers Association, and Derek Morton and Susan House with the Denominational Health Association. In spite of my voice, I hope the members of the House will make them very welcome.

K. Corrigan: I'd like to note that we have some members from the Canadian Union of Public Employees here today, some great activists. Michael Lanier and…. I need new glasses. I'm not sure I can see who the other people are, but anyway, members from CUPE. I hope you'll make them welcome.

S. Simpson: In the gallery today we do have a group of community social service front-line workers, and union representatives with them. They include Don Fodor, Laura Reid, Charlene Linden, Michael Lanier, Christina Hermakin, Dale Deal and Wanda Ratchford. They are here today to meet in Victoria to discuss the issue of the municipal pension plan and the lack of funding for that plan. Please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I have three lovely women just making their way to the gallery. Lynda Turney is visiting from Duncan, Rheta Steer is from Victoria, and Terri Cunningham, many of you will recall, was my ministerial assistant when she was in this building. I'd ask you all to please make them welcome.

[1335]

M. Farnworth: In the gallery and in the precincts today are a group of high school students and their teacher from Archbishop Carney Secondary in my riding. Would the House please make them most welcome as they observe our proceedings.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Finance Statutes
Amendment Act, 2010

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I am pleased to introduce the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, which amends a number of statutes administered by the Minister of Finance.

Amendments to the Financial Administration Act will enable the issuance of electronic securities, which is consistent with the direction of current domestic market practice. The Financial Institutions Act amendments will enhance the regulatory tools and framework for financial institutions, including credit unions, insurance companies and trust companies.

The bill makes a technical amendment to the Home Owner Grant Act. Forms under the act will be approved by the minister instead of being prescribed in regulation, providing the flexibility to update the forms as program requirements and technologies change.

Amendments to the Personal Property Security Act will increase harmonization in personal property securities law across Canada and between Canada and the United States to enable greater efficiency for parties. First, as part of a Canadian uniform law initiative, British Columbia will adopt the U.S. rule that governs which jurisdiction's law applies to certain determinations concerning securities interest in intangible and mobile goods.

Secondly, in addition to the act's lengthy process for removing false or inaccurate registrations from the personal property registry…. It will be shortened by 25 days and streamlined into a one-step process.

The Securities Act amendments will support the harmonization and streamlining of the securities regulatory regime in Canada. The changes will facilitate the regulation of credit-rating organizations, better disclosure to investors on the sale of mutual funds and Canada's move to international financial reporting standards.

Finally, a technical amendment to the Tobacco Tax Act will add a definition for "cigar," improving consistency between jurisdictions and ensuring that tax assessment can be enforced.

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.
[ Page 3704 ]

Bill 6, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the gallery we have a number of members of the Victoria Epilepsy and Parkinson's Centre. I had the opportunity to meet with them earlier today. They're here to help promote the important issues around dealing with issues of epilepsy and the importance of education and cross-government involvement in bringing about awareness of this important illness.

Today with us in the gallery we are joined by Miss Lise Anthony and her seizure dog, India; Mr. Dan Marple; Miss Marilyn Wilkins; Miss Terri Beaton; Miss Susan Ward, who's a board member; Dr. David Medler, who's also a board member; Miss Mary Clare Legun, who's a vice-president; Mr. Mike Doman, president of the Epilepsy and Parkinson's Centre; Miss Catriona Johnson, executive director; Miss Lissa Zala, education coordinator; Laura Yake, the executive director from Abbotsford; and Miss Isa Milman, the epilepsy program coordinator.

I would ask the House to please make all of them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

victoria west community association

M. Karagianis: Just across the Blue Bridge, Vic West is a vibrant and growing community of people living in new and old houses and condominiums, close by parks, the waterfront, community gardens and the Galloping Goose Trail. It has long been home to the Songhees people, and their longhouses once covered the shoreline from Songhees Point to the north side of the Blue Bridge.

[1340]

Today's Vic West is a welcoming place, where folks know their neighbours and community involvement is a way of life. The Victoria West Community Association is an example of that involvement.

The VWCA is a non-profit community group that operates almost entirely through the hard work of exceptionally dedicated volunteers. Every year the association hosts popular events, including Vic West Fest with live music, children's activities, gardening and food. It's the first Saturday in May.

Vic West has many very talented and creative artists as well. On the same weekend some of those artists open their home studios to the public for the Vic West Art Quest studio tour.

Another great example of the community spirit is the Banfield Anti-Ivy League. It got its start in 2004 when someone noticed that trees in Banfield Park were being strangled by ivy. Every two weeks volunteers span out with clippers in hand and free the trees in the forest floor from the ivy invasion.

The Victoria West Community Association also takes an active role speaking out on issues that impact the community. They've been vocal leaders in the opposition to the mega-yacht marina proposed for Victoria's Inner Harbour. Now they're working to turn the Vic West YMCA, which will be closing this year, into the Victoria West Community Centre.

I hope members of the House will join me in recognizing the Victoria West Community Association. Thank you very much for all the generous time you give to help strengthen our community.

PURPLE DAY PROCLAMATION
AND EPILEPSY AWARENESS

N. Letnick: Mr. Speaker, one in a hundred people has epilepsy. That's equivalent to approximately 60 million people, or 1 percent of the world's population.

Tomorrow, Friday, March 26, is Epilepsy Awareness Day, also known as Purple Day. On March 26 people from around the globe are asked to wear purple and spread the word about epilepsy.

I would like to read the province's proclamation into the record.

"Whereas Purple Day is a global effort dedicated to promoting epilepsy awareness in countries around the world; and whereas Purple Day was founded in 2008 by Cassidy Megan, a nine-year-old girl from Nova Scotia who wanted people with epilepsy to know they weren't alone; and whereas epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition; and whereas epilepsy is estimated to affect more than 50 million people worldwide, more than 300,000 people in Canada and 40,000 people in British Columbia; and whereas the public is often unable to recognize common seizure types and to respond with appropriate first aid; and whereas Purple Day will be celebrated on March 26 annually during Epilepsy Awareness Month to increase understanding, reduce stigma and improve the quality of life for our communities of B.C.; and whereas the Lieutenant-Governor by and with the advice and consent of the executive council has been pleased to enact Order-in-Council 903 on October 11, 2002. Now know ye that we do these present, proclaim and declare that March 26, 2010, shall be known as Purple Day for epilepsy awareness in the province of British Columbia."

Working together, we can enhance public knowledge, understanding and acceptance of epilepsy and help improve the quality of life for those affected by it. British Columbia remains committed to understanding the causes and preventing and treating a multitude of brain diseases such as epilepsy.
[ Page 3705 ]

I would like to note the support amongst the members of this House by the number wearing bracelets, purple shirts, ties and other miscellaneous pieces of clothing. For those who wish more information, please call 1-866-EPILEPSY.

B.C. RURAL COMMUNITIES SUMMIT AND
ENBRIDGE OIL PIPELINE PROPOSAL

D. Donaldson: The B.C. Rural Communities Summit took place March 16 to 18 in Port Hardy. This important summit brings together municipal leaders, First Nations, community development practitioners and provincial staff to share best practices, strategies and actions.

More than 150 people attended, including my opposition colleagues from North Island and Alberni–Pacific Rim, as well as myself. The organizers did a great job with the agenda. The rural economy is on everyone's mind.

One of the more popular presenters was George Penfold from Selkirk College, who researches rural economic development. He describes the focus other provinces place on rural development. His team makes a number of recommendations for this province, including creating a meaningful rural B.C. strategy.

A colleague of Penfold's is Dr. Greg Halseth from the University of Northern B.C. He recently wrote: "Our research throughout northern B.C. illustrates that people are very much aware of the disparity between growth and development. Northern B.C. wants economic development that not only creates jobs for northerners, but which also respects people, the environment and the rural and small-town quality of life that defines a northern lifestyle."

[1345]

That is why in a historic occasion earlier this week, First Nations across B.C. stood with non–First Nations and northern community leaders in opposition to the Enbridge tar sands pipeline. First Nations did their due diligence over the past five years, analyzing this project from all aspects. They conclude that the risks outstrip the benefits — the risks of a supertanker oil spill that not only threatens the environment but also the existing and potential jobs that depend on it, like those in the sport-fishing sector.

No one is rejecting the potential of other intensive projects, such as mining, or the importance of sustainable forestry. But as one northern resident said: "There are some projects that deserve thoughtful consideration, and there are others that are simply too risky to consider. As long as this project brings oil tankers to our coast, it's a non-starter."

MULTICULTURAL PARTICIPATION IN
2010 OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES

D. Hayer: Our beautiful province has experienced the completion of two great events to ever occur in British Columbia and in Canada: the 21st Winter Olympics and the 10th winter Paralympic Games. This was also Canada's first Paralympics, and both were the most successful Olympics in history.

The Olympic and Paralympic Games brought together the most diverse representations of culture and ethnicity ever to the province that is proudly known for its diversity. Eighty-two nations participated in the 2010 Winter Olympics and 44 countries in the Paralympic Games in a celebration of diversity in all of those nations and the diversity they brought to British Columbia on February 14 in B.C. Place during the Olympic medal presentation ceremony and the first gold medal ever won by a Canadian on home soil. We had our own five-hour multicultural celebrations.

We honoured not only visiting athletes but B.C.'s own incredibly diverse cultures. The packed B.C. Place enjoyed a performance by aboriginal entertainers, Irish dancers, South Asian artists, kung fu experts and the Goh Ballet. We also saw bhangra dancers and other representatives of almost every multicultural group that makes up our great province.

B.C.'s Olympic multicultural day, on February 14, was a thrilling and an enlightened celebration of our diversity and recognition of more than one million residents who are immigrants.

I also want to recognize the thousands of volunteers from all cultures, including Paul Keenleyside, Silvester Law, Satpaul Aujla, Daljit Sidhu, Ian MacPherson, Karim Kassam, Rehana Budhwani, who worked tirelessly to make the 2010 games an incredible success. Also, all those people of every race and colour and creed who so proudly carried the Olympic torch, such as Daniel Igali, Satnam Johal, Shirley Fu, Narinder Subharwal, Saja Noor, Taylor and Jesse Briggs and D.J. Sandhu.

I will ask everyone to join me in thanking all those people who made our Olympics very successful and the most successful in the world and Olympic history.

ROLE OF EDUCATION

R. Austin: As we celebrate Education Week here in B.C., I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the value of our public education system, recognize the great work of the many professionals who work in the system and challenge all of us to play our part in contributing to our kids' education.

The poet Yeats once said, "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire," an early recognition not only of the complexity of education but also the importance to the individual who then forms part of a cohesive, socially liberal society.

We often think of education in terms of teaching us how to make a living, but perhaps the more important role is in teaching us simply how to live. A quick synopsis from around the world shows us the sad state of
[ Page 3706 ]
many countries, from those who suffer continual wars and civil strife, to those who lack the financial resources to even send their kids to school, to countries that we admire.

There is a direct correlation between what these countries decide or are able to invest in educating their children and their quality of life. Quite aside from the benefits of education to individuals, to families and to communities, our public education system is the bedrock of a civil society, and it's the crux of our democracy. We often leave this important task to paid professionals — our teachers, principals and administrators. But let us not forget those who support them in the school system: the teaching assistants and custodians.

It doesn't end there, for we all have a role to play — parents, grandparents, aunties, uncles. Indeed, all community members can and should assist our children through all the teachable moments in life. That can support those who dedicate their lives to working in the formal school system. For at the end of the day, education is the transmission of civilization, and this can only be achieved if we all play our part.

PARALYMPIC ATHLETES AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF INA FORREST

P. Pimm: I must say that this last month will go down as the most memorable month in the history of British Columbia. I know that I will remember it for the rest of my life, and I can only imagine how many fond memories the athletes of the Olympics and Paralympics will have.

[1350]

Our Paralympic athletes did all of Canada proud, and I tip my hat to all of the athletes, whether they got to stand on the podium or not. The time, effort and work that it takes to become an athlete of this calibre is an achievement in itself.

To put this in perspective, I can tell you that the most memorable time in my life came as a 13-year-old boy, when I got to represent my community at the provincial hockey championships. I can remember that event like it was yesterday, and all we did was get third place in the province.

These athletes are the best in Canada, and when they stand on the podium, they're the best in the world. They will remember these Olympics forever.

I want to talk, especially, about the Canadian gold-medal curling team and one of the members that played on that team who was born and raised in my hometown of Fort St. John and now resides in Armstrong, B.C.

Ina Forrest is the younger sister of Phil Bush, who was one of my teammates from that great peewee hockey team that placed third in the province in 1970. I knew Ina's family and friends and have always had a special place in my heart for her mother and father, who must have been the proudest parents on the planet as they got to watch Ina collect her gold medal.

I'm so proud of Ina, and I want to wish her best of luck as she continues to represent Canada in the upcoming world championships and in future Olympics. Ina is a great role model to show others that we can get past our disabilities and go on to excel at whatever we want to put our minds to.

I'm very sure that our disabled curling is definitely going to increase as a result of Canada's appearance and spectacular finish at this year's Paralympic Games.

Congratulations, Ina, and keep up the great work.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

C. James: The cost of the B.C. Rail scandal continues to rise. For the past six years the B.C. Liberals have paid four B.C. Rail executives a total of $8.6 million — $8.6 million in salary for four people to manage a rail company with no trains.

Now we learn that two of these executives are getting a golden handshake worth more than $600,000 at a time when this government is slashing early child care programs, dental visits for children, services for the most vulnerable. How can this government possibly justify millions of dollars of waste at B.C. Rail?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure how the Leader of the Opposition could characterize an organization that, when we became government, in fact was saddled with debt, was completely out of control in that department.

To the Leader of the Opposition: let's be clear. This organization restored and took care of the debt issue with B.C. Rail and returned to taxpayers in this province $1.5 billion.

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

C. James: The minister can use all the words she wants, but the facts are that there are no trains, that there are 40 kilometres of tracks, that it was $1.2 million a year for four staff with no trains. That's $8.6 million over six years, and now we find out that two of those executives will collect another half a million dollars while they say goodbye.

My question is to the minister: how can she justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars on executive salaries while cutting vital programs for children in this province?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.
[ Page 3707 ]

Hon. S. Bond: Let me begin by correcting the Leader of the Opposition on one subject. That is the fact that this government is providing record levels of funding for early childhood education, for education that in fact the Leader of the Opposition has sat and voted against time after time after time in this Legislature.

[1355]

Let's be clear. We inherited a B.C. Rail that was saddled by debt. In fact, this organization has worked to return $1.5 billion to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

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

C. James: This minister is trying to defend something that can't be defended. We see cuts to education. We see cuts to children. We see cuts to people with mental illness. And this government paid money — six years of money, four salaries — for a rail company that doesn't even have any trains. That isn't defendable, Minister. So $8.6 million in waste, and there's more to come.

Again, my question is to the minister. How much more will British Columbians have to put out because of this government's incompetence on B.C. Rail?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the Leader of the Opposition is the last person that can stand in the House and talk about incompetence when it comes to B.C. Rail. Let's just look….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. Minister, take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: What cannot be defended is the fact that in one year, under the member opposite's leadership, B.C. Rail actually lost $582 million — a direct hit to the taxpayers in British Columbia of over half a billion dollars. That can't be defended.

The member opposite wants to laugh? I can tell the member opposite this. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks it's amusing to saddle the taxpayers of British Columbia with half a billion dollars of debt in one year, that's what can't be defended.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the minister to make her comments through the Chair.

B. Ralston: The over half-million dollars in severance covers only two executives at B.C. Rail, President and CEO Kevin Mahoney and Executive Vice-President John Lusney. There is one more executive still waiting for a payout. Can the minister explain how much more British Columbians will have to pay?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, as I was canvassed in the Legislature for several hours the other day, we actually have…. The CFO of B.C. Rail has agreed to continue to help us with the transition to the ministry. We have not yet determined when that position will be wrapped up, but we will be making the severance public once we're aware of when that actual final date will take place.

You know, the members opposite are actually experts in the area of severance. Let's look back to just one of the severances that took place — oh my, in 1990 dollars. Let's look at the severance paid to Elizabeth Cull. Let's look at this. Elizabeth Cull, to the Leader of the Opposition, received $260,000 in severance for seven months' work in the Premier's office. That's what we would consider excessive and not defensible.

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, it's clear the minister would rather talk about anything other than the severance packages that her government is about to pay out.

In addition to those four executives, B.C. Rail also has a board of directors who, over the last six years, collectively have received over $1.5 million in compensation — over $200,000 a year to direct 40 miles of track. Does the minister think this is good value for money?

Hon. S. Bond: I do know this. When an organization like B.C. Rail can return $1.5 billion to taxpayers in British Columbia, that's pretty good.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite well knows after our lengthy discussion in the Legislature the other day that, in fact, in addition to looking at how they have returned dollars to the province of British Columbia, this organization has played a key role in the Pacific gateway strategy. If you look at land sales and the real estate portfolio alone, over $180 million in gross land sales. That's production, and that's what's taking place.

L. Krog: When you add up the salaries of the executive and probably the most underworked corporate board in the history of the province of British Columbia, it's over $10 million — money that could have been spent on the public good in a myriad of ways. Instead, it went into the fat salaries of executives who were riding their own personal gravy train.
[ Page 3708 ]

My question to the minister is really very simple. How much more are we going to have to pay for Liberal incompetence?

Hon. S. Bond: It may be the member opposites' opinion that…. They want to diminish the work that's been done, but we're not for one minute going to diminish the fact that $1.5 billion worth of resources has been returned to taxpayers in British Columbia. This organization has managed a real estate portfolio that has seen gross land sales of over $180 million. They have looked at the dissolution of companies in the province of British Columbia. They're managing the Kinder Morgan organization in terms of that particular project.

We're not going to stand on this side of the House and take advice from a group that actually saw a bankrupt railway that was in complete disarray when they were in government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: A Monopoly board has more track than B.C. Rail. I want to tell the minister that the taxpayers don't enjoy ten million of real dollars wasted on the Monopoly game over there. So what's changed? What's changed?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: They were worthwhile last year to spend millions of dollars on — over the last six years — on their exorbitant salaries. Now, suddenly, they're gone. So what was it? Was it the $10 million mark that finally convinced this government to get rid of B.C. Rail?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, what it was, was a commitment in the throne speech in September to review Crown corporations to look at how we might effectively consider the future.

[1405]

Unlike the members opposite, we actually think it's worthwhile to go back and to look at those things and make changes.

Over the last five years — let's be clear, even though we've had this discussion for at least three hours in the last two days — B.C. Rail has returned in excess of $1.5 billion to the taxpayers of British Columbia. That includes $250 million for B.C. Marine, including Centerm terminals and Vancouver Wharves.

There's no doubt in our mind that, in fact, we inherited a railway that was bankrupt and in disarray, and this organization is in a much better position today than it was when that member was sitting on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Let's look at the B.C. Rail record on this government. First they said they wouldn't sell it. Then what did they do? They misled the public and sold it. Then what happened? A raid on the Legislature, a court case that has been dragging on for year after year after year at a cost of god knows how much. Now after ten years we have a railway with a board of directors with no trains, no engines, no steam, not even the Thomas the Tank, and the directors are being paid $600,000 in severance.

How, after ten years, can this government justify spending an additional $600,000, with more to come, for their incompetence when it comes to the B.C. Rail file?

Hon. S. Bond: All I can say to the member opposite is that you managed to take the train and take it right off the tracks during the 1990s. In one year alone under that member's leadership — $582 million in debt. In fact, the only outcome, the only measure of success that that side of the House had was how big the bailout was going to be every single year for B.C. Rail.

So what has B.C. Rail done? They eliminated B.C. Rail's debt, 600 new railcars to help increase capacity, $8.3 million in new tax revenue for communities across this province, establishment of $135 million Northern Development Initiative Trust. That's what we've managed to do with B.C. Rail.

SUCCESS BY 6 PROGRAM

K. Corrigan: Yesterday the Minister of Children and Families stood in this House and defended the cancellation of the Success By 6 program, and she trotted out a list of alternative government programs and services where people are supposed to be able to turn, particularly pointing out the Parent-Child Mother Goose program.

Well, apparently this minister has no idea what she's talking about or what's going on in her ministry, because the Mother Goose programs are run by organizations that received $411,000 directly from Success By 6 in 2008.

Will the minister admit that it was a horrible mistake to cancel Success By 6 and immediately restore full funding to this critical program?

[1410]
[ Page 3709 ]

Hon. M. Polak: This year alone we'll be providing another $2.5 million grant to Success By 6. Staff will continue to meet, as I said in the House yesterday, with Success By 6 to determine transition of programs and also to see what opportunities there are to continue supporting programs on into out-years.

The important thing to remember here is that this government is providing supports and services to children and families in British Columbia like no other government in B.C. history. As the world of children and families has changed in British Columbia, we've responded. We're responding to requests from parents. This budget alone will provide $26 million to expand child care subsidies; $58 million to implement full-day kindergarten; and $43 million to StrongStart centres, 300 of them, all across this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Yesterday the minister also talked about helping these programs transition. She said she would help them to transition their programs and to look for opportunities to enhance community capacity-building across the province. Again, the minister has absolutely no idea what she's talking about, because that is exactly what Success By 6 does.

Will the minister admit this was a shortsighted move and reinstate the funding for Success By 6?

Hon. M. Polak: Each and every year since 2003 we have provided grant funding to Success By 6. This year — no different. We are providing them with $2½ million. We will be meeting with them to discuss programming for further future years.

Make no mistake about it. Our investment is unparalleled when it comes to providing for children and families in this province. This year alone we'll spend, across government, a billion dollars on early childhood development, child care, services for children and youth with special needs.

We're bringing in full-day K. We've got StrongStart centres, and we're increasing the amount of money for subsidies for low- and middle-income families for child care — unparalleled support for children and families, far more than that government ever gave them.

M. Karagianis: The minister is talking about a $2.5 million cut to Success By 6 — 50 percent of those funds cut.

Now, we have right here a quote from Michael McKnight, who is the president of the United Way in the Lower Mainland. He's quoted as saying: "Money is tight, but I guess it depends on what your priority is. In this case government chose not to support kids in this particular way. For the government, it doesn't sound like a big deal, but to that mom with two or three kids, it means the world."

By walking away from Success By 6, the B.C. Liberals are leaving more dollars on the table in matching grants and in-kind partnership than they're saving. Nice business case.

It doesn't make any sense. Will the minister fix this mistake and immediately restore the full funding to Success By 6?

Hon. M. Polak: What is hugely important to parents around this province is the opportunity that they have for their children through more than 300 StrongStart programs across this province. What they're wanting is all-day kindergarten. Guess what. We're providing it for them; they voted against it.

[1415]

This year $26 million is allocated in our budget toward expanding child care subsidies; $58 million for all-day kindergarten; $43 million for StrongStart centres; and across government this year, in 2010-11, $1.75 billion for literacy programs for children — unprecedented support, certainly more than was ever provided by that government.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: You know, the minister brags about all of these programs, programs that are directly supported by the Success By 6 program that is being axed by this government — 50 percent funding cut this year, the program killed next year.

Now, Mr. McKnight of the United Way recognized that the B.C. Liberals' priorities are wrong on this. The credit unions and other community partners recognized that the B.C. Liberal priorities are wrong on this. Communities right across British Columbia recognize this.

Once again, will the minister do the right thing and commit today to restore the funding to this program for this year and 2011 and beyond?

Hon. M. Polak: Let me repeat for the member. This year Success By 6 will receive a $2½ million grant, like each and every year since 2003, and like each and every year since 2003, they vote against it.

Parents want all-day kindergarten. We supply an investment of $58 million to implement it. They vote against it.

StrongStart centres — 300 of them across British Columbia. We supply an investment of $43 million. They vote against it.

It's pretty clear that by investing a billion dollars from this government this year in early childhood development, child care, supports for children and youth with special needs, not to mention $1.75 billion across government for literacy…. It's very clear that when they vote against those things, they're the ones that have their priorities wrong.
[ Page 3710 ]

HOME CARE FEES

S. Hammell: Yesterday the Minister of Health acknowledged he had made a mistake in a regulation affecting the cost of seniors home care. He has had 48 hours to learn this file and the implications of his mistake. Can the minister tell this House how many seniors have been impacted by his error?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned yesterday, there was a mistake made in the drafting of a regulation back in February, where the words "qualified client" were not included in the regulation. That is being dealt with forthwith. In the meantime, we're dealing with those individuals that have been affected, as is appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Hammell: A simple question: how many seniors have been overcharged, and when will they be reimbursed?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have that figure. The health authorities will have to report back on that. But I think the important thing to recognize is that this was an.…

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I would presume the members want to hear an answer, and I'm trying to give one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: The inadvertent error was caught, and that is being amended forthwith, as I indicated. All the health authorities will determine what individuals need to have their situation corrected.

You know, I do think it's important to point out, as I did yesterday when I spoke to the member, that I am proud of the fact that actually, in the area of home care and home support, funding levels have increased by 70 percent since 2001. I do always think it's important to point that out, because of course it was cut by 31 percent by the NDP — in fact, by that member, while she was in cabinet — during the 1990s.

S. Simpson: Will the minister commit today that any overpayments by any seniors will be fully reimbursed to those individuals?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, I want to remind the member that the drafting error was an inadvertent mistake that was made. That is being corrected, and I will be guided by whatever the professional legal advice in the ministry is.

[1420]

I can tell you this. It's an inadvertent error. It's unfortunate that this kind of thing may happen occasionally in government. It is being dealt with forthwith, and we will follow whatever the appropriate legal advice of the ministry is.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What's appropriate is for seniors not to have to pay for the minister's mistake. This isn't about legalese, and it isn't about lawyers. It's about senior citizens on modest incomes who have been overcharged by this government because of the minister's mistake.

Will the minister commit today that every dime of that overpayment will be returned to those seniors?

Hon. K. Falcon: So I've answered this question now. I think I'm on my third time. I'll explain to the member that there was an inadvertent mistake made in the drafting of a regulation where the words "qualified client" were inadvertently left off.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: That is being dealt with forthwith. But I will say this. I am glad that the member has now showed a new and renewed interest in the issue of seniors, because I can tell you, the record of cutting the spaces for home support and home care by 31 percent was their actual record in the 1990s, whereas we have added literally thousands of new opportunities as a result of investment and spending going up by 70 percent.

While I recognize that it is unfortunate when an error is made in the drafting of a regulation, I think the important thing is to recognize the mistake that has been made and to make sure that as government we deal with that and correct it as quickly and as forthwithly as possible. That is exactly what we are doing.

[End of question period.]

Hon. I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: In the gallery today watching question period, or part of it, were a group of political science students from the University of Victoria. They are Christina Davidson, Laura MacLeod, Erika Syrotuck, Chris Bordeleau, Alexander Biornson, Joshua Kepkay, Rajpreet Sall, Michelle Moreno, Geordon Omand, Olivia
[ Page 3711 ]
Delmore, Nathan Warner, Jose Barrios, Angela McCleery and Shawn Slavin. I hope the House will make them welcome so they can see these proceedings further.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Small Business — and, in this chamber, continued committee stage debate on Bill 4, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[1425]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 4 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

Sections 20 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

M. Sather: Section 23 amends section 101(4) of the Water Act, and this is under "Power to make regulations" — what we're talking about here. Section (4) "is amended by repealing paragraph (d) (ix) and by adding the following paragraph."

If we look back at the Water Act, section 4(d), it says:

"Without limiting subsection (1) or (2), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations for the purposes of Part 5 as follows….

(d) establishing requirements, procedures, standards or codes in respect of any aspect of the following:

(i) siting wells; (ii) constructing wells; (iii) installing well pumps; (iv) designing, testing, operating, disinfecting, floodproofing, capping or covering wells; (v) closing or deactivating wells; (vi) removing works from wells; (vii) conducting flow tests of wells; (viii) works, including the design, construction, installation, testing, operation, alteration, maintenance, repair, disinfection or replacement of works relating to the use, testing or monitoring of wells and ground water; (ix) sampling and analyzing ground water for new or altered wells including, without limitation, specifying

(A) the class of the laboratory that may carry out the analyses,

(B) the nature of the analyses, and

(C) alterations to a well that require sampling and analyzing of ground water;

(x) stopping or controlling the flow of flowing artesian wells; (xi) any other activities respecting wells for which the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it necessary or advisable for purposes of the protection of an aquifer or ground water to establish requirements, procedures, standards or codes."

Now, of all that, this section amends only the part (ix) of that — having to do with sampling and analyzing groundwater, etc., as I've previously read.

Section 101(4)(d)(ix) is repealed, adding the following paragraph, (d.1), which says:

"(d.1) respecting sampling and analyzing ground water for new or altered wells including, without limitation, the following:

(i) prescribing alterations to a well for the purposes of section 73 (1);"

Section 73(1) has only to do with the taking of a sample and having it analyzed.

"(ii) prescribing an activity or class of activities for the purposes of section 73 (1); (iii) prescribing circumstances in which a person other than the person responsible for a prescribed activity in relation to a well is required to comply with a regulation made under section 73 (1);"

Again, those three all only have to do with taking samples and having them analyzed.

"(iv) specifying circumstances in which sampling and analyzing of ground water is required or is not required; (v) specifying requirements for the timing, collection and quality of ground water samples; (vi) specifying requirements for the storage, handling and transportation of ground water samples; (vii) specifying the purpose, timing and technical requirements for ground water sample analyses; (viii) specifying the content, frequency and timing of reports and the method and form used for reporting relating to ground water sampling and analyses."

[1430]

Now, when one compares the list that is being repealed versus what it's being replaced with…. I mean, there are a lot of words here, a lot of stuff, but on examination it appears to me that the two lists are quite different.

I would like to ask the minister…. In the deleted section, "establishing requirements, procedures, standards, or codes in respect of any aspect of the following" — for example, siting wells…. What happens to that requirement? I don't see it covered under the new (d.1)

Hon. B. Penner: I'm tempted to ask the member to repeat his question along with the preamble, but I know some of us are hoping to go home by six o'clock today. So I won't.

I think the member may have skipped over the fact that…. What he just asked about now, the siting of wells, is actually remaining intact. We're not amending that section. That appears in subsection (d)(i). What we're doing here is changing (d)(ix) and substituting what is, admittedly, expanded authority to require various types of testing of groundwater.

M. Sather: Subsection (d)(ix), "sampling and analyzing ground water for new or altered wells including, without limitation, specifying (A) the class…(B) the nature of the analyses and (C) alterations to a well that require sampling…." It's replaced by a longer piece.

If the minister could just clarify again for me why it was necessary to make that change.

Hon. B. Penner: We talked about this prior to noon, about the act previously spelling out that it had to be the driller who conducted water samples. For the reasons I gave prior to noon, it was believed that we'd be better
[ Page 3712 ]
enabling others to do the sampling of water as well — perhaps the pump operator or installer or geoscientist who is doing the flow testing.

If we're not going to have the driller doing it anymore, we wanted to specify here who should be, giving us the authority to indicate who should be doing this work as described in this new subsection.

In addition, we wanted to make sure that we were not just capable of directing who would do the sampling but then, once the samples were taken, how the samples would be handled. Based on advice from legislative counsel, we're of the view that to give us the specificity of authority to direct how the samples are handled is worthwhile pursuing. That's why this amendment is here today.

[1435]

M. Sather: Is the minister then contemplating changes in how water samples are handled?

Hon. B. Penner: This section would give government the ability to make regulations specifying how the water samples should be taken and also how they should be handled.

M. Sather: As it stands now, there are no regulations or directions as to how water samples should be taken and handled.

Hon. B. Penner: That's essentially correct, subject to what I said earlier about the legislation previously specifying that it would be a driller that would take the samples. I don't want to repeat what I just said with my last answer, what we talked about before noon. In essence, yes.

M. Sather: The minister had mentioned before, for example, that one would want to be certain that one wasn't getting a lot of sediment in the sample. That assurance or that requirement isn't there as it now stands, I guess. If you get sediment in, you get sediment because there's no specific ways in legislation or regulation as to how to do the sampling now.

Hon. B. Penner: The difficulty was, as I indicated a couple of times already, that the existing version of the act specifies that we have authority about what drillers do in terms of taking samples. We discussed why we thought it would be preferable to allow samples to be taken by the geoscientist who was doing flow testing or the pump installer. We've passed those sections now, just prior to noon.

This proposed amendment gives us more authority to specify what happens to those samples, how they're handled and the type of testing that will be required. The regulations that would follow under this section, should the Legislature see fit to approve it, have yet to be drafted.

M. Sather: All right. But it seems to me from what the minister has said so far that the way that the water samples are being taken, I guess, handled and analyzed is not satisfactory. He talks about more specificity. Maybe he could clarify what he means by more specificity.

I'm getting the impression that the way things have been done to this point — in fact, I think he said this — was not satisfactory. Can the minister tell us a little bit more about the specificity that's now being required?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, it is our view that this would give us improved authority for the handling of water samples. That's why we're here before the Legislature seeking approval for this amendment — in particular, for purposes of this discussion, section 23.

[1440]

I think it's self-evident that it's more specific if you just compare it. The member has already read into the record at some length comparing the two provisions, the existing versus the proposed new provision, which is apparent on its face that it goes into much more detail about what authorities the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may have to require certain things to be done with those water samples.

It's part of a general trend in legal drafting, particularly when delegating authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to draft regulations to be more specific about what authorities are being contemplated for that subsequent regulation-making power.

In the good old days, the member for Nanaimo may recall, it was kind of an accepted practice. "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations," and it was often about as broad as that. Then they started to say: "Well, we can make regulations respecting something about that subject matter without going into much detail."

Nowadays I've noticed, not just in this act but in many others, that the style of legislative drafting goes into much more specificity in terms of what authorities are being given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to impose various regulatory requirements. That's just an evolution of the law.

I think the legislative drafters pay attention to court interpretations from time to time and court verdicts that I assume suggest to drafters and to us as parliamentarians, who are responsible for approving legislation, that we should be more specific about what kind of authority we are granting to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations.

M. Sather: Well, maybe it's a really, really good thing that the government is bringing in this section. I couldn't tell from the interchange we've had whether it's simply
[ Page 3713 ]
some sort of housekeeping affair or whether it really has significant changes attached to it. I guess we would learn that, perhaps, in comparing new regulations to old regulations.

I suspect that there are some problems out there with the way water is being handled right now, so if that's the case and this is going to lead to correcting that situation, then I'm all in favour of it.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

L. Krog: If the minister could just explain the purpose of this section.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a consequential change to the Hospital District Act. We've got some amendments coming up that have to do with just clarifying the fact that it's actually the assessment authority that issues notice to the hospital districts and not the minister.

L. Krog: This may satisfy all the questions I have on the health services amendment. Historically this has obviously fallen to the minister. Is this just a question of shifting bureaucratic responsibility, and that's the only reason for doing this — to save the minister's bacon, should he some year fail to do his duty and shift it onto B.C. Assessment now?

[1445]

Hon. K. Falcon: It's basically operationalizing what has been in practice for many, many years.

Sections 24 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

L. Krog: If the minister could simply explain the purpose of this section. It looks fairly innocent on the face of it, and I'm sure he's going to tell me that.

Hon. M. Coell: This indeed is a housekeeping amendment. It provides clearer authority for the existing $35 fee that's charged by the employment standards branch. It's basically taking it from the Ministry of Finance and moving it into our ministry.

Sections 28 and 29 approved.

On section 30.

L. Krog: The existing section provides that after investigation, "a coroner must promptly provide to the chief coroner a signed, written report describing the result of the investigation and (a) setting out…." This is the alternative: "(b) recommending that an inquest be held for a reason set out in section 18…." This will have the effect of saying, "recommending, for a reason described in section 18, whether an inquest should be held," which is a very different matter than the existing provision.

I'm wondering: why are we changing it? I believe this section is only about three years old, so what's the point of changing this now? What circumstances have occurred? What evidence, what information can the minister provide to the House?

Hon. K. Heed: The words "whether an inquest should be held" were inserted in order to give discretion to the coroner with respect to that inquest, and criteria have been laid out in a subsequent section with respect to that.

L. Krog: I certainly don't want to repeat what I had to say during second reading yesterday, but I think the minister is well aware that there are certainly significant concerns that have been raised in inquests in the past around the deaths of individuals while in custody. The Coroners Act to some extent, as it exists now, was a response to those concerns.

[1450]

What this appears to me to be is very much a stepping back from what was seen as quite progressive to a situation where now the coroner is going to be given discretion. I mean no disrespect to the coroner, the present officeholder or any other coroner, but we're not talking about what I would refer to as a significant issue that I'm aware of.

If the minister can tell this House how many inquests that have been held in the last three years wouldn't, in his view, have been necessary if this provision was in place, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. K. Heed: Six to eight inquests per year.

L. Krog: The office of the coroner is an old one. The right of the public to know the cause of death of people in the community is something that goes back literally hundreds and hundreds of years.

When someone dies in the custody of a peace officer, that obviously raises great concern in the public mind. I think the Solicitor General, who had a very distinguished career in policing, would be well aware of how important this issue is to the public.

What we are essentially being asked to do here today is modify the legislation so that we're going to save the potential costs of six to eight inquests a year, all of which involve the death of individuals while in custody. Although I wouldn't wish to suggest that the taxpayers' money should be spent freely and without good reason, it strikes me that….

In section 31 the reference is to "natural causes and was not preventable." It seems to me that a coroner with
[ Page 3714 ]
proper evidence in front of them could come to that decision with a very short inquest. We're not talking about days and days of evidence.

So what this section appears to me, again, to be is simply a measure in response to something that isn't an identifiable problem and all at the same time, I think, contributing to public distrust of our police forces, which deserve and need our respect in order to effectively police communities.

I guess my question is: was this legislation one that comes from the ministry itself, or did the coroner's office request this legislative change?

Hon. K. Heed: The request came from the coroner's office. I'd just like to make a couple of points here.

The member opposite talked about the fact of maintaining public confidence in our systems here in British Columbia, ensuring that these matters are investigated for public interest. I can tell you that the investigations involving in-custody deaths will still be fully investigated by the B.C. Coroners Service, will still be fully investigated by police forces in British Columbia.

We have made amendments to the Police Act with respect to who those investigations will be done by. For example, in in-custody deaths, one organization, one jurisdiction will be investigated by police of another jurisdiction. Those procedures — although they have been in place with police departments in British Columbia, including the RCMP, for a period of time — are going to be put into regulation as of April 1 of this year. So those very extensive investigations will continue.

[1455]

When we talk about the cases that are affected here, the five to six inquests per year, there are procedures and processes that take place for every inquest here in the province of British Columbia. There's a significant amount of resources from various areas that are required for each and every inquest. So it's not just a matter of the coroner or the coroner's representative sitting in as part of the inquest. There are several other people that are required for each and every inquest.

L. Krog: I'm sorry, but I thought he might have said six to eight inquests a year, and I believe he just said five to six inquests a year. I wonder if he could just clarify how many inquests a year would fall under this section. What, if any, has the coroner advised him would be the cost of those inquests? In other words, what money are we really saving by this provision?

Hon. K. Heed: There are direct savings, but that's just part of the answer. When we deal with these six to seven particular inquests a year, we need other people there — for example, the pathologists, the toxicologists, the emergency responders, the sheriffs, the court reporters, other witnesses, jurors, etc., — who are not included in that particular cost.

Of greater significance here is freeing up the capacity for the coroner to deal with the backlog of those non-mandatory inquests where public interest is significant in order to allow the coroner time to conduct those inquests in the period of time.

So I have addressed the costing issue there, and it is significant, but it's not the primary reason. It is to create capacity to do those non-mandatory inquests where there's real public interest in those unfortunate deaths.

L. Krog: I appreciate the minister's response to my question and the concerns I'm raising. But unfortunately, issues of medical attention in jails — including access to medication, medical treatment, food that may make a person in custody sick, emergency response — are not going to be dealt with, with the greatest respect, under the provisions of the act as they're proposed, as I see it.

The fact is that if you have a proper coroner's inquest, there may well be recommendations coming out of that inquest as to how you deal with people in custody. Surely the public interest in being satisfied that in each and every occasion there was nothing that could have been done to prevent what is the purpose of this section, which is to deal only with deaths due to natural causes or that weren't preventable…. Surely we're not going to get those recommendations under this system.

What's being proposed here is that we're going to abandon coroners' inquests where someone comes to — and I'm not saying this terribly unkindly — a fairly rough and ready determination that Mr. Smith died of a heart attack in cells. Mr. Smith had a heart condition. So be it. Mr. Smith is dead. The public has no interest in this.

But if a proper coroner's inquest is conducted, maybe there will be procedures put in place that when Mr. Smith is arrested, there could be checks made and questions asked to determine whether Mr. Smith is at risk of having a heart attack because of the particular circumstances under which he arrived, because of the condition, because of the way he's been treated — all of those things.

Surely the public interest is in ensuring that it is very clear and open — that when a person dies in custody, the reasons for the death are known — and that if any processes or procedures need to be changed or any further or better attention needs to be paid, it will in fact happen.

It's not going to happen if there isn't a coroner's inquest and there aren't the kinds of recommendations that are provided for in section 4, which gives the authority to do and to make recommendations. Surely those things are important.

[1500]

I raise this particularly because the further provision that's referred to — and this is not specifically in
[ Page 3715 ]
this section, but we are, after all, amending section 16 — talks about making a report to the public under section 69(2). But again, that section in and of itself is not mandatory. It refers to "may," which is permissive. It's not mandatory.

Again, if we're going to abandon the existing section, then we are moving into a regime where it will be entirely at the discretion of the coroner to make a determination. And even if they're satisfied that it was natural causes and they have no concerns, no reason to be concerned, the publication of that information will again be a discretionary matter.

With respect to the minister, I just think, given it's a death-in-custody, that discretion is a bit too broad. I'd like to hear the minister's comments on that.

Hon. K. Heed: Although we're referring to section 31, I believe that area is covered in section 32, and I'll respond to that at this particular time. If, in these circumstances, the coroner is not calling an inquest, the coroner must submit his reasons in writing to the minister, and that becomes a public document bearing some of the FOI procedures that we're bound by.

Section 30 approved on division.

On section 31.

L. Krog: This is the meat of the section. It provides that if a person dies in circumstances described in section 3(2)(a), a death while in custody, the chief coroner "must direct a coroner to hold an inquest unless any of the following apply, in which case the chief coroner may" — in other words, we're permissive — "direct a coroner to hold an inquest: (a) the coroner is satisfied that (i) the deceased person's death was due to natural causes and was not preventable, or (ii) there was no meaningful connection between the deceased person's death and the nature of the care or supervision received by the person while detained or in custody."

So we are now making an exception to an existing practice that this Legislature three years ago thought was a very good idea. Indeed, I may be wrong, but I believe it received general support. I can't see any great mischief that comes out of having an inquest, and I know the Solicitor General's not going to say that. I mean, if we have to have an inquest, what possible public mischief will occur from that? The worst thing that happens is that we get a full story as opposed to a brief story of why a person died in custody.

I'm led to the conclusion, notwithstanding what the minister says, that this really gets down to a question of economics as opposed to the public's right to know, notwithstanding the minister's protestations. Because surely if it was good public policy three years ago to make it as open and as transparent to the public, it's just as good an idea today, except that we now find ourselves in somewhat different fiscal circumstances.

So again to the minister — I'd like him to respond specifically to this: why are we changing this section?

[1505]

Hon. K. Heed: I may repeat myself, but just for the member opposite's information, the full investigations will continue. Those will not stop. We will now have the added benefit of ensuring that we create capacity not only to deal with the matter in an efficient way but to deal with other matters that could come forward and, again, the backlog of the non-mandatory inquests where public interest is significant.

There are cases where the coroner is required to hold an inquest, where under these circumstances, there's absolutely no public interest whatsoever. Matter of fact, family members don't even show up to that.

Remember, we're talking about discretion, not absolute here. Where there is a high level of public interest, there are options that the coroner has, and one is to call an inquest. Again, if the coroner does not call an inquest, he or she must submit their reasons in writing, which will become public. The minister even then has the opportunity, I should say, to call an inquest if he or she so desires.

L. Krog: The difference between a circumstance in which a person dies in a traffic accident, for instance, is that in a situation specifically covered by this section, the state, if you will, has taken complete control over that person's life and, by extension, obviously, responsibility for it.

Once you're in custody, you're in custody. You have lost the ability to control your circumstances. I don't mean this unkindly: you are essentially at the whim of the state. This is why this section was enacted in the first place — to guarantee that should a death occur, there will be full public disclosure.

One of the concerns I have is that…. If you go to section (2.1), it says: "If the chief coroner decides under subsection (2) of this section that an inquest is not required, the chief coroner must" — and this is mandatory — "(a) report the decision to the minister and include with the report (i) the authority on which the decision is based, and (ii) the reasons for the decision, (b) subject to subsection (2.2), make the report public, and (c) direct a coroner to make a report in accordance with section 16 (1) (a)…."

Now, if you go to (2.2) it says: "Section 69 (2)…applies for the purposes of a report made under subsection (2.1) (b)."

I'm not enough of a lawyer to determine, by the time you've gone through all that wording, what that exactly means. I know the minister has capable staff beside him, but it reads to me like…. You make reference to section
[ Page 3716 ]
69(2) that says the coroner "may disclose any report, or part of a report, made to the chief coroner" to the public or a person whose opinion, etc., in determining whether or not, considers various things….

So in other words, we're making reference to a section that says you may disclose, and this section — (2.1) — says you must, but it's subject to the section that says it's subject to section 69. So it sounds to me like it's not mandatory that this report, which I'm not satisfied is the appropriate response, is sufficient to equal an inquest.

[1510]

I read this — and I'm happy to be convinced to the contrary — to say that the mandatory reporting is in fact really not mandatory at all, that the chief coroner reports will not be made public unless they decide to do so.

Hon. K. Heed: With reference to this section, the report to the minister will become public. That is mandatory. So 69(1) does not apply to that particular report, but 69(2) does in that the coroner must take into consideration to not disclose personal information from that report.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear. What the minister is telling me is that if this section is passed…. There is no inquest. There's a report made to the chief coroner, and then that report, subject to some private information, will in every circumstance be made public.

Hon. K. Heed: We're talking about two different reports. There's a report that will go from the coroner to the chief coroner. The one we're referring to, where it's mandatory and it will become a public document, is a chief coroner's report to the minister. That's the one we're referring to.

L. Krog: Can the minister tell the House how that report will be made public? Is it posted on a website? Is it stuck in a book somewhere? What happens to it?

Hon. K. Heed: We didn't consider that, but I'm advised by the acting chief coroner beside me, the deputy chief coroner, that we will post it on the website.

L. Krog: I appreciate the explanation of the Solicitor General.

Was there any public consultation with various groups who have looked out for the interests of those in custody before this section was proposed?

Hon. K. Heed: There was internal consultation. There was not external consultation.

L. Krog: Does the minister think it appropriate in these circumstances when you have such public interest in this section — Pivot Legal Society, other groups…. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to perhaps discuss this amendment with them, given that I'm certainly not aware of any public outcry around this existing section, save and except from what I've heard from the minister, which is a request strictly from the coroner's office?

[1515]

Hon. K. Heed: This is all done on a case-by-case basis. The discretion is there with the coroner. If there was public outcry, if I could use that term, or some public dissatisfaction with the decision by the coroner, then there is an opportunity for either the minister to call for an inquest, or the coroner — and the coroner will keep that in mind — can reverse the decision and call an inquest.

Sections 31 and 32 approved on division.

Section 33 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:18 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act, 2010

Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading on Bill 5.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Zero Net Deforestation Act

(continued)

M. Sather: Yesterday the member for Nechako Lakes had challenged me in my assertion that Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act, does not cover timber-harvesting lands.

[L. Reid in the chair.]
[ Page 3717 ]

If one looks in the definitions of the bill, "deforestation" means "the human-induced removal of trees from an area of forest land to such an extent that the area is no longer forest land…"

So if it's no longer forest land, that doesn't incorporate our timber-harvesting lands, because they still are forested lands, even when the harvesting takes place. Certainly, it's clear, as it was pointed out in the news release from the ministry, that this act does not cover timber-harvesting lands.

[1520]

Yesterday when I finished my speech, I was querying in my own mind as to whether this bill would cover private lands. But for the same reason, it would not, because normally private timber-harvesting lands also remain forest land.

As the definition of forest land, of course, means that an area of land that's not been forested since at least December 31, 1989…. Now, it might be an exception on private lands with regard to those lands that they've turned into housing developments, perhaps. I'm not sure, but by and large, no.

The minister says that they have identified about 750,000 hectares of lands in the province that would be covered under this act. There are 25 million acres of timber-harvesting lands, so 750,000 acres is 3 percent. We're talking about a very, very small part of the lands that could conceivably become and very arguably should become covered by this act in order for it to have any meaning in terms of doing what its stated intentions are, and that's to fight climate change.

There are some things happening out there on the land base that may have relevance to this act, and the minister, perhaps later at third reading, will elucidate more clearly what would take place on the 750,000 hectares and, more importantly, where. To me, I'd like to know where these lands are, and of course, I would like to know what is taking place.

There are some interesting developments out there. For example, there's a U.K.-based multinational company called Reckitt Benckiser, which is the maker of Lysol household spray and, I guess, a number of other cleaning products. They have taken it upon themselves to purchase land in the Fort St. John and Prince George areas. They are apparently in the process of a large afforestation or tree-planting project. They intend to use this afforestation project to partially or wholly offset their greenhouse gas emissions from the processes that they use to produce their product.

I have some questions that I would like to know about this project or other ones like it. What is the nature of these lands that they're afforesting, that they're replanting? Are they agricultural lands? Are they lands that are in the agricultural land reserve? Some questions would come up around that if they were, but I'm not saying outright that it wouldn't be a good idea. But certainly I would — particularly if they were lands in the agricultural lands reserve — want to look at that very, very carefully.

Perhaps those are some of the kinds of things that the minister is talking about with regard to these 750,000 hectares. We need to learn more about that to get some sense of, you know, what the reality is behind this miniscule amount of 750,000 hectares.

At least within that tiny amount, what is the reality of what presumably is supposed to happen in order that this bill can actually, in fact, do something to deal with what I think we all recognize in this House is a very, very significant problem — the issue of global warming, of climate change?

[1525]

Now, another suggestion has been made that I think could hold a lot of promise for a zero net reforestation initiative or act. That's the suggestion with regard to beetle-killed forests. I know, up in the 100 Mile area, a lot of those trees are falling down pretty quickly, within two or three years, and there's a need, presumably on some of those stands, to reforest them. These could be considered.

First of all, if we're looking at an area that's been logged by a forest company as part of their contract to replant, that's not what I mean. I mean other lands that are Crown lands, and it's up to the Crown to take care of them. Planting trees on these lands could be considered additional. Madam Speaker may know that additionality is important with regard to offsetting emissions. In other words, what that means is it has to be a project that wouldn't be done in the normal course of affairs. It has to be additional to that.

This would result in greater carbon storage or sequestration and might eventually be marketed as credits. The problem is, though — and that may be a very worthy suggestion, and I hope to hear from the minister — that it can't be covered under this act because, again, it doesn't qualify as deforestation.

That's something that I hope the minister will look at, because he's talked about carbon credits as being one of the things that should be involved in dealing with climate change. So this might be a way. This might be one way where we could extend it. Certainly, there are a lot of beetle-killed forests out there right now. Although some of them probably appear to be regenerating naturally quite well, my understanding is that there are a number of others that are not.

These lands could perhaps be replanted under the net deforestation agreement, and it certainly would be much, much larger than the 750,000 hectares the minister has mentioned. But unless the government is willing to amend the bill to allow that to happen, we're stuck with some unknown quality of a very small amount. It's simply not up to the mark in terms of the challenge that we face.
[ Page 3718 ]

We face a huge challenge, and it's an imminent challenge, with regard to climate change. I would hope that the government is taking the challenge seriously. This bill, though, leaves me with some questions about their commitment. Although it sounds good — just if you look at the name, it sounds good — the actuality of what can be achieved under this act is not significant.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I think I will conclude my remarks and allow other speakers to have an opportunity to address the subject.

J. Rustad: I'm pleased to be able to stand today to have an opportunity to speak to the Zero Net Deforestation Act. When you think about the act and you look through the intent of what we're trying to do, there are about 6,200 hectares, give or take, on any given year in this province that are deforested due to various industrial activities around the province.

[1530]

It's important, I think, to recognize that as we deforest, there's a cumulative effect of that in terms of development that happens. What this bill is designed to do is to say that when we have some of that activity that goes on that creates some deforestation, we are going to have afforestation that will offset it so that you'll have a net zero deforestation for the province.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

It's the right thing to do when you think about some of the areas that we have available in the province. I think there are about 750,000 hectares around the province that could be reforested, could be afforested, as part of that. It's a logical step that would go through in our province at any given time.

Given the fact that in order to meet those targets at 2015, it takes a couple of years for us to be able to do the baseline work, to be able to get the process, to get incentives in place to move up to that, this is, once again, a logical process in terms of trying to move through.

I know that the opposition members have said that it should happen instantly. I suppose maybe they are masters of some magic wand that'll allow you to do things instantly. We actually have to be able to plan through, work through, make sure that things are done methodically and carry forward in a timely manner to make sure that we can meet targets that we're looking for.

Some of the previous speakers have talked about the mountain pine beetle and whether some of the pine beetle areas should have an opportunity for afforestation. I just want to reflect back a little on mountain pine beetle and, really, what created that problem and why we're looking at that today. As I see the member for Cariboo North quickly grab a pen to take some notes, I won't be saying anything that I haven't said before in this House or in other areas.

I was in the forest industry back in the '90s when the pine beetle epidemic really started to take root in this province. During that time, there was a large discussion — and I was privy to some of that discussion — with some of the Forest Service people as well as industry people around trying to do a very large burn in a place called Tweedsmuir Park.

The pine beetle epidemic was something that was throughout the province in very, very small pockets, but there was a large concentration in an area known as Tweedsmuir Park that was really, I guess you could say, festering. It was a problem. It was starting to grow. There was a big concern that you would get a lot of these pine beetles coming out of the park.

There was a proposal to go in and do a big burn, to go in and do some forest health management within the park to actually eradicate as much of that problem as could possibly be. It wouldn't have eliminated the pine beetle, but it might have been able to bring it down to a little bit more manageable state.

The unfortunate part is the Forest Service had a beautiful high…. It was perfect conditions — tinder dry, nice stable high conditions — and they went and said: "Let's light 'er up." Unfortunately, from the top down, from Victoria back down in the '90s, there was a decision that: "You know what? We're a little uncomfortable because we think the burn might be too big. Let's wait for conditions to cool down a little bit before we light it up."

Later that year the conditions did cool down. They tried to do the burn, and guess what. It was ineffective. It's a real shame, because when you look at the damage that has been done and you look at all the projections and the mapping and watch the pine beetle progress across the province, it's very clear that there was a massive epicentre around Tweedsmuir Park, and it spread out from there.

There were other pockets, there were other problems, but it's very, very clear that this was….

B. Simpson: You know better than that.

J. Rustad: You know what? The member for Cariboo North says I should know better. I've seen the maps, and I know you've seen the maps. You can tell me…. There's a big pocket here, and it marches out like this.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please, through the Chair.

J. Rustad: I know they don't like to hear this, because I know they don't like to hear about those failings from the 1990s. But it's the reality. You can see the maps. You can see the reality.
[ Page 3719 ]

A little bit later, a few years later, there was another attempt. At this point the pine beetle now had got outside of the park. There were, as the member has said, other pockets of it around through the province as well. But clearly, there was a big problem that had come out of the park.

There was an attempt at that stage by the forest companies and some in the ministry to try to focus harvesting in that area and to increase harvesting in that area to try to deal with the pine beetle epidemic, to try to do as best they could to get in front and try to slow down this epidemic.

[1535]

Well, at the time the Green Party happened to have a plank in their platform called…. They wanted to reduce the annual allowable cut. They thought we were overcutting in the province. The party in power at the time, during the 1990s, was losing support to the Green Party, and they didn't want to be seen as increasing their cut at the time, to drive more support out of their party.

Clearly, forest decisions were made not based on science, not based on the best information available, but based purely on political decisions. That's a shame, because when you look at the results in areas like those of the member for Cariboo North — who is continually heckling here about the impact that's going to happen in his community, the impact that's going to happen in my community, the impact that's happening in our forest industry from the pine beetle — it's a shame that more aggressive action wasn't taken at the time.

Back a number of years ago, I had the pleasure of being able to speak in Williams Lake to a group from Alberta. The pine beetle had just gone over the mountains and gotten into some of the pine in Alberta, and they had come to see what the epidemic looked like here in B.C. There were politicians as well as business leaders from across the province, and I got a chance to speak with them down at Williams Lake. The one thing I left with them…. I said: "Don't make the mistake that we did in the 1990s. Be aggressive. Don't be afraid to take the public hit, because it's the right thing to do to go after it."

Since 2001 when we came into power, we have taken those steps. We have gone and taken those steps to increase the harvesting. We're trying to do as much as we can in there. We tried to get out in front and slow it down, but there was a period in about 2003-2004 where there were so many pine beetles flying at one time that it actually showed up on Doppler radar during the flight season. It was just massive at that point. It was too late to be able to make a really serious dent. All we could do was try to minimize the damage as we went. Like I say, that was a real shame.

Here's just another example. Fast-forward to today now with the pine beetle, and there's the suggestion that we should consider pine beetle areas as part of the Zero Net Deforestation Act. There have been suggestions coming from the opposition side that we should simply plow it all under and replant it. We should — get that — plow it all under and replant it as quickly as possible.

I've got a quote from the member for Cariboo North — I think it was from CBC — where he suggested that we should be plowing these areas under and getting them reforested as quickly as possible. That's irresponsible. There is an enormous amount of opportunity to be able to capture value from that fibre today. We're trying to promote the idea of utilizing some of that fibre for things like bioenergy, for other types of projects — which, unfortunately, the members opposite have opposed. They don't like independent power.

Once again, we have some plans coming forward on forestry, and these guys just don't understand. They don't understand what's important in rural B.C., and they just don't understand how a forest industry actually works.

Zero net deforestation and the act that comes forward will generate, for that roughly 6,200 hectares, about 75 jobs a year. Those are important jobs in silviculture. It's also just the tip of what we could be doing in silviculture.

One of the big things that I think is important — that we're talking about in this act and that we'll be exploring more in the following years, associated with the work we're doing with the Western Climate Initiative — is really around carbon sequestration and the opportunity for carbon credits.

That is an enormous potential for the forest industry. But it's not — as many in the opposition and, certainly, some of the other groups have suggested — planting a tree and having it grow forever. There's an enormous opportunity, if we can get there, to look at the idea of incremental sequestration — where we get additional volume, additional value being grown on an area — and to be able to apply credits to that. It could be an enormous boom for our forest industry.

Those are things that I think are worth talking about. Perhaps one day we'll actually be able to get a chance to have a debate here in the House on that.

The other side, of course, is that…. You look at forest products. There is an enormous potential for what forest products could replace. In my riding of Nechako Lakes, up in Houston, we're looking at a company there that wants to build a refinery. They want to take wood waste, turn it into a natural gas and convert that gas into a high-octane fuel. It's an enormous potential for the area.

[1540]

The significant part about that is that every ounce of that fuel would be driven from a renewable source called our forest products or our fibre. The best part about that is that all those areas that are hit by the pine beetle…. It doesn't matter what type of wood comes from that type of plant. It doesn't matter if it started to degrade or check, like some of the challenges you can have with
[ Page 3720 ]
pine beetle stands. They can use it all. They can use all of that wood.

It has enormous potential to help feed our forest industry and help diversify our forest industry. Plowing it under, as has been suggested, for reforestation would simply lose all of that opportunity. It's a real shame that we don't look at that as an opportunity for the future.

What we're going to be trying to do around the zero net deforestation is really around setting that stage, working through, seeing what kinds of incentives we are going to need to be able to achieve that — what kinds of positions we're going to have to put in place over a number of years to measure how we can have that success and ultimately drive the opportunity for some investment.

When you look at the greater silviculture issue in the province and at wanting to be able to do some driving of incremental silviculture, we are going to need to have that incremental investment from sources other than just government. We're going to need to be able to drive those kinds of opportunities, and on a very small scale, this is one example of how we can try to work through and do some of those things. So I'm looking forward to how this will develop over the years and to see the results of it as it progresses to 2015 and as it goes, obviously, far beyond that.

The other thing I want to touch on briefly with forestry wanders a little bit away from the Zero Net Deforestation Act, but when you look at forestry, when you look at planning for the future in forestry, you really need to take the long-term view. You need to look at all the players and the issues that we have in the industry, and you have to be able to make responsible decisions.

Prior to the last election the opposition was calling on us to rip up the softwood lumber agreement. Just think, Madam Speaker, what that would do to our forest industry if we suddenly had thrown another $20 or $30 a metre or perhaps even more in terms of the costs to our industry.

During the '90s there were a significant number of mills that closed and a lot of jobs lost. I look at it and think: "Was that because of the most significant economic downturn that we have faced since the 1930s?" No, it was because the management regime's decisions that were brought in place by the opposition, by the NDP, during that time took us from being one of the lowest-cost producers to one of the highest-cost producers.

When you're a high-cost producer, the bottom line is that when you're facing any kinds of challenges at all, you're the first to go down. You look across North America, you look across at the challenges, and you see the evidence of that everywhere you look. It's what is called irresponsible forest management. I've just given you, Madam Speaker, a number of decisions on the pine beetle, on what they would like to do with the softwood lumber agreement, on what they did with the high costs in the 1990s. It's unfortunate — very, very unfortunate.

What we have heard from the opposition — that is, around this act, when we introduced the Wood First Act, when the policies we're bringing forward…? What have we heard? And do I hear policy? It's silence. All it is, is rhetoric. They haven't brought forward any ideas at all, and I know why. It's because they want to go back to the ideas they had from the 1990s that created such a mess in the first place.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I find it very interesting. Obviously, the member for Cariboo North is getting wound up and wants to jump into the debate next, asking me to take my seat. But Member, you'll get an opportunity here very shortly.

Just remember, though, when we're talking about the Zero Net Deforestation Act, this is truly around what we need to do in the province that is the right thing to do to make sure that as we are developing land, as communities need to do some development, whether it's mines or pipeline projects — all of which, by the way, you guys oppose…. I have no idea how you'd ever think of trying to actually fire an economy in this province, since you oppose everything being proposed.

However, as those things are developed in the province, this is an opportunity for us to look at making sure we have a net zero impact on our land base. It's the right thing to do. You can actually go forward, and if a mine happens to come forward and wants to build….

[1545]

You know, I find the interesting thing…. They're so opposed to a mine, yet a mine is no bigger a footprint than perhaps a large shopping mall. That's it. That's the footprint of a mine. You go out and visit a mine…. You go out and visit the area, look at the overall area. That's the impact. So you're talking about that. When you look at the mall and the parking lot, the wide area, that's what the size is. So when those get developed, the opportunity is for us now to be making sure that it has a net zero impact in terms of deforestation.

The legislation that's brought forward is very clear. It's a good logical step. It's a good building stone that will help us be able to test some theories, to work through in terms of incentives to drive the investment. It's a great opportunity for us to be able to look at encouraging other development without having that negative impact.

You know what, Madam Speaker? It's just the right thing to do. Do you know what the best part of this is? With all the waxing that will go on from the opposition about this, they're going to vote for it anyway. And you know what? That's fine. I'm happy to see that they will get a chance to stand up and vote for this act, because it is the right thing to do.

Anyway, Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to hearing the opposition's debate.
[ Page 3721 ]

B. Simpson: Madam Speaker, I apologize to you and other members of the House that I couldn't control myself when the previous member was speaking. I made a commitment when I was elected here that I wouldn't engage in some of the nonsense that passes for debate in here, but I had a hard time sitting and listening to this.

If you actually condense what the Parliamentary Secretary for Silviculture had to say about a supposedly substantive bill, it's: "It's the right thing to do." That was it. That was the sum total of the argument. "It's the right thing to do." That's really a very interesting way to rationalize a bill that is supposed to be of a substantive nature. "It's the right thing to do."

Again, it begs the question of what a parliamentary secretary does, particularly when you've got silviculture in your portfolio and you're supposed to know that file and supposed to bring something substantive into this House to deal with that.

What did we get? We got political rhetoric. We got him having to go back to the 1990s and actually present disingenuous arguments about what happened there just to justify himself and make him feel good.

As I indicated in my little heckle, we got the ultimate in 3Ps that makes it almost impossible for us to govern this province or any other western democracy. The ultimate 3P is petty partisan politics.

I'm going to speak about the mountain pine beetle in my response, and I will correct the record. I challenge the member to bring forward into this House the statement that I supposedly said: "Mow down the forest and replant it." I don't think you can come into this House and make a statement without having a justification and evidence for that. So I challenge the member to present that evidence to me directly.

But I want to talk about the substance of this bill. I want to talk about why this bill in its form is wrong. Conceptually it may be right. The member is correct. As a concept, zero net deforestation is not wrong. It's laudable. But we must get to a point where we as elected officials actually are engaged substantively in the formulation of the laws that govern this province.

We should never be caught in this House by bills that come forward which have not had substantive public debate, which have not sustained scrutiny by experts and by stakeholders and by other people who have vested interests. We should never have a bill come into this House that catches anybody by surprise or that is a fluff piece of legislation that adds to the cynicism of the electorate that's already out there — never.

[1550]

That's what's wrong with this place. That's what's wrong with our democracy. We think the electorate doesn't care. Well, they do care, and those who are not voting care enough not to go into a ballot box, for the most part, because they cannot stand what we offer. They cannot buy the petty partisan politics that passes for governance in this province.

It has to stop, and this bill typifies that. Two years ago, in 2008, we were promised zero net deforestation as part of this government's climate change strategy. Two years. What do we get two years later? We get two pages, one that you could have gotten from Webster's Dictionary within about 15 minutes. It's a page of definitions.

The second one — what does it say? Does it give us plans? Does it give us strategies? Does it give us implementation, action, resources? Nothing. What does it say? It says that this cabinet and this government will figure out how to do this at some point in the near future, and hopefully by 2012, and then by 2015 it supposedly has done something.

Let me disabuse the members opposite. In that 2008 speech the government promised that we would get zero net deforestation. In that speech it said that the not satisfactorily restocked forest land — in the future, I will refer to that as NSR; that is, areas of Crown forest land that do not meet the chief forester's requirements for a free-to-grow status — is actually back to a productive, healthy forest.

The throne speech in 2008 said that there were 700,000 hectares of NSR. In the presentation of this bill, the Forest Minister says that that number is actually 750,000. We were promised in 2008 explicitly…. This is a direct quote from the speech to the throne: "All forest land currently identified as not sufficiently restocked will be replanted and no 'NSR' backlogs will be allowed to develop in ensuing years."

I take it that "ensuing years" is kind of '09, 2010, 2011. Yet between 2008 and 2010, somehow 50,000 more hectares have appeared on NSR. In actual fact, and I'll speak to this in a minute, the forest practices branch, in a recent report last fall, said that the NSR, the not satisfactorily restocked, is over 1.4 million hectares — double what this government is indicating, double what the Forests Minister is indicating. The Forests Minister will be accountable for that when we get into estimates.

Why the difference? When his own ministry calls it 1.4 million plus, the minister stands up and puts this bill forward and says 750,000. That shows you how bankrupt this government's inventory of our Crown land base is. How can you manage the number one asset of this province when you don't know what you're managing, when you have that much of a difference that you have to reconcile? A full double not satisfactorily restocked.

Why is that important? You see, this bill is supposed to somehow make 6,200 hectares of development properties where you deforest — that backlog — disappear. That's the argument that we've gotten from a couple of the members from the opposite side.

I want to know what the math is of 6,200 hectares a year being deforested for development against 1.4 million backlogged NSR. How does that math work out? I
[ Page 3722 ]
think that's a few years of very hard work and substantial dollars to address just what already exists in backlog.

No wonder we laughed when the minister brought this bill into the House. It is laughable — not in concept but in principle and in timing and in the way the government's planning on going about this. That's what's laughable.

We've got this increase already, since 2008. The basic math of forestry — and the Parliamentary Secretary for Silviculture ought to have known this — is that for every thousand hectares of forest land, it takes about 100,000 trees to replant that to stocking standards. So for 1,000 hectares, a hundred thousand trees.

Let me walk you through some math to see what the real problem is and why it is insulting that 6,200 hectares is supposed to solve this problem. First, the backlog NSR, as I've indicated, by the ministry's own documentation is 1.4 million hectares.

[1555]

However, accumulating fire, as it rolls up, was a million hectares since 2003. Some of that has been replanted; some has not. The minister has indicated that he expects more catastrophic fires in the future. We haven't even addressed fully the 2003 fire event. In many cases, fire actually sterilizes the soil to the point that you cannot get it back for forests for generations, and that's not documented in the ministry's inventory. We don't have those figures.

When you talk about deforestation, this government is talking about zero net deforestation related to development. Well, what about sterilized forest soils? That's deforested, and no amount of planting will bring it back for generations to come. That's not in this calculation.

Pests and diseases other than mountain pine beetle — where is the sum total of that? We are losing forests to pest and disease. In particular, we are losing plantations to pests and disease. Plantations that are on this government's book, in many cases, as actual free-growing forests are not free-growing forests but are dead and do not meet the ministry's requirements and should be on the NSR backlog, and they're not in the inventory.

The mountain pine beetle. I want to get to the arguments that a couple of members have made here about the 1990s, because I think it's important to set the record straight. The mountain pine beetle is now at 14.5 million hectares. Of that, the government's own documentation indicates that at least four million of those hectares are what are called non-recoverable losses — so areas that we won't be able to take fibre off of, areas that will be standing dead timber, areas that in many case will add to this backlog of not satisfactorily restocked.

Then, from 2002 through to about 2007 this government started playing with how they calculated not satisfactorily restocked. They started taking roads out and landings out and various others things out, so they downscaled the number.

The reality, by my calculations…. Again, we're going to canvass this in estimates. We're going to actually flesh all these numbers out. That's the way this House is supposed to work. So it's a forewarning to the minister to make sure he's got the staff with their calculators out, because we have.

The accruing not satisfactorily restocked, non-recoverable losses, potential Crown land base that needs silviculture treatment in some fashion relative to the 6,200 hectares that these members are talking about is actually in the order of magnitude of about 6.4 million hectares.

If you do the math, Madam Speaker, that's 64 billion trees. That is gross mismanagement of the province's largest asset. We're going to find out in estimates how much this government doesn't know about how bad it is.

The silviculture contractors will tell you about what they call the silviculture gap that exists that has grown year over year. I want to talk about planting on the Crown land base in a second. But they have been shocked at how much that is accruing, how little work has been done in silviculture throughout this province.

Before I get to that, if you want to talk about zero net deforestation, let's talk about the real story, the true story, of how big the magnitude of that is, what kind of resources we're talking about, how many trees we're talking about. It's not bits and pieces of development. It's the massive lack of investment on the Crown land base.

Let's talk about a little project that was in the government's 2008 throne speech as well. In the 2008 throne speech the Premier, in introducing zero net deforestation, made the following comment. It's about what these members are talking about. Here's the statement. This is from the throne speech.

"…large urban afforestation initiative" will be undertaken. "Millions of trees will be planted in backyards, schoolyards, hospital yards, civic parks, campuses, parking lots and other public spaces across British Columbia. Major investments in tree nurseries will be made under this initiative. Those new trees will help clean our air and 'lock away' carbon dioxide that would otherwise contribute to global warming."

[1600]

The Premier, as he's wont to, came up with a wonderful little catchphrase just to make everybody feel warm and fuzzy that he was going to take care of that terrible thing. He called it Trees for Tomorrow.

Wait a second. You've got future forest ecosystems. You've got Forests for Tomorrow. You've got net zero deforestation and this little project, Trees for Tomorrow. That was 2008. The members opposite there — I remember some of them saying in their speeches: how could we be against Trees for Tomorrow? "Oh my god, it's like killing puppies." What did we get? Here's what happened.

So far, since 2008 to today, about a million trees have been planted. We're not sure. We don't have a proper accounting. We have some project lists. But about a mil-
[ Page 3723 ]
lion trees have been planted. It said: "Millions of trees will be planted." About a million got planted.

How did they get planted? Grants, Madam Speaker — you know, those cost-sharing things that municipalities, school districts, hospitals hate because they have to bring their money to the table in order to get the money from the government to do what they need to do anyway. So it was done in the form of grants.

What effect has it had? Has it cleaned our air and locked away carbon dioxide? If so, how much carbon dioxide? How many cars it has taken off the road, equivalency — all that fun stuff that the government likes to tout. We don't know — no reports — but what we do know…. And I challenge every one of those individuals over there who likes to just simply take what they get from PAB and read it in here to go to the webpage Trees for Tomorrow. It actually even has a 1-800 number, 1-800-T4T — I don't what those numbers are — and then the rest of the numbers.

Cool — webpage, phone number, everything else. Go on the webpage, Members, and this is what you will find when you bring the webpage up about how to apply for Trees for Tomorrow: "There is no intake at this time." You go to the next page about how to apply: "There is no intake at this time."

How incompetent of a government that it cannot even get its act together to cover its you-know-what by making sure that the Trees for Tomorrow program, which is supposed to be behind this net zero deforestation, is actually still functioning when they're in this House talking about how this wonderful program is going to work. They can't even do that.

Again, forgive us for finding it laughable that the government thinks — faced with the order of magnitude of Crown land that is being left to waste, that is not meeting its obligations…. Even little programs to help put trees in urban centres…. They can't even continue that program. We just simply don't find it credible that this government puts a bill before us and wants us to trust them that somehow they're going to make it happen in 2012 and 2015. They couldn't even stay the course from 2008. Two years, and the program's gone.

Now let's talk about the wonderful investments, major investments in nurseries. That's what the government said in 2008. There's a recent op-ed that reflects a statement by Ben Parfitt. This op-ed in the Vancouver Sun reflects what we have heard — the critic for forestry, the two of them have heard.

Actually, the Agriculture critic and I visited a nursery in the Kamloops region. We've heard from every nursery that they're in dire straits, that they are borderline in being able to keep their doors open. When we have a silviculture gap as large as it is in this province, they do not understand. If they had hair, they'd be like me, because they're pulling it out. They don't understand why the government isn't responding to the challenges confronting them.

What we've got is — and Parfitt captures it in this one sentence: "Commercial tree nurseries across this province are reporting some of the lowest orders for planting stock ever seen."

Now, again, I know we don't want to confuse the members over there with too many numbers, because they're probably not getting numbers from PAB, but the capacity in our nurseries is 250 million seedlings, a quarter of a billion in seedling capacity in this province.

[1605]

What are the orders? The orders, the sowing requests for 2011 — 126 million. A quarter of a billion in capacity, 126 million in sowing requests for 2011. What happened to the major investments in nurseries? What happened to the millions of trees that were supposed to be planted?

By the way, you don't order trees like you order sea monkeys, where you go to a catalogue, they come to you, you throw them in some water, and — poof! — you get some sea monkeys. You need to know the species. You need to know the genetic characteristics. You have to collect the seed stock and grow it. You have to test it. You have to change your nurseries to be able to plant and grow those into seedlings that can be planted. This is significant work.

In planting, 2010 will be the lowest on record at 172 million seedlings with that huge silviculture gap that we've got, and it looks like planting in 2011 is going to be even lower than that. These nurseries, with this government gutting forestry as it is and gutting all of the dirt ministries, are worried about their economic viability, yet the Premier promised them in 2008 that they would get major investments.

That's why we laugh at bills like this. That's why we laugh at concepts like this — not because the concepts themselves are not reasonable and worth exploring but because this government is not serious about it. They're just not serious about it. They think that if they can put a little catchphrase out in front of the public, the public will be placated and they can get on with whatever their business is with their lobbyists and the people who fund their political party.

Let me talk a little bit about the order of magnitude that we should have. Again, this is from the government's own documentation. People should know by now that I don't come in here and make this stuff up. This is from the government's own documentation.

I challenge the members over there. Put your PAB backgrounder aside. Go to the Mountain Pine Beetle Task Force on the government's webpage. Go to the 2006 mountain pine beetle action plan.

On the back page, one of the final pages on that, this is a direct quote. That was in 2006. The order of magnitude is now far, far worse four years later, but in 2006 the
[ Page 3724 ]
Ministry of Forests' senior staff and strategist said the following: "Initial assessments suggest that a total of approximately $800 million to $1 billion will be required just to mitigate the mountain pine beetle impacts alone." A billion dollars just for mountain pine beetle alone.

What do we get? Some $161 million. It says it right in the same document — $161 million for the first four years of Forests for Tomorrow. Now, they did say that they were going to go to the federal government. Everybody in this House, remember? The federal government was going to give us $100 million a year for ten years, etc.

But Mr. Emerson, when he was a Liberal cabinet minister, or a Conservative cabinet minister…. No, wait. He was a Liberal cabinet minister at the time. Mr. Emerson said in a very clear, lucid moment in Prince George: "We're not just going to cut cheques to the province. We need to see the plan."

We brought that into this House. We actually were given a copy of a document where this government was trying to fast-track some discussions with the federal government to cover themselves on the mountain pine beetle, and that submission never went in. In fact, it would be interesting, in estimates, to find out what kind of dialogue we're having with the federal government just now, because we never got the billion dollars that was promised from then, let alone matching funding from this government.

That's the order of magnitude we got. Today, in fact, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs just issued a press release and a resolution reminding us of this:

"The federal promise was to provide B.C. with $100 million a year for ten years to address the mountain pine beetle crisis. The province agreed to provide 20 percent of this funding, or $20 million a year, to First Nations. Unfortunately, the federal government chose not to transfer the money to B.C. Instead, it administered funds through its own departments, and it only provided $200 million specifically for mountain pine beetle funding."

[1610]

Why is this? Because this government never got its act together to put a plan in front of the federal government to show that they were going to match funds, to show that they had actually done the due diligence, that they knew what those funds were going to do, because the first $100 million they got, they used to fund provincial Crown obligations, because of cuts that they had done in previous budgets.

You don't do that to the federal government, because then what happens? They turn the tap off. You pay for what's provincial, and provincial obligation with provincial money. You take federal money, and you make it incremental to it.

We have two very good track records of that, two forest range development agreements from the 1990s. If you go back and look at the record, it's available to the public. Hopefully, the Parliamentary Secretary for Silviculture actually does its own research this time and looks at it. It shows you that the biggest investment we had in this province on the land base was in the 1990s. With two forest range agreements coming from the late '80s through the '90s, we poured millions of dollars into the land base, and this government is undermining that because they didn't continue the programs.

Under this government, we have the lowest-ever silviculture activities — brushing, thinning, commercial spacing, site preparation and using fire as a silviculture tool. It's all on the government's own website. A forest practices branch PowerPoint presentation from the fall of 2009 lays it all out. You don't have to go anywhere. I'll gladly hand a copy to any member on that side of the House for their bedtime reading, instead of whatever it is they've got to say tomorrow on the message box. It's all there — a massive deinvestment in the land base.

They were not smart enough to realize that if they'd just brought some money to the table and just done some planning, there was a legitimate offer by the Martin government for that $10 billion program, and Prime Minister Harper continued that. But they saw no movement from this side, and we lost that opportunity. Today we're reminded of the impact of that on First Nations, and we're reminded of the impact of that on our land base in general.

Now, the minister spoke in his speech about the fact that they're doing incremental forestry. Another lovely little pet phrase: Forests for Tomorrow. The minister reminded us that licensees are obligated by law to replant where they harvest. But we've got significant issues, and the Minister of Forests must know that because there's a big shift right now to naturals, not planting. That's why some of the falloff is occurring. The harvesting is low, but some of the falloff in the nurseries is because they're going to natural plantations, natural regrowth, rather than planting.

We have huge health risks out there as well, so the licensees' obligations, which are called a silviculture liability, are accruing. You talk to any of the licensees out there, especially the smaller ones, and they are very, very nervous about that huge financial liability they're accruing. It's not a given that the licensees' work on the land base will actually result in healthy forests. That's not a given. The fact that they have the legal obligation doesn't address what's going to happen on the land base. But the Crown has no such obligation.

In 2002 this government absolved itself of actually being obligated to manage the Crown forest land other than areas that were harvested. Prior to that they were obligated to deal with fire, obligated to deal with pest and disease, obligated to deal with areas of the forest that had been logged but that contractors hadn't gone and done the work on. This government absolved itself of that. Therefore, as I've indicated, actual planting has been plummeting. All silviculture activities have been plummeting, and we have this massive silviculture gap.
[ Page 3725 ]

We have Forests for Tomorrow. In 2008 the promise was 60 million seedlings over four years. The program was put in place in 2004. Again, these are real numbers available to the government. It's not that hard to go and google Forests for Tomorrow. It's all there for you. PricewaterhouseCoopers does a little report for you.

Only about 17.85 million trees have been planted since 2004 — 60 million trees promised, 17.8 million realized. Now, I think that's called — what? — a silviculture gap. If this is how they're going to do zero net deforestation, no wonder we laugh on this side. Promise 60, deliver 17.8.

[1615]

They're not going to achieve 20 million a year, which is what the minister and others have suggested. So now in this throne speech, the minister — or Forests for Tomorrow — is promising 60 million over the next four years. That's not going to happen.

One of the interesting things about that — and it's a question that we'll have when we explore this in third reading…. One of the interesting questions is that they use PricewaterhouseCoopers to run that program, not Ministry of Forests. So why did an accounting firm and a financial management firm get to run silviculture in this province? Did the government not trust the Forest Service to do that?

So we don't have the federal money. We have PricewaterhouseCoopers delivering and, I would say, taking very hefty administrative fees to deliver what is a minuscule amount. That's a tragedy.

Let's get to the bill quickly, because I know we've got speakers who want to get up on our side.

First off, the Liberal argument for the bill — independent of "It's the right thing to do" — is that, first, it's principled. Well, if it was principled, we would have the strategy, the plan, the implementation, the resources, the costs. We'd have it all laid out in front of us. If it was principled, that would be it. It wouldn't be: "Trust us. We'll do this by regulation."

There's a trap in doing it by regulation. If this is a setup for carbon trading in the Pacific Carbon Trust…. If that's what this is — and it's a potential that that's what this is — then it's a potential to flow money through to the lobbyists and to the political sponsors of that party, where you take the development and you say: "You deforested there, but we're going to slide you some tax incentives. We're going to slide you some goodies to go and plant some of our Crown forest over here."

We don't know that, because it's going to be designed by regulation behind closed doors within cabinet. And who's sitting at the table talking to them about it? It's not principled. If it was principled, we would know the details.

Secondly, greenhouse gas reductions. The Minister of State for Climate Action, when he introduced this yesterday, said he'd read a National Geographic report on deforestation, and he got all shocked and awed inside himself and everything else — right?

Now, climate action in the basement of the Legislature, given the Premier's climate change and all that stuff. That's a whole other story, and I don't have time to tell that.

The minister of state lives in the largest clearcut in the province of British Columbia, an area that's been denuded by generations of British Columbians. Deforestation has been going on forever. Civilizations have disappeared because of how they've treated their forests, and as I've already indicated, this government is doing that with our Crown asset.

The greatest greenhouse gas release — and I challenge the Minister of State for Climate Action to come with me out into the bush, and I'll show him — is wood waste from logging practices allowed by this government. In 2006 and every year since, four million tonnes of carbon has been released into the atmosphere from the wood waste that this government allows as normative logging practices now. That's the biggest thing.

Zero net deforestation, 6,200 hectares? Give me a break. When you're releasing that much carbon into the atmosphere and lack a fire management strategy — catastrophic fire events. This government has been warned by the Forest Practices Board and the Association of B.C. Forest Professionals to get its act together and start thinking about climate change through the lens of no cold. If you continue to put fires out like a big fire department, what do you do? You lay the table for pests and diseases, and you wipe your forests out with pests and disease.

They've been told by the professionals to put together a strategic fire plan to stop catastrophic events by being preventative. What do they do? They gut the preventative programs. They don't fund community wildfire plans. They don't have a strategic plan.

If the Minister of State for Climate Change is really worried about greenhouse gas emission reductions, it's not this bill. It's go talk to the Minister of Forests and say: "Get your act together with respect to fire and wood waste." That's what needs to happen.

Of course, there's the standing dead pine release. We don't even know what that figure is.

Principled — that's an argument that was made to us. But principled, when we go to the mountain pine beetle, we get what we got from the member for Nechako Lakes: the diatribe about Tweedsmuir. I understand that we got it from the Minister of Tourism the other day there. I have to leave the legislative precinct under those circumstances.

[1620]

Well, here's what the Liberal MLA task force in 2001 said to this government were the reasons for the mountain pine beetle epidemic being the way it was. I'm going to list them briefly, but I want you to think about the language.
[ Page 3726 ]
These were only Liberal MLAs on a task force in 2001 saying: "This is why this epidemic is as bad as it is."

First off, they say that a variety of factors have contributed. Cold weather is the major push-back on mountain pine beetle, and they said that successions of warm winters in the Cariboo dropped mortality rates of mountain pine beetle from 80 percent to less than 10 percent. That's why the population grew.

Let me see. "The NDP is responsible for climate change," is the logic of that, I think. Is that what the government is trying to say? Mind you, they only woke up to climate change in 2007, so maybe they actually think that.

"The epidemic has further been aggravated by the fact that beetle infestations occur in remote areas" — inaccessible. What the member opposite, when he spoke about Tweedsmuir…. I can again show him the data. There were burns in Tweedsmuir — single-tree burns, small-patch burns — but the industry at the time knew that they couldn't go in there and get that. It wasn't commercially viable, and the scientists at the time said: "For goodness' sake, don't haul logs from the remote areas past a healthy forest into town, because" — guess what you do — "you spread the beetle faster."

There were good reasons that that was not done, but this is their own thing. Beetle infestations are occurring in remote areas — hard to get to, delays in finding them, etc.

"Moreover, many pine beetle infestations are occurring within the boundaries of protected areas." Access to such areas is limited — no roads. Roads are kind of necessary to get into these areas.

Next they say: "High ratios of mature-to-immature timber in many parts of the province." It takes decades of forest management to allow that to occur.

"Finally, it is very difficult to identify current mountain pine beetle infestations." Why? Because the trees remain the same for the first year. You don't see where the infestation is in year 1. You see it in year 2. When you see it, it's already moved on. It's hard to track.

I challenge every one of those members to go onto the Ministry of Forests' mountain pine beetle website. Let them take a look for themselves at the PowerPoint presentation that shows mountain pine beetle infestations from the earliest days, from the '50s, right through. They will see that the member opposite, the Parliamentary Secretary for Silviculture, focused on Tweedsmuir Park, is not substantiated by the science and the previous two chief foresters. It is simply petty partisan politics.

Again, for some of the folks back over there that don't understand, pine beetle existed before the NDP. The biggest infestation before the NDP was during the Socred era. I guess they were responsible for it back then. Some of them were actually associated with that movement at the time. Pine beetle is endemic. That means it's always there.

Pests, fire, cold — those are what control a natural forest ecosystem. Take the cold out, which is what climate change has done, and protect the forest from fire, which is what the government continues to do, and you lay the table for the pests. The mountain pine beetle is only the canary in the coalmine. Every other pest and disease is on the rise in this province, and we do not have the figures. We don't know how bad it is. We don't know what the future implications of that are.

My community just got the timber supply analysis for the go-forward years. It's going to go from just under six million cubic metres to, potentially, as low as 720,000 cubic metres. That means at least two mills in my community are gone forever. The minister and others have even admitted that.

Yet this government, in 2001, when this went from a normative epidemic to the kind of epidemic…. That was the year we knew it was going to happen, the first inkling of it. What have they done? They still cannot say to my community or to Vanderhoof or to Prince George or to other communities what the community-mitigating factors are going to be. What are they going to do to mitigate the impact on those communities? Nothing. No silviculture response. No community response.

What did this Liberal MLA panel say to the government, if they want to talk about principles? They said: "Declare a state of emergency" — this is 2001 — "and get on with the job of figuring out what we do with this major catastrophic event." What have they done? They have not done that.

[1625]

What did Alberta do? The member opposite quoted Alberta. What did Alberta do when they had it come across? They had learned the lessons from us. They did go after it aggressively. They have not gotten control of it, but they went after it aggressively. They initiated a state of emergency and attracted federal funding, freed up some of their own funding and went after it. We never did that. If this government wants to talk about a principled approach, try that one.

Then quickly, a couple of things. Land conversion was the other rationalization. This government has 200,000 to 300,000 kilometres of resource roads. One of the biggest impacts in deforestation on the Crown land base is when you build roads and landings. What did the Forest Practices Board say? "The number, location and ownership status of resource roads are not adequately tracked. It's a confusing patchwork of legislation," etc.

If we were going to seriously deal with this issue, we'd see the resource roads act come forward, not as a result of closed-door discussions and the privatization of our resource roads to the people who fund this government but as a result of public consultation. We would get a good act coming forward. We're not getting that legislation.

The Minister of Forests, when he was Minister of Agriculture and Lands, will recall a debate that he and
[ Page 3727 ]
I got into, because at one point the minister was talking about converting mountain pine beetle stands to agricultural land. How does that work with zero net deforestation?

The debate I got into with him was the fact that in my neck of the woods there's a company from Great Britain that's converting agricultural land to forestry at the same time that the minister was planning on doing the opposite up in Vanderhoof. So how about an integrated land plan that actually lets us know what it is we're doing on the land base, on the biggest public asset we have in this province. Do we have it? No. We have a patchwork of little bits and pieces.

We have no inventory. We have no finances. And what does this government do in this budget? Guts the Ministry of Forests to the tune of almost another $200 million and all the land-based ministries to the tune of $320 million. We're going to find out how many FTEs, where those FTEs are and what the implications of that are. Now you get — what? — 6,200 hectares, and: "We're going to think about maybe planting some trees somewhere when you build a strip mall."

Then if they were deadly serious — and I'll close on this — about zero net deforestation, they would reverse their decisions on private land releases. They would reverse those decisions.

If this government was really genuine, was really principled, really fundamentally believed that this concept was a defensible, meaningful concept, they would then reverse the Jordan River decisions and stop those forested lands from being developed. They would reverse the decisions in Port Alberni and give that community the ability to access its forests again. They would stop the wholesale deforestation of lands that used to be managed as tree farm licences in this province. That would be serious.

Conceptually, yeah, it's worth exploring. Let's explore it together. Let's do that. Table a bill. The minister has the ability to go to the Premier and his House Leader and say: "Okay, look. We want to take a look at this. We want to find out how to do this. We want to make it meaningful."

Let's do that together, because we can support the concept. Let us be engaged in making it happen, but let's also do the work that I've been asking for since 2005. Let's work together to figure out what the future of our number one industry is. Let's work together to figure out how we make sure that our number one asset in this province, owned by the people of British Columbia, is in fact being well managed and is in fact being invested in. Let's do that together, and then bring this bill back when it makes sense.

E. Foster: I'm pleased to rise today to give my support to Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act.

I'm curious, because I look at this, and it says that each year new development, urbanization, agricultural conversions, new power lines, utility corridors, and so on deforest us in the province.

[1630]

I don't understand why people wouldn't support this. The member that spoke before me talks about cooperation. Every single forestry initiative that's been brought forward wasn't supported. I don't understand it.

The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke the other day talked about appurtenance, and I totally agree with that. I come from a small, forest-based community, and I've watched as two of the major licensees shut down their mills and the logs went through town. You know, it's not much fun. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke blamed all that on us the other day and that we should have done something.

And you what? Those mills closed in the '90s. It's a fact of industry. It's unfortunate, but to try and lay all that on this government…. It certainly started long before we were here.

Then I listened with interest as my friend from the Cowichan Valley spoke yesterday about the planting and the facts and the figures and the numbers. The numbers are down a little. They're not down a little; they're down quite a bit, actually. As the member that spoke before me said: "Go to the website."

So I did that this morning, as a matter of fact, and I looked through the numbers back as far as '93-94 and went through the numbers through to '08-09 on planting and harvesting. I would like to say to the members opposite that in '94-95 and '95-96 the numbers were very impressive. The government of the day, the Forest Service of the day were doing a good job. They planted a lot of trees.

Then it started falling off, and it fell off through the '90s into the early part of 2001-2002. Then the numbers started to pick up again.

But as you go down through those numbers, the number of hectares that were planted is important, but they're also relevant when you look at the number of hectares that were harvested. Those numbers go up and down, and they go up and down pretty much on a parallel for the hectares that were planted. So you know, all the numbers are important. All the facts are important, not just the ones that you can use to support your own argument.

One of the big things that's happened in the last couple of years here, certainly in the last year and a half in the forest industry…. I've worked in the forest industry my entire life. I don't get my experience off a website or from the tailgate of a pickup. I actually felled trees, drove cat, ran a skidder. I have a formal education in forestry. I hung a lot of ribbons on a lot of trees, watched the pine beetle epidemic spread throughout the Interior.

I know that the member that spoke before me and the member for Nechako Lakes talked about Tweedsmuir Park. I was involved in all of that. I listened to the foresters that worked for the Ministry of Forests. I talked to a
[ Page 3728 ]
lot of them. I worked with them a lot. I did a lot of pine beetle surveys. When we talked about the Tweedsmuir Park situation, the information that those scientists and those foresters were giving the government just wasn't accepted.

Those decisions were made on a political basis. Someone talked about political patronage and political expedience, and that's why those decisions were made. And they were wrong. Now you're behind, and we've been behind ever since.

We need to move forward with these things, and this is a bill that does that. We talk about reforestation. We talk about the number of trees. Go to the government's own website.

About two-thirds of British Columbia's 95 million hectares are forested. British Columbia has about as much forest as it did 150 years ago. So we're not losing ground as badly as the member who spoke before me would have you believe.

As everyone has said, the number of hectares that are logged by the licensees must be replanted by the licensees. Again, having been in the industry my entire life and in B.C. for the last 26 years, I've watched that happen. I've planted trees. I've logged. Up until I took this job on, I had a woodlot. I was a small licensee responsible for the management of that woodlot, and we were governed by the rules of the Forest Service on what we do have to do.

[1635]

You don't log and walk away. As the member that spoke before me said: "There's a lot of science in it." You don't just go plant some trees.

Speaking of science, one of the comments about natural regeneration and so on, just for the members…. All these areas with the pine beetle infestation, with the lodgepole pine, especially in the northern part of the province, the Chilcotin area, where it's predominantly lodgepole pine, where the bug kill has been devastating…. Those areas won't regenerate unless they're burnt, because lodgepole pine seed doesn't germinate unless it's 180 degrees. It's nature's way of filling in after fires.

Some of the areas that will burn off will come back, especially in lodgepole pine. It'll be a carpet. Maybe there's some prescribed burning we can do and get some of those areas back to growing.

Again, to speak to this piece of legislation, I don't understand why…. I'll go back to the comments from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke the other day. I totally agree with him. Why can't we bring something forward like this and have constructive discussion about it? This is a good idea. Why can't we just stand up and talk about: "There are some good ideas here. Why can't we add this to it?" Why do we have to spend two days in here throwing rocks back and forth at each other for something that I would assume everybody supports?

I don't understand. For the life of me, I couldn't understand why they wouldn't. I'm fairly new at this game, so maybe that's not the way it works. But back again to my friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke. You know, let's do that. Let's put it on the table. Let's discuss it. We've got somebody who has some constructive amendments. We'll bring them forward and have a look at them.

I don't understand why we can't do that. But I haven't heard anything over here — just bang, bang, bang all the time, and it doesn't make any sense to me. If we want to cover these NSR lands, let's come up with some constructive ideas on how to do it. Again, the member that spoke before me talked about NSR land and threw around some pretty large numbers. Well, again, having worked in the forest industry, you're required within the four years after you log an area to have it restocked. It's going really well, actually.

So you have four years to replant, by law. If you have a fairly good-sized area, you can log in the first year, log in the second year and then plant them both in the third year or the fourth year — plant a huge area. So those areas that have been logged in that first couple of years, that are still within the legal time limit to be reforested…. And as they are, they're not sufficiently restocked at that time.

To add those to that huge number that the member was talking about is again, you know, playing with numbers for his own benefit. At any given time there will be two or possibly three years of land that come under that umbrella of NSR that will actually by law be required to be planted. Those are the kinds of numbers that people like to use because they're impressive, but they can at best be misleading.

So again, I just don't understand why this bill's not being supported. Like I say, it would be nice to hear from the other side some constructive ideas as to what they might see as positive amendments to the bill. It's a good bill. It supports planting. It supports jobs in silviculture, clean air. What's wrong with any of this? I don't understand it.

Anyway, that's about all I have to say about this. Again, it baffles me when something like this comes forward. We had, whatever it was, a day's discussion on Wood First, and then when it came to be voted on, everybody stood up and voted for it because it was the right thing to do. Again, this is the right thing to do.

There's some good, solid science in it, and I think that I will be optimistic that the members on this side of the House from this end down would be happy to get up and support this.

[1640]

S. Fraser: I take my place in second reading debate of Bill 5. I will actually address the issue that the member before me, the member for Vernon-Monashee, raised, wondering why we wouldn't support the concept of zero net deforestation.
[ Page 3729 ]

The simple answer is…. The member, I think, explained why he doesn't understand why we might be cynical or be laughing at the bill when it was introduced. It's because of statements made previously in throne speeches, etc. — bringing in a children's budget or a throne speech that revolves around children, and then the result is the highest child poverty in the country for six years running; or bringing in a seniors budget where everything is downloaded subsequently onto seniors at their great despair; or the housing budget or throne speech that brings us the highest homelessness rates in the country and in the history of the province.

When we see something like this, as members of the opposition, it is our job to be critical of these things and to hold the government to account. Certainly, from my point of view as an opposition member, I don't believe anyone disagrees with the values and the premise of zero net deforestation. I believe it's long overdue as far as policy is concerned.

When I saw Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act, coming forward, which was a surprise — I did not expect it — I was thinking: "Wow, talk about a turnaround." We've had ten years of Liberal government, and never in the history of the province have we seen such gross mismanagement of an industry and of a resource — record job losses; mill closures; destruction of the forest base and, worse, of the public control of that forest base; deregulation; union-busting; taking away the ability of local communities to have any say over forestry matters and that sort of thing.

So when I saw that the Liberals were coming forward with a bill, Zero Net Deforestation Act, I was thinking, "Wow, this is going to be a tome. This will be the War and Peace of bills," because to rebuild to the point of zero deforestation in the province in the form of a bill is a daunting, daunting task. The bill will be…. I figured the debate would go on forever, certainly when it comes to committee stage, because it will probably be the most lengthy bill in the history of this Legislature.

However, I did find the bill, and I actually thought there was something missing, but it is….

An Hon. Member: It is missing.

S. Fraser: It is, yeah. It is missing. It's three pages. Well, actually, the third page has on it: "Queen's Printer for British Columbia." That's all that's on the third page, so it's really two pages. Well, the first page is, I'm afraid, a few definitions.

The problem is that we have what appears to be another slogan — a slogan which we're getting all too used to from this government. No substance, no meat on the bones — a slogan.

How did we get a slogan at this point in time? There is a history to this bill. Apparently, for those who remember back to 2008 — and some of us were not here; I was — in 2008 the Premier made a commitment to zero net deforestation. I think that might have been where the phrase was coined. Two years went by. Devastation on the forest base, record lack of silviculture — just a devastation of every forest community, every forest worker and every forest mill in the province, pretty much.

[1645]

With the first statement of the zero net deforestation in 2008, two years later we have a two- or one-page bill that enshrines it, I guess, after.

On the first page that actually says something, the top of the page, it goes…. I'll quote here. This is the bold new step on zero deforestation, after two years from the first comments made about this and the promise made by the Premier. "Beginning with a report on the net deforestation within British Columbia for the 2012 calendar year…."

So we're making a bold step here. In two years we've got a commitment that two years hence there's going to be a report on net deforestation within British Columbia. This is the reason for the response from the opposition, the laughing response for a laughable bill.

The bill, the premise, is not the problem. Zero net deforestation is the value that I would hope…. Certainly, members of the opposition would support. It's the reality that this is not true, that this is a falsehood.

We have a previous Finance Minister, a Liberal Finance Minister, a couple years ago explain it well. She said this of her own government. As Finance Minister, she claimed that the Liberals were basically spectators when it came to forestry.

So how do spectators bring in a zero net deforestation bill? Well, they make an announcement two years ago. They bring in basically one page that commits to doing a report in two years. So we've got a four-year span there. Then if there were any substance, it would be well after the next election before we'd be able to quantify anything.

You know what? That could be an election promise, then, like: "We won't bring in the HST." Or that the budget is going to be only 465….

Interjections.

S. Fraser: Yeah — "We won't sell B.C. Rail. We won't." "We'll honour negotiated contracts."

That is the nature of the cynicism and the skepticism from this side of the House, and I hope that goes to explain to the member previously why there is that skepticism. It's rightfully targeted at the Liberals, at the Forests Minister, at the Premier, because this bill is fluff.

The fact is we don't have really any accurate census numbers on what's happening on the forest base now anyways. The daunting task of actually moving to zero net deforestation…. I don't think it's even possible, even
[ Page 3730 ]
if there was the will from the Liberals, because they're actually cutting the resources to the ministry. So they're not going to make this possible at all. There's no intention of making this possible. They have no idea what's happening on the forest floor. They have not lived up to their obligations for reforestation.

For me, as the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim, this follows a history of betrayal to forest communities like Port Alberni, where we've lost the entire public control of our forest base.

The tree farm licences have been around since the '40s. The 1956 Sloan report. Justice Sloan wrote 800 pages, and in this, even in '56, explaining the importance to control both private and public land through a tree farm system that will ensure forests forever, forests for perpetuity, for all the reasons — even in 1956, recognizing the environmental needs of protecting the forest, not just for workers, not just for forest community and industry, but also even then recognizing the environmental importance in the '50s.

Every government respected the premises of public control of our forests for future generations until this Liberal government — decades. Doesn't matter what the politics was. Everybody knew it. It's about public interest, and this government betrayed that public interest as soon as they got in.

[1650]

In 2003 this government brought in what was called forest revitalization. I hate saying that term, because it has been the destruction of our public control of the forest base. It was basically catering to the corporate sector that wanted everything. They wanted deregulation. They wanted union-busting. They wanted access to all of the land within the tree farm licences, and this government gave them everything, and they gave it to them for free. They took away the ability to control what's happening on the forest base.

Just in the coastal region we've lost control. The public has lost control of its 800 square kilometres of our most valuable forests — given away. In the Alberni Valley, the entire region surrounding Alberni, the public control was given away to then Weyerhaeuser. No public process — actually contrary to what the Minister of Forests of the day, to what his own staff was saying to do. It was devastating. It has been devastating for the industry, for workers, for the environment, for watersheds.

All of those lands were then flipped over into private managed forest lands. Now, why would a government do that — take away public control that's been there and respected for decades? It was $500,000 donated to the B.C. Liberals from then Weyerhaeuser.

So Weyerhaeuser got hundreds of millions, if not billions, of benefit at taxpayers' expense, at communities' expense — communities like Port Alberni that built the economy of this province — and it was for half a million dollars. Whoever negotiated that for Weyerhaeuser with these guys, I hope he or she got a bonus, because they made a killing, a fortune, at taxpayers' expense.

This has continued until recent times. We know this with Jordan River — 28,000 hectares. It continued. The Auditor General did a report on that.

Deputy Speaker: May I remind you that we're speaking about Bill 5.

S. Fraser: Yes, Madam Speaker. Thank you for reminding me.

Bill 5 is the Zero Net Deforestation Act. I would note, and I apologize for not being clear on this, that the fact is this government has made an art form out of removing public control of our forests.

Therefore, those lands — we'll have to probe this more in estimates — all those 800 square kilometres of forest lands removed from public control…. We have no ability — the government has no ability — to do anything about what's happening on the forest base there. They can't control reforestation or deforestation on these private lands. They're being carved up as real estate. That's the hypocrisy of this bill. They've given away the ability of the public to do zero net deforestation in the coastal forests in British Columbia.

Madam Speaker, that was the point I was trying to make. I guess I was taking the long way around, so I apologize for that. But it is germane to this discussion, this debate, second reading of Bill 5. Because making the statement that you're going to protect the forest base to balance the forest afforestation and deforestation…. That ability has been taken away by this government on huge tracts of land in British Columbia, in my constituency.

There's very little land that's still under public control. So there is no control here. The Auditor General said when they removed these lands and took away the control to effect something like Bill 5…. They said the minister forgot to take into account the public interest.

The public interest? That's what we're here for in this place. Bill 5 — legislation is supposed to be about public interest. So when a government and a minister of the Crown forget to take into account the interests of the public, that's a betrayal of this House, of the whole democratic process.

Every government — it doesn't matter whether you're left-wing or right-wing — must stand up and protect the public interest. The Liberal government has taken away the ability in my area, a large section of the coast, coastal forests…. This bill can't even apply. They've taken away the rights of the public to have any say over their own lands.

[1655]

Jordan River land, a case in point. This is being potentially sold as real estate — very valuable real estate. So how will Bill 5 affect reforestation there? It's on private land.
[ Page 3731 ]

This government created the Private Managed Forest Land Act, which took away the ability of local governments from having any say on these lands. How will Bill 5 ever work on any forest lands on the coast? The little bit that's still left within the tree farm licences…. I think everything that was part of those tree farm licences was removed, the private land that was under public control.

Suggesting that this bill has any basis in reality is ludicrous. The implementation of this bill…. I mean, the first report is due in two years from now. There's no action. There's a report due, and then subsequent to that the only mention of action or accountability will be in 2015. I don't know if the idea for that was to allow licensees to see how fast they can liquidate the forests between now and the next five years, but whatever happens in my constituency, in coastal B.C. on the forests…. What we do know is that this bill does not appear to apply, so the bill is irrelevant when it comes to protecting the forest health that the bill says it's designed to do.

Zero net deforestation is a very good idea. This bill is a slogan about that good idea, a slogan with absolutely no substance to it. What's clear is this government has brought it forward as another piece of fluff. I would suggest that there is no intention to move this province towards zero net deforestation. They've taken away the basic mechanisms to do it in a large part of this province, certainly in Alberni–Pacific Rim.

With that, Madam Speaker, I shall take my seat.

H. Lali: I rise to take my place in the debate on Bill 5, entitled the Zero Net Deforestation Act.

The member from Port Alberni, who spoke before me, spoke quite eloquently about the contents of this bill, or what's in this bill. Like the previous member, I was really hopeful when the government announced, when the Premier announced a couple years back that he was going to bring in a zero net deforestation act.

So like all of my colleagues on this side of the House and folks out in British Columbia, especially the folks out in the silviculture community, we were all excited. We all thought, "Okay, for a change this Liberal government is actually going to put forward some policy that is going to be meaningful and productive and progressive," and at the same time, it was going to be positive for not only workers but also for communities.

When I saw this bill, I was, needless to say, totally underwhelmed, like other speakers on this side of the House. We were expecting something perhaps 40, 50, 100 pages long that was going to actually be meaningful. Like this other bill that they put forward — they said they were going to have a wood-first policy in British Columbia — it's meagre. There's nothing in it. I'm glad that the Minister of Forests is sitting there attentively listening to the debate, because if he sits here long enough, he might learn something from this side of the House.

But it's two pages. That's the kind of commitment, like the wood-first policy which actually became the shoulda, woulda, coulda policy, where they made all sorts of announcements around it, but there's no meat to it.

[1700]

So when I saw this bill, the big question that came to my mind is: where's the beef? It's like that old commercial that was on television — "Where's the beef?" There's no beef in here. One page of definitions, and then it's got these four little meagre sections in here. It is nothing more than what my colleague from Port Alberni said — a mere slogan — and if there's one thing this government is great at doing, it's making slogans.

The wood-first policy. They said they were going to revitalize the forest industry, make it better, and they came out with nothing except the destruction of the forest industry in this province. A couple of Forests Ministers ago and the last one and this one are continuing on the same path.

When you look at section 1 in the bill, which is the definitions section, they talk about deforestation. But deforestation doesn't include, actually, the results of the pine beetle or other pathogens and disease, and it also doesn't include forest fires.

It could be argued that a failure to adequately predict, prevent and manage forest fires is human-induced or, in this case, B.C. Liberal–induced. When you look at the forest policy in this province, it has been B.C. Liberal–induced. What we see when we look at it is deliberate mismanagement by this Liberal government now in their third term and a third Minister of Forests.

The Liberal mismanagement has been identified by two main things. One is actually that there is no policy. For years and years of making pronouncements that they're going to do certain things, there's no policy. Then when they do bring in policy, it's punitive. So when they changed the Forest Act — I think it was in 2003 — basically what it did was give all the power and control to the large companies and take it away from workers and communities and even government itself.

So much of this is actually also left to regulations. For example, an area is afforested when it becomes forest land again as defined in the regulations. Also, deforestation does not include the removal of trees from any area of forest land that is excluded from this definition by regulation. So what about human development like suburban subdivisions? The definition of non-forest land is that it hasn't been forest land since December 31, 1989, or a date set by regulation, which means it could be an arbitrary date, a regulation set by cabinet.

Under the definition of afforestation, only non-forest land may be afforested. How does this apply to the more recently logged areas that have trees planted on it? Or how will it apply to wildfire-managed areas that have been reforested naturally? They don't explain that.
[ Page 3732 ]

In section 2 there's a goal regarding the zero net deforestation. It just simply states that the government must achieve this goal by December 31, 2015. But they don't talk about interim targets. I mean, how will the government actually measure its progress? Who will monitor the government in terms of the job being done? Why has the Ministry of Forests and Range not made this one of its targets in the latest service plan?

The budget comes down. The minister puts forward a service plan. It's not even in it. So where was this commitment to zero net deforestation? Where was the commitment by this Liberal government and this Liberal minister? It's not even in the service plan as presented in the budget.

It's just like any other policy where the Premier is probably sitting down for a cup of coffee somewhere, and he realizes, "Gee, I better do something," and on the back of an envelope he decides to put a few notes together, gives it to his ministers and says: "Go make a policy." Then they come back with a policy. It's supposed to be a major policy.

What do they come back with? Two pages. One page, as the member from Port Alberni described it, because the first page is all definitions. It's just unreal what this government is doing and is capable of doing. It just goes on and on and on. It just doesn't end with this government and the back-of-the-napkin policies that the Premier always brings forward.

[1705]

Section 3 is reporting on the net deforestation. It states that the actual program will begin with a report about the net deforestation for the 2012 calendar year — 2012. That's two years from now. One is led to ask the question: why wasn't this work actually done in the last nine years that they've been government? How come? What have they been doing? What have the Premier and the cabinet been doing for the last nine years when it comes to forestry?

I'd like to ask the question again: does this mean that the plan is only to have zero net deforestation between 2012 and 2015? They haven't explained that. So what about all the net deforestation that has actually, as I mentioned, happened over the last nine years and will continue to happen through 2010 and 2011 for the next two years? It just does not actually lead to any kind of answers from this government.

Section 4 is the power to make regulations. I'm looking at the bill here, and I look at this section. Section 4 gives the authority to cabinet, under section 4(3)(c), for the cabinet to "make different regulations for different persons, places, things or transactions." I mean, that's pretty scary.

So what's the cabinet going to do? It's going to make different regulations for different people, different places. That's what it says. What may apply in one timber supply area may not apply in another area of the province. That's what this says. It will be done on an arbitrary basis. Or will it be done on the basis of which large forest company gave the most amount of money to the B.C. Liberal Party to fight elections?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

We know that for the last nine years in this province, if you want policy made — it doesn't matter whether it's forestry or mining or health or any other area — all one has to do is take a wheelbarrow full of money, drop it at the doorstep of the B.C. Liberal Party and presto, they have policy.

That's what's been happening. That's what's been happening for nine years under this Liberal government. Whoever happens to be the biggest supporter of the B.C. Liberal Party gets policy made in this province, and that's the reality.

I have said that to the hon. member across the way. He can check for those pronouncements. I have said that repeatedly in the media over the last five years that I've been an MLA re-elected here.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

H. Lali: I'm not afraid to go out there and say it. The hon. member knows that too.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please.

On a point of order, Minister of Environment.

Point of Order

Hon. B. Penner: I rise on a point of order. All members of this House are hon. members, and we need to remind speakers to be careful about their language. If someone is insinuating criminal activity, that is a breach of the rules of this House.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Fraser-Nicola will observe parliamentary language in the House, and he will direct his comments through the Chair.

Debate Continued

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for your caution. You will recall that my comments were against the B.C. Liberal Party, not against any member in the House. I just want to clarify that. I said the B.C. Liberal Party.

Anyway, let's move on from that, because the power lies with the cabinet to be able to do what it wants for different persons, different places, different things and different transactions. It's right here in this bill. So the law will not be applied evenly.

The Liberals have made so many promises over the years. Basically, what's happened is that they haven't kept
[ Page 3733 ]
up with any of the promises. We have the 2009 Liberal platform that talked about forests for today and tomorrow, and at the 2008 TLA, the Truck Loggers Association conference, the Premier talked about a seismic shift for forestry in B.C. That's what he said.

[1710]

There's been a seismic shift, all right. It's been actually driving the forest industry into the ground in this province — the Liberal government — and dozens and dozens of companies going out of business. That's what's happened.

Under the forest revitalization plan in 2002, it talked about how there was a brighter future: "We are reshaping our forest sector to restore the B.C. advantage to our province's number one industry, both at home and abroad." And we know that it is in shambles under this government. It's lost its number one place as our number one sector in this province under this Liberal government because of their deliberate neglect and mismanagement of the forestry file.

It continues — the revitalization plan: "These changes will help revitalize the economy." Well, we know how it revitalized it. It also talked about generating jobs. I'll tell you how many jobs they generated. They lost 35,000 permanent forestry jobs in this province under that regime over the last nine years — 75 sawmills and pulp mills closed by the punitive policies of this government and the deliberate mismanagement.

It also talked about spinoff benefits for communities. Well, I'll tell you what's happening in communities. People are leaving rural British Columbia, and there are signs out everywhere. People are saying, "Turn off the lights as you leave rural B.C." under this Liberal government over the last nine years.

Communities are actually struggling to meet their tax rolls, to provide services — water, sewer, garbage and other services that they provide. It's because the tax base has shrunk due to depopulation of rural communities under the deliberate mismanagement of the forestry file and the wholesale destruction of jobs and sawmills all throughout the province in rural British Columbia. That's what has happened.

Here's what the revitalization plan also says: "…and provide long-term contributions to our province's standard of living." Well, well. Look at that — the standard of living. Incomes under this Liberal government, when compared to the rest of the provinces in Canada, have dropped in this province — especially when you go to rural British Columbia, in forest-dependent communities — as a result of the destruction of the forest industry by this Liberal government. That's what's happened. That's what this plan of theirs, with all these goals, has done in British Columbia.

You know, on January 13, 2010, the present Minister of Forests made an announcement that the province will be setting up a new pricing system for timber based on area rather than value, but he's given no exact details at this point about what this would actually look like for B.C. and for forest companies.

Recent media in the Kootenays suggest that companies are concerned about increases to their stumpage fees. It could represent yet another example of the Liberals' preference to leave control of the public forests in the hands of forest companies and just assume that they will actually make decisions that will improve the industry. It just doesn't happen that way. The proof is in the pudding.

What we've seen under this government is no commitment to actual zero net deforestation in this province. They haven't done anything for nine years, and all we got is a measly two-page bill here with nothing in it.

We've seen the wholesale abandonment of communities, the collapse of communities. You look at communities like Fort St. James and Mackenzie. You look at Lytton, at Lillooet, at Quesnel. You look at a whole bunch of other communities all across the province, and they're devastated by the policies of this Liberal government.

I've mentioned the massive job loss. What has happened with the Liberals in this province is the failure of their lack of action, the failure of their policies and the mismanagement and destruction of the forest industry in this province. I've already talked about the abandonment of communities. There's also the loss of jobs that I've talked about. There are also the massive mill closures.

[1715]

There were 75 sawmills, and we now find out that actually there are 60 of the value-added outfits that have been closed under this government in recent years as well.

The 2003 revitalization strategy was actually the gutting of the social contract. They got rid of the appurtenancy clause whereby companies had to keep local jobs and local sawmills open in order to access the timber. I also talked about that before.

There are a whole lot of other things which I'm not going to go into detail about. But the waste that is being left behind, which could actually have prevented the small-scale salvage operators from going under…. The forest worker safety regulations have been gutted. One year there was a record number of fallers that died in the forest industry. I think it was 42.

There are also the raw log exports. Fully — what is it? — 10 percent, if not more, and increasing, the percentage of logs that are leaving raw from this province.

There are the land giveaways — the member from Port Alberni talked about it — to companies and just turning the public forests into private forests.

The mismanagement of the pine beetle file and no reforestation thereof. And silviculture? Well, of course there's almost a million hectares of forest land sitting vacant, which hasn't been reforested under this. It's under the NSR lands.
[ Page 3734 ]

The last point I'm going to make is actually that they're turning their backs on First Nations and their failure to actually fix First Nations forest and range agreements. A report published by the Aboriginal Forest Industries Council entitled Strategic Aboriginal Forestry Enterprise Roadmap, which actually surveyed 90 First Nations with forest and range agreements, ended up finding that despite the volume allocated to First Nations, there's been a corresponding decrease in forest-related employment for First Nations, and they're heavily dependent on the forest industry.

The report also expresses what many First Nations have been saying to us about these deals — that essentially they're not economically viable and that without adequate resources for assistance from this government, First Nations are stuck selling logs in a buyer-controlled market. And that's what's happening.

Of course, the last point is the sellout of the softwood lumber deal. The very next day we're about to win the argument in the international court, this Liberal government cuts a secret deal with Harper and the Americans and virtually gives up our sovereignty over our own forests.

So with all the pronouncements, all we got from the Liberals in terms of reforestation in this province with the zero net deforestation is two pages. One is definitions, and one of them has four puny little sections in it and no strategy, no resources, not even any kind of willingness to actually reforest our forests. With that, I take my seat.

R. Cantelon: I'm pleased to stand up and represent the constituency of Parksville-Qualicum, in central Vancouver Island, and support this bill. It's something that's been called for among my constituents, who share a concern that the forest industry that has been so vital to this economy of the province and to the Island may be threatened by deforestation. It's a worldwide concern, of course, but it affects the economy on Vancouver Island to a great extent and personally.

I appreciate the members opposite making their comments. They talk that their duty is indeed to be critics, and indeed they are critics. They also mention, however, that their criticism has developed into a form of cynicism. I would submit that this cynicism is virtually a cloud — a philosophical cloud through which any germ of an optimistic idea of any originality cannot permeate and express itself in any kind of public policy.

I think, to the minister's credit, the bill is very, very clear, very simple, only on three pages. I think, in presenting this very clear, unequivocal statement that…. Let me read it. To make it as simple as possible so that anybody could understand it: "The government must achieve the goal of zero net deforestation within British Columbia by December 31, 2015." Very simple, very clear, and it outlines a very clear path to first evaluate the current situation and then take steps within the minister's jurisdiction to establish that.

[1720]

It's simple enough even for the members of the opposition to grasp the concept and understand. Indeed, despite their cynicism…. I appreciate their position. They've been over there a number of years without much hope and with no good ideas. But even the member from Port Alberni has expressed that this is a very good idea. I am pleased to hear that they're still able to give these messages of hope. And the member for Fraser-Nicola indicated: "We are excited."

Well, let me encourage the members opposite. I do know that they will support this bill despite this heavy weight, this black cloud of cynicism that seems to pervade their thinking and make it impossible for them to come forward with some innovative ideas. They will support this bill, and enthusiastically.

I want to relate some of my personal experiences as to how this has affected people on Vancouver Island and how this will be a great clarion call, beacon of hope. I was fortunate to be a member of the forestry round table. What struck me, despite the condition of the forest industry….

Of course, we attribute it entirely to the Forests Minister. I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the housing starts in the U.S., our primary market, fell from 2½ million starts to less than half a million. I'm sure the fact that their market collapsed by 75 percent had absolutely nothing to do with the sudden slowing in demand for timber products and the consequential closing — temporary closing — of sawmills.

However, be that what it may, the people I met on the forestry round table were continually optimistic, continually resilient, and they're among the most innovative entrepreneurs in the world. That's why I have such great hope that the forest industry will recover and that Vancouver Island in particular, that great green island, will continue to be a source of employment, of hope, of jobs in the forest industry for generations to come — indeed, for our children and our grandchildren. That's what this bill establishes and guarantees.

It's more than just about silviculture and jobs in the lumber industry. One of the aspects, of course, that I heard on the forestry round table was the fact that young trees, growing trees, capture carbon from the atmosphere at a much higher rate than older, more mature trees — which, like ourselves, slow down with age. But growing, vigorous trees are much more efficient in capturing carbon dioxide from the air and converting it to oxygen. This is going to be of great benefit, and I'm sure that we'll be recognized globally for this.

This is a statement not just to our own people, not just to the people of Canada and British Columbia. It's a statement to the world that this jurisdiction, this province, is committed to net zero deforestation. That will
[ Page 3735 ]
have a powerful statement that will have a powerful effect as we export lumber products around the world — that they can guarantee that the lumber products they buy from our Vancouver Island are from a place that is committed to net zero deforestation and a renewable and sustainable forest industry. It's going to be a powerful statement that goes forward and carries our industry forward.

I want to comment that the people on Vancouver Island are very interested in the future of here. It's not just the people who have moved here and retired and are concerned about the ecological benefits of a growing, green forest around them — to them, that's very important because, of course, stewardship of the forests involves stewardship of the water, the land and the things that we depend on for living — but also the people who hope to continue to see their children have a future here.

Let me speak for a moment about Harmac Pacific, now Nanaimo Forest Products. I think there's the kernel of a new generation of entrepreneurs that are going to spring forward and create new opportunities for people in the forest industry. They decided to take a hard look at how they did business, how they operated their businesses and decided to get together, both workers and union. There's still a union for the workers and the management, but no one is looking over their shoulder. They're doing it themselves.

I was fortunate to be invited to take part and give as much support as I could in encouraging the Attorney General to give precedence to this order from a point of view of jobs — that they should encourage and enable this venture to go forward so that there could be a future, in this case, for a pulp mill on Vancouver Island. I was encouraged that the Attorney General and his staff did indeed implore that the judge give first credence to their presentation.

Notably absent, however, was anybody from the opposition. They weren't there. But perhaps somewhere, lurking in the fog of cynicism, they couldn't get out and grasp the idea that there was hope, that there was another way, that there could be a future for Vancouver Island in forestry.

[1725]

I want to tell you that with respect to Harmac Pacific, this is going to be a very important concept for them because fibre supply is absolutely critical to the pulp industry, and the pulp industry is an absolute key, pivotal part of the forest industry. If we were to lose that, then there would be no reason to carry on. Virtually, we'd be finished. We'd be shipping logs.

The pulp mills demand chips, and chips are created by sawmills. Sawmills, therefore, will have a market for the surplus chips to their industry in the pulp mill. So it's absolutely critical that we maintain pulp mills, to continue to offer the opportunity for an integrated forest management system.

Madam Speaker, I know there are a number of speakers behind me, and I wish to give them an opportunity. I know that despite the cynicism through which they will fight, in the end they'll stand with us and support this bill.

I do want to make one comment, though. The member for Alberni–Pacific Rim commented about carving up real estate. Well, I'm proud to be a former member of the regional district of Nanaimo, which encompasses a large part of the member opposite's constituency, in that they have passed a bylaw prohibiting subdivision of forest land to smaller areas than 100 hectares, which is 200 acres. Clearly, it's in their control.

The member opposite perhaps doesn't know that, although he sat on a municipal government and should know that it is within the purview of the municipal government to stop that. Indeed, they are clearly saying: "Keep the forest lands as forest lands."

So they, too, will be very encouraged. I know that Joe Stanhope, chair of the regional district, who has been a longtime advocate and worker in the forest industry, would be very encouraged to see that we're making a clear commitment, making a clear stand that we're going to preserve the forests, preserve the future of British Columbia. With that, I will take my place and heartily endorse this bill.

D. Donaldson: Hon. Speaker, it's a privilege to rise to speak to the second reading of Bill 5, the Zero Net Deforestation Act. I find it a privilege to speak in this House at any time. I don't take that responsibility lightly. I think it's a hallmark of our democracy that a lot of other nations don't enjoy, so thank you for the privilege of doing this.

I'm going to provide a critical analysis of this bill. Critical analysis means offering up solutions, and I'll be offering up some solutions to the government that I suggest they take into consideration and use to actually reach the intent of this bill.

Like the member for Vernon-Monashee, I've worked in the forest sector. I purposely got involved in the forest sector so I could understand how it works from the inside out. I worked with a forest consulting company. In fact, I was involved in mountain pine beetle–probing work. It was a great job. Unfortunate — the circumstances around the job. But I did that as well as working in a pulp mill at one point.

I have been a reporter, though. I do have journalism training. One of the things we learn in journalism training is that if the story you produce creates more questions than it answers, then it needs a rewrite. This bill creates more questions than it answers, and I say it needs a rewrite. It needs to be taken back and worked on, and I'll talk to a few areas that need a rewrite.

First of all, the underpinnings of the bill, the objectives, require information-gathering. They require solid
[ Page 3736 ]
information-gathering. And what's the entity for that? It's the Ministry of Forests. What was done recently with the Ministry of Forests? Well, it was one of the ministries targeted in the budget cuts, so the capability to supply the information required to carry out the objectives of this bill is seriously compromised.

Let me give an example. The Ministry of Forests was one of the ministries targeted. Its funding is going to be cut by $200 million over the next three years. It was targeted with other ministries. It bore the brunt of a $320 million cut; 60 percent of that was in this ministry. As well, there's going to be a cutback in personnel, we know. Unfortunately, this government does not report out on FTEs specific to ministries anymore, so we're not exactly sure how many FTEs or how many positions will be lost in forestry, but that compromises the ability to carry out the objectives of this act.

[1730]

What is of particular concern to me in the budget document is the $29 million cut to the forest and range resource management that deals with forest health. It deals with forest reforestation practices, reforestation of Crown land and treatment of damaged forests. That's essentially what this bill is addressing.

In forest health, for example, we have, as a result of these cuts, the government spending less on forest health as a proportion of overall spending than ever before at a time when the forests need it the most. Inventory work is a critical part of this bill. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in reference to a net deforestation policy, said: "This government lacks serious efforts to quantify exactly how much forest in the province is not satisfactorily restocked due to fires, pests and disease outbreaks or logging." Not serious efforts to do that, hon. Speaker.

As far as reforestation goes, there's a problem with reforestation as well. What we've seen is seedling numbers dramatically down. There's been very little investment from the government to restock areas affected by the mountain pine beetle, as a matter of fact. This has led to a report. This is from the Kamloops Daily News, the executive director of the Western Silviculture Contractors' Association saying: "The fact that we could be planting fewer trees under these current conditions seems to be a contradiction."

What happens is that when there are fewer resources in the ministry and fewer personnel, it leaves fewer people to deal with innovative solutions. The Wet'suwet'en First Nation in my area has come up with some innovative solutions around silviculture. That involves actually planting cutblocks with species that will satisfy the demand in the future.

Of course, we know the demand for dimensional lumber will perhaps not be as great and will be filled by other jurisdictions. So why not plant these cutblocks for the future, whether it be for bioenergy production or whether it's food sources the Wet'suwet'en describe for their own people? But there's nobody in the ministry that they can get to deal with this matter, and that's a consequence of cutbacks.

My suggestion. I know the members on the other side have asked for suggestions from us, and here's one: I suggest more resources need to be put into this ministry rather than into pet projects. I know that there's a balancing act. There's always a balancing act, for sure.

Right now the balance is way out of whack when you look at, for example, the number of dollars put into urban infrastructure compared to reinvestment in rural areas. It's not just me saying that. I have a letter here addressed to me from the owner of Woodmere Nursery up in my area, a nursery that was dependent on seedling production.

He writes to me, and he says: "With this budget, the final nails have been hammered into the plastic coffins that hold the corpses of forest management, forest providers and small communities." That is the opinion of an owner of a forest nursery business.

If you want this bill to have any meaning, you must properly resource the ministry staff that have to carry out its intent. So there are some suggestions around the ministry.

Now I'll move on to some suggestions around the bill itself. The wording of the bill — there's a section for reporting out, and what it describes is it sets out a reporting-out process. Unfortunately, the reporting process says it should be every year "or as soon as reasonably practicable for each of those years." So let's look at the record.

The record is that the ministry had a state of forests report that they said would come out on a yearly basis starting in 2004 — a yearly basis — and the second report wasn't published until 2006. Well, that's not a yearly basis. That's actually a gap of a year. The third report, and we're still waiting for that, is supposed to be in 2010. It's promised for a release in 2010. That's the record, and that's why there's a lack of credibility on what we can believe from this government when it says "reporting out."

[1735]

I suggest, in the wording of this document, that it actually specifies "must report out every year." Then we can have some trust that there will be documentation every year, not like the track record that we've seen.

There's also under this wording in this section about who will be doing the reporting out. There's another suggestion. Put into this bill who will be reporting out as well as "must come out every year." Of course, there are no resources to attach to this reporting out, and as we've seen, the Ministry of Forests has been cut back. Again, that leads to a questioning and a lack of belief in whether there's sincerity behind this bill or not.

There's another section of the bill, and it has to do with the power to make regulations. I'll just read a small
[ Page 3737 ]
section of it. The government "may make regulations…respecting the methodology by which deforestation and afforestation" — which is the planting of trees — "are to be calculated." So the government can make decisions about that, regulations about that.

Well, again, let's look at the track record. Just recently this government has quietly changed most of the performance measures in its own service plan about reporting out on these kinds of things. Up till now it had to report annually about how much forest lands have been denuded by harvesting, fires and disease.

What happens now? Instead of reporting out the percentage of timberland that has been restocked on an annual basis, they will forecast the degree to which this year's reforestation activity is expected to boost timber supplies 65 years down the road. Again, very little confidence in what the terminology of this bill is. Make it more specific; make it more prescriptive.

I'll just finish off with the definition of deforestation again. It's left open to regulation. There's not enough specificity. It says that areas can be excluded. If there are areas to be excluded from what counts as deforestation, then I say list them. Otherwise, there's too much leeway, too much wriggle room in this.

I had to be brief today because we have many speakers on the list and we want to give the minister the chance to address it before the end of the day. I wanted to finish off with one more quote, from the owner of Woodmere Nursery, a person who has lots of knowledge in this field. He says, in a letter to me: "Reading between the lines, this government does not care about managing our resources for the future."

In the analysis I've offered, it's hard not to disagree with that opinion. This government can try to start reversing the impression this industry professional has and many people have by withdrawing Bill 5 and rewriting it with some of the suggestions I've made and others on this side have made and, also, implementing some of the solutions around properly financing the Ministry of Forests so that we can actually get to the intent of Bill 5.

With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for letting me speak on this bill.

C. Trevena: Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to add my comments to the Zero Net Deforestation Act, Bill 5 and like my colleagues ahead of me, will keep it quite brief. Time is pressing on in this debate, and many issues have been covered.

I wanted to add my voice to it, because I represent a forest-based community that has a very interesting balance. There are a lot of forest workers there who are looking for hope and looking for inspiration and looking for work, many of them. We've seen a lot of jobs go on the north Island, yet there's still a lot of faith in the forest industry and the forest sector and the use of trees in the community.

In fact, Mount Waddington is the B.C. Forest Capital of 2010. There is really a sense of future there. It's also a community that has a lot of environmentalists, who would like to see a genuine attempt at deforestation, afforestation and reforestation, and a genuine attempt to fight climate change.

[1740]

It's on that behalf that I stand up and talk on this bill, but it's also in that respect that I have many questions about the bill that previous members have also talked about. Basically, it's from all sides, whether it's people who work in the forest industry….

I know this isn't about the forest industry. It's about afforestation outside the regular forest industry. I know the minister made that clear in his opening remarks about this, but it's based on the government's track record within the forest industry — that there is really a lack of credibility to this bill.

We've seen so much damage in the North Island over the last seven or eight years, which has come, effectively, as a result of the government's record. We've seen cut control go. We've seen the massive export of logs. We've seen a huge rush on the industry, and we've seen the loss of a huge number of jobs, which all has a massive impact. And the minister is quite right, that it has a massive impact on climate change, because we need to have trees to absorb carbon dioxide. I think this is very much a grade school approach now. We know the importance of trees in the equation.

So this bill is not about the forest industry. It's about displacement. Will this mean that in areas where there are independent power projects developing, where they are logging massively and questionably, that there will be trees replacing those trees that are logged? Will that replace the old growth that is being logged in that displacement? I think these are questions that need to be answered, and I don't think they are being answered in this bill that is having a climate change cloak put on it.

The other issue that is very important for my community which is looking for work that is reliant on the forest industry and was referred to by my colleague, the member for Cariboo North, is the huge impact on climate change, on emissions, on the wastes left in the bush. If the government was very serious about addressing climate change through the use of the forest industry, through the use of afforestation, the first thing it would do would be to go in there and deal with that. It would be able to create jobs. It would deal with a lot of the emissions questions and would put a real credible face on this.

I note that many people have spoken before on this issue. I will be repeating many of the things that they are saying. I just want to touch on one last point, and that is the question of forest health — that we really don't have a good idea of what is happening on the ground, and without that, we can't move forward and
[ Page 3738 ]
claim that this is going to be the solution for climate change. It's not going to be the solution either for forest health, because the plantations aren't necessarily the healthiest ecosystems.

We've got to look at the inventory. This side of the House has been calling for a full inventory of what's on the land base. I would hope that the government would take that. It's the perfect vehicle to do that — have an inventory of the land base, so we know what needs planting, where it needs planting.

On that note, I will take my place. I think that this is a feel-good bill. It has a title that nobody can object to — absolutely no content that anybody can object to. The reality will be in what comes out of regulation, and I have a fear that it will not be the solution for either climate change or for the forest industry that my community and all parts of my community need.

H. Bains: It is my privilege and I'm honoured to stand here today to speak about an industry that actually has fed my family ever since I came to Canada. This is the industry that has fed many families in this province right from the inception.

When I started in 1973 at Eburne Sawmills, which is in south Vancouver — the mill that no longer is there is replaced by blacktop like hundreds of other sawmills since that time — I was told that since I've got a job in the forest industry and it's a Canfor forest product, that I've got a job for life.

Sure enough, when I walked into that sawmill I saw people, up to three generations, working in that sawmill. I thought: "I've got it made."

[1745]

If you fast-forward 35 years, today many children of parents who are dependent on the forest industry are leaving small towns, coming to the Lower Mainland. Why? Because their parents are telling them: "Don't get into the forest industry. There's no future in the forest industry."

"Why is that such a change?" I ask. It has something to do with the market. There's no question about that. The forest industry, ever since I've been involved in it, has been a cyclical industry. But largely what we are facing today is the neglect by the Liberal government of an industry that drove the economic engine of this province. They neglected it starting in 2003, when they brought in the Forest Revitalization Act through which they basically gave away the trees and the forests that belonged to us to the CEOs of forest industry. Now, I don't blame the CEOs. They're doing the best they can for their shareholders.

Who neglected us, the province and the workers in their communities here, is this government, because they gave up this industry. They are the ones who should have shown the leadership so that there are some incentives provided to the forest industry CEOs to reinvest in the province.

Since 2003 Interfor and Canfor have left this province to invest in other jurisdictions, all thanks to the appurtenancy clause being removed from the Forest Revitalization Act, because the social contract that existed here since the 1950s was gutted by this minister.

I must say I'm very, very limited to the time today. I have a lot to say. I must say that the people that I represent — Surrey-Newton and, for that purpose, Surrey…. We were a forestry-dependent town just like many of the rural communities out there. Now I go from here and take a cab to go home. I see many of those forestry workers with disappointment in their eyes. They proudly used to tell me, "Hey, I used to work in the forest industry," because they recognized that I was from the forest industry.

But we are now forced to take jobs other than the forest industry. There are hundreds, thousands of them. It really pains me to see the way the forest industry is going, the way this government is showing contempt for the forest industry, for the forestry workers and for the communities that they live in.

Madam Speaker, I understand the time is running out. I know the minister has to make some closing remarks. I say: "Good luck, Minister, in China. Hope you sell some forestry product over there. Don't come back with just catchy phrases. Show some substance, unlike the opportunity that you missed here under Bill 5."

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite says: "Bring back some sales." Just to advise the member opposite that the sales for the month of January were 447 percent of the numbers for January 2009, and in 2009 we were over double what we were in 2008. So we have made significant headway in the Chinese marketplace.

I'll just close very quickly by saying that this is clearly a reporting act. That's what we committed to. That's what we've delivered here. It very specifically designates a report requirement every second year, a balancing by 2015 and a continuation on that basis.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We've heard actually, I think, some reasonably interesting debate at times but also some pretty flagrant rhetoric from members for Fraser-Nicola, Cariboo North and the Cowichan Valley. These are, particularly, individuals who should know better than that.

I found it particularly interesting that the member for Cariboo North was the designated speaker, since he is not the critic or the second critic, I understand. I found it quite interesting that he saw fit to take up an extensive amount of time. I find that a bit abnormal.

Much of the information that the member for Cariboo North tabled is inaccurate. I could go through a number
[ Page 3739 ]
of the comments, but given the amount of time that we have, I won't do that today. I hope that we have the opportunity during the committee phase to do that.

With that, I move second reading.

[1750-1755]

Second reading of Bill 5 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. P. Bell: I move that Bill 5 be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 5, Zero Net Deforestation 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.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SMALL BUSINESS, TECHNOLOGY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Hayer in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $47,426,000 (continued).

Hon. I. Black: Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to share some broader remarks, defining our ministry a little bit and the very wide range of things that this ministry does. I won't repeat all of those. But I would like to say — for the member's benefit, the member from Mount Pleasant — and advise her that the letter we discussed, dated February 8, I believe it was, has been delivered to her office. She is now in possession of that.

I am advised that the specific question that she also asked surrounding the minutes of the Small Business Roundtable — that that material was not included in that letter. However, I've asked staff to have that furnished to the member opposite by the end of the day today.

J. Kwan: The minister's executive assistant did deliver the package to my office around the lunch hour. I haven't had a chance, I must admit, to look through the entire package.

Having a first, quick glance at it, it seemed to begin to address some of the questions that I posed in the estimates from last year, but because I haven't had the full opportunity to canvass the document, there may well be questions arising. And of course, the estimates debate for this ministry will likely go beyond today, in any event, so we'll have a chance to come back to it, and I will get a chance to digest that material at a later time.

Picking up where we left off before lunch. We were dealing with the HST issue, and so I'd like to just wrap up that area. The minister's assistant also did ask me, though, what the next area after the HST is that we might canvass. So the next area, just for the minister's information and his staff's information…. As I stated earlier today, I'm going to go into a little bit of the discretionary spending side of things — venture capital funds, ICE funding and then Olympic-related matters.

I do see that one of my colleagues has come in, and I know that she's interested in, in particular, the Olympic spending and related area within the ministry. So we may actually jump the queue on that and push that up after the HST piece, if that's okay. But if that's not okay, we'll keep sort of the original order. Yeah, we're okay to do that? Okay.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: She advises that she's here for two hours anyway, so we will wrap up the HST piece, and then we'll move on to the next area.

Okay, so we were talking about the impacts on the food and restaurants foodservices association. The minister indicated, or at least hinted to some extent, that perhaps the association had a change of heart since the HST announcement came out, and that somehow they are now more in favour of the HST as opposed to outright against it.

As I mentioned, I have with me a letter that the president and CEO of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association had written to various political leaders asking them to not support the HST.

[1435]

In fact, they urged them to withhold support for the HST. That's an equivalent to not supporting the HST.

Since that time, there's been also ongoing documentation in the public realm from the association where they
[ Page 3740 ]
are against the HST. I see it all throughout my community, as well, where they have launched their campaign against HST for meals in the restaurant business sector.

The analysis, of course, done by the restaurant association folks is not the only analysis that has been done on the HST. There are others as well. The TD Bank had done one on the effects of the HST on prices, and they indicated that some things, of course, would go up in price and some would go down. But the analysis was that, overall, prices would go up.

Generally speaking, they're also talking about a tax shift. The figure they use is $1.7 billion — pretty close to the government's figure, which is $1.9 billion — in terms of tax shift to the consumers. They range in a variety of areas. Some of them mentioned include food purchases — prepared food purchased at stores; restaurant food; most financial services; telephone and cable; other services like cleaning, landscaping, etc.; personal care services — haircuts, for example; recreational services; professional services; taxis — and so on. So the impact of it is not insignificant.

I just want to say, as well, that it was interesting to note that the Minister of Tourism has actually admitted that many businesses would be hurt by the HST — unlike this minister, who would not even acknowledge that — saying that: "HST is going to be good for all concerned, but there are exceptions."

Finally, the Council of Tourism Associations has done an extensive review on the HST and its implication for that sector — and rightfully so, because they are going to be significantly impacted by this.

Some people will say that the HST is not that bad, and they keep citing the whole thing about the credits that will be transferred back to businesses. They also cite comparisons with other jurisdictions. Interesting to note that Atlantic Canada, where they also have the HST, has been widely cited as proof that there are positive impacts of that tax.

But comparing the Maritimes versus British Columbia, the sales tax harmonization in Atlantic Canada resulted in an overall tax reduction from roughly 19 percent to 15 percent and subsequently to 13 percent. The impact of harmonization on the Atlantic Canada service sector, including tourism, was lessened by the fact that fewer tourism-related goods and services were exempt from the provincial sales or retail tax.

That is to say that prior to HST they already had a sales and retail tax, unlike British Columbia, where the food and services sector and tourism sector, for example, were PST-exempt. So with the harmonization policy, they will actually see a tax increase and not a tax reduction. Last but not least, of course, the HST in the Maritimes was not implemented at a time of widespread global recession and unprecedented lack of consumer confidence.

I've mentioned some of the products that will see a tax increase in the small business sector. There are others, as well, specifically with the tourism industry. Even meetings and convention rooms will see a tax increase.

Campgrounds, RV parks, attractions, festivals, events, arts and culture and heritage-type events, golf, ski and other like recreation, adventure tourism products, transportation services, spas, health and wellness — these are just some of the other areas that the sector points out as facing a major impact from HST.

[1440]

Likewise, in the case of Ontario. There are key differences, as well, between Ontario and British Columbia. I won't go into those because those arguments are not unlike that of the Maritimes. The thrust of it is that British Columbia is significantly different from that of those other provinces.

From a business perspective, and particularly from a small business perspective, there are going to be significant impacts. That's the prediction of those from the industry — not from us, myself, but rather from people who are in the field who are small business owners and are going to be faced with this impact.

Last but not least, I want to say this, as well, and to put this on record. I note with interest that…. This has dominated debate, I think, since the election. It was a major centrepiece of an election promise that was broken, if you will, and British Columbians do feel misled by the government on this front. To that end, opposition members have worked hard to try to get answers and to get to the bottom of this issue, raise this matter with various different ministers.

The Minister of Citizens' Services had this to say, and I thought it was noteworthy to contrast the behaviour of different ministers in their approach to addressing this critical issue as it impacts our communities. Let me quote from the Minister of Citizens' Services.

Speaking in response to the critic in raising questions around the HST, he said: "You've raised some very important questions, and I don't disagree that the citizens of British Columbia deserve answers to what you have brought up. We don't have all those answers today, because we're still doing the analysis in our own area." Note that Citizens' Services are doing analysis in their own area.

This minister, contrasting for a moment, who has responsibility for small businesses in his ministry and is the minister who deals with that group of stakeholders who will face tremendous impacts as a result of HST said earlier today that the ministry, his ministry, will not be doing any analysis regarding the HST. So it's interesting to note that the Ministry of Citizens' Services will be doing analysis of their own.

Then he goes on to say: "I know that it would be nice to have all the answers, but as business persons, both of us and having produced things" — he was referring to himself and the critic — "we have to sit down and go through the process of how much embedded PST — or
[ Page 3741 ]
those types of discussions we can have — is in every single item that we have in our production chain."

So he acknowledges the fact that there are services and goods that would have to deal with the impacts of HST that formerly did not have the PST applied to it, and its implications. Then he goes on to say, skipping some passages: "I would like to offer, to be able to debate and have the discussion about the embedded HST in the upcoming spring of 2010 budget. I give you my assurance that we'll try to answer those questions at that time."

I raise this just simply to show the stark contrast in approach in addressing these issues. All through these estimates on the HST issue, this minister has refused to answer questions related to it, saying that it's not his responsibility, that it is the Minister of Finance's responsibility.

He further goes on to say that his ministry has done no analysis nor do they intend to do any analysis, that it is all the Minister of Finance's and his ministry's responsibility. Contrast that with his colleague, who takes a different point of view, and frankly, it's a breath of fresh air in the context of what this minister has been offering in the estimates today.

I would argue that the Minister of Citizens' Services has got the right approach in the sense that I believe it is this minister's responsibility to find out what the impacts of government policies are for his stakeholders. His stakeholders in this instance are the small business community, which he says, by his own admission, is the economic engine of British Columbia. And 98 percent of the businesses in British Columbia are from the small business sector, of which, by his own admission, 75 percent are from the service-oriented industries.

[1445]

They are going to be hit like there's no tomorrow with HST, in an unprecedented way, and the least the minister and his ministry could do, under his direction, is to find out what the impacts are — hopefully, although, I guess, futilely for me to hope for that, for the minister to be that advocate for the sector around the cabinet table.

In any event, it is what it is, and that's where we're at. The fight will no doubt continue, and the tax bills that were just introduced today in the House…. We'll be looking forward to debating those in due time, and we'll see how this entire situation will unfold.

With that, I'd be happy, then, to move on to the next area of discussion, but I suspect that the minister may want to say a few words before we move on to the next area.

Hon. I. Black: First, a couple of points of clarification for the member opposite. She made reference to the fact that there was some sort of admission on my part as to the reliance and strength of our small business community. I want to make it clear that that was not an admission; that was a point of pride. There is absolutely no desire to hide behind the success that our small business community has enjoyed and how they have flourished since 2001, so that is not in any way an admission.

I want to make sure that the characterization of my statements is very clear — that it's a bragging point, and it's a bragging point on their behalf as we cheer them on in their success as the men and women around this province who put so much on the line to grow their small businesses, see the success come their way and take advantage of the many things that this government has done to enable their success since 2001.

I want to just go through some of the comments that were made, specifically related to the exchange we had before lunch. I want to repeat very clearly my comments regarding the food and beverage association and the restaurant association here in British Columbia, where I specifically said I was not speaking on behalf of Mr. Tostenson. I merely encouraged the member opposite to canvass his views as to where he stands in the number of months that have transpired, and I will not speculate as to what those views may be when it comes to the HST. I just suggested that a refresher may be in order.

The second comment I made, however, where I did speculate and where I did suggest that I may be proven right, is that if, in that conversation, the member opposite, or any member opposite, were to canvass Mr. Tostenson as to whether the tax policies of our government, both in terms of where we have been and where we are going, would be preferred any day of the week over the suggested tax policies, both behind us and ahead of us, of the NDP, we would be seen most favourably, without any qualification on that statement.

Turning to the questions that have been put to me to kind of goad me into the conversation around the HST…. If the member opposite would like to debate with me tax policy — as to our view that the 4½ percent income tax rate of our small business community, which is what it was when we took office in 2001, and whether we felt that it was correct to bring it down to 2½ percent and then announce that we should eliminate it entirely by 2012 — I'm all for that debate, just not here.

If the member opposite would like to debate with me as to whether it was correct to take the small business tax threshold of $200,000 and double it, first to $400,000 and then increase it again to half a million dollars, to keep as much money in the pockets of those small business owners as possible as they grow their businesses through those crucial early years…. If they want to have that debate, I'm all for it, just not here.

If the member opposite would like to debate with me the notion of deregulation, whether it was appropriate to attack that policy and to eliminate 42 percent of the regulations and the 152,000 regulations that were eliminated under our government, I'm glad to have that debate as well, just not here.
[ Page 3742 ]

Likewise, when it comes to the HST, I have had the privilege of touring this province, speaking with many chambers of commerce as an invited guest, speaking about HST and its benefits to the small business community. I'm reasonably well-versed in what it means to the small business community, how it benefits them, where it benefits them, the mechanics behind it. I'm quite well-versed in all of that.

That's a great debate to have. I would relish the opportunity to debate with members opposite on that point, and have done so in the large chamber of this Legislature more than once, giving 20-, 25-minute dissertations of my allowed half-hour specifically on that one focus. I will take any opportunity to do so again — just not here, because the focus of this area, of course, is the 2010 and 2011 budgets of my ministry.

[1450]

Now, there was one other comment that was made that I'd like to correct from the member opposite, which is that there's some reference to the fact that there was no interest, according to…. The member opposite suggested that there was no interest in any type of analysis being done by our ministry. I want to correct, for those who didn't have the opportunity to take in the spirited exchange that we had this morning, to make it clear that what I was saying is that the analysis as to the impacts of any tax is done by the Ministry of Finance.

If the question put to us was: do we have any line item…? It was actually a question about our 2010-11 budgets as I took the question. Do we have any expenditures anticipated in the coming year to perform an impact analysis of some kind with respect to the HST? My answer was that that type of analysis is done by the experts in the Ministry of Finance. We rely on them. We depend on them.

They've been investigating this tax policy and many other tax policies for decades and decades, and we rely on them to give us the information as to how it affects our primary stakeholder group of the small business community.

The member opposite then went on to…. The phrase she used was to illustrate a stark contrast as to the remarks of my friend and colleague the Minister of Citizens' Services as he stood where I am now, I imagine. I don't know for certain, because it wasn't said. But I imagine the reference was to remarks he may have made during the estimates process and how he engaged on the topic of the HST.

But if you listen…. I did not hear them, so I will add as a disclaimer that I haven't pulled the full Hansard record. But as I understood them from the member opposite, in fact there is no sharp contrast at all, because what the Minister of Citizens' Services was responding to, as I listened to the full recital from the member opposite, was that he was talking about the impact of the HST on his ministry operations during the 2010 and 2011 years. That is precisely the purpose of this forum.

A question of that type is entirely appropriate for the forum we are in at the moment. When he focused his answers on — "the breath of fresh air," I believe, was the phrase used to discuss — the HST in the context of his ministry operations, that is entirely appropriate, to ask about what the financial impacts are in your ministry for the 2010 and 2011 year as you conduct your business on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

If the member opposite or any of the members opposite would like to take me down that path and line of questioning and actually speak about Budget 2010-2011, I would be delighted.

J. Kwan: Interestingly, some of the things that the minister had claimed credit to and touted as examples of what a great job they are doing happen to be areas which were initiated under the NDP. In fact, the cutting of the red tape was actually initiated by my colleague — my former colleague, I guess — Joy MacPhail, who has done extensive work in that regard under different names. So be it. The minister likes to call it a different name in today's terms. But still, the initiative of cutting red tape was actually done and begun under the New Democrats.

Another area that the minister likes to talk about is the cutting of the small business tax. Actually, that too began under the NDP. Of course, the government has carried it further, and that's good, but the minister cannot deny the fact that those were initiatives that began under the NDP as well.

The minister did say, though…. I did ask over and over again for studies related to the impacts of the HST by his ministry pertaining to the sector that he's responsible for, namely the small business sector. The record of Hansard will be there for all to see, and the minister's response was that they had not done it. He passed it on to the Minister of Finance to say that it's their responsibility. But with all due respect, I disagree. I disagree with that approach, and the minister ought to have directed his staff to undertake some studies around that. But he hasn't done so.

Maybe I can ask this. If the fact is that his ministry hasn't done the work, and given that he has the responsibility of the small business sector then, let me ask the minister this question. Has he seen any of those studies done by the Ministry of Finance relating to the HST as it impacts the small business sector, the stakeholders to which he's responsible in his ministry?

[1455]

Hon. I. Black: One of the things that you notice when you have this job is that there are times when the citizenry, irrespective of their partisan views, will compliment government, which is in many cases seen as a bureaucracy that is very large. I have to say that it has been refreshing to hear the commentary that I have from
[ Page 3743 ]
the members of our small business community as I've toured the province on our Small Business Roundtable. I personally go, by the way. There is a Small Business Roundtable and a small business secretariat.

I do attend these consultations myself, and I have at firsthand heard many, many times something that is — I'll use the word "surprising" — really very encouraging, which is a compliment on the government's website, which doesn't happen often.

Websites are a funny animal in many businesses, and for government to be complimented for theirs, I thought was very cool, to be blunt. The commentary made around it was the degree of detail and the focus on that website pertaining to the HST. I have repeatedly now — as people have come up with questions about the HST and how it affects them — taken our small business community and directed them to that website. As I've said here many times today, this is the purview of the Ministry of Finance, after all.

There is a specific section on that website pertaining, I'm advised, specifically to the small business community and the impact of the HST on them. So in the absence of the Minister of Finance standing here in my place, I would suggest to the member opposite that that website does have some very good analysis as to the impact of the HST on the small business community.

J. Kwan: That wasn't my question to the minister. We have looked at the various websites — and beyond the government websites, I might add — on the issues of the HST, and in other languages too, I may say. There are lots of comments from the small business community — not quite as glowing as the minister would like you to believe them to be, from the small business sector; in fact, some of them quite negative and damning — against the HST. Many of them are working as best as they can to try to stop the HST.

Having said that, my question to the minister is very specific, and, seeing as the budget pays his salary, I would deem that it would be appropriate for him to answer the question. And that is: has he seen any of the reports conducted by the Ministry of Finance, as he claims that they've been done under that ministry, on analysis and impacts of the HST on the small business community?

Hon. I. Black: The reports that I was referring to have been cross-industry and have been focused on business, which would include the small business community — again, furnished by the Ministry of Finance.

J. Kwan: Can the minister name one study?

[1500]

Hon. I. Black: The amount of material that I've read on this topic in the number of months since the announcement of it is quite large. I'm not sure whether it's helpful to the member or not, but the most recent one that I've read was the one released March 8 by Jack Mintz, which was a report that I'd be pleased to furnish to the member if she so desires.

As a courtesy to her, I'd be pleased to find links to the various parts of the website if she likes. I can point her to the direction, and hopefully, she can find the information she's looking for.

J. Kwan: Well, what an interesting answer. You know, a lot of thought went into that answer, no doubt, and the best that the minister could come up was the Jack Mintz report, which is, of course, fascinating in and of itself. That study was conducted after the fact and not before the HST was implemented. It's understandable, I suppose, because of all the pressure that was put on the government, that perhaps they'd better go and do a study of sorts.

I suspect, though, that with Jack Mintz's report there's more to it than what meets the eye. If the minister has seen that report in full, and not just the excerpts that have been released to the public, then could the minister please tell me: within that report are there sections that pertain particularly to the impacts on the small business community of the HST?

Hon. I. Black: Hon. Chair, it has been said several times in here today already. If we wanted to get a debate around this, we can do it. If the member has questions around it, we can do it, but not in this venue. If the member has questions around Budget 2010-2011, I'd be delighted to do so. If she wants copies of reports that are published by the Ministry of Finance, she can go there to get them, or as a courtesy, we can try to find them on her behalf.

The Chair: Member. I will remind the member again, if we can focus on Vote 43, please.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Yes, indeed, the budget actually pays for the minister's salary, and to the extent to which he's the Minister of Small Business, I would be very interested in knowing what knowledge base he has in researching this issue, with respect to the HST taxation policy impacting his major stakeholder within his ministry — namely, the small business community. I would suspect that his salary is within the purview of this debate, and what work he is undertaking.

He keeps on saying that he's willing to go and actually engage in the debate outside of this House. It is funny, you know. This is the House of the people, where we actually engage in discussions around issues related to the people, and the small business community just happens to be a ministry to which he's supposed to be responsible.
[ Page 3744 ]

Noting that, though — the issue around the report — the minister actually didn't answer the question at all. One could only assume that the very fact that he didn't answer the question is because he hasn't done that work or he hasn't read the report or he doesn't know. Otherwise, I suspect, there'd be a different answer.

It is this minister's approach to things — where he is more than happy to tout the information and put it out there, information that he'd like to indicate to the public that he knows, but where, I suppose, on information that he doesn't know, the better approach would be to fob it off to someone else and say: "It's not my responsibility."

[1505]

Sadly, frankly, it's not good enough. It's not good enough. He is the minister of the Crown responsible for this. I would have expected that he would have done that homework. No doubt these questions will be going to the Minister of Finance as well, and not just to the minister responsible for small business. One would have thought that he would have done that work.

But aside from the Jack Mintz report, I'm interested: are there any other reports that the minister might have come across with respect to the impacts of the HST on the small business community?

Hon. I. Black: Notwithstanding the kind of rather personal nature of the attack that's now taking place, hon. Chair, I rest confident in the views of the small business community as to the performance of this ministry and this government over the last eight years.

I'm not kept up late at night wondering about the views of the member opposite as to my personal contribution to that effort, because that is coming to us in spades in a very positive level from the small business community consistently, repeatedly, through every Small Business Roundtable that we do — and the fact that we listen to them and engage with them. We take their ideas.

They write a report. They issue it to government on an annual basis, and we have an action plan that falls out of that, which they have authored, telling us what we need to do next and where we need to go next, all of which is a matter of public record.

I again would be delighted to engage in this debate, as the member says, in this House — the large chamber next door where the legislation has been debated and where the budget speeches have been responded to and the throne speeches have been responded to.

I have been very clear in my remarks in my support for the HST and have no problem at all debating in any forum other than the one we're currently in. Why? Because the one we're currently in, by its very definition, is focused on a vote pertaining to the $60 million of taxpayer money that is being spent on their behalf in the ministry for the year 2010 through to 2011. In that regard, I'd be delighted with any questions that come within the purview of why we're here today.

The Chair: Member, I would remind you again that we're here on Vote 43.

J. Kwan: Yes indeed, Mr. Chair, and the minister is denying that Vote 43 pays for his salary. It actually talks about his work — right? — and what he is doing in his capacity as the minister of state responsible for the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development.

Does it not do that, and does it not then open it up to the work that the minister is undertaking related to this taxation policy impacting his stakeholders? What work has he undertaken, then? He won't answer any questions related to his ministry.

You know what? The minister says these are personal questions. No, they're not. They're not personal questions. They're questions pertaining to the ministry and the stakeholders as they impact them and what he's doing as the minister in that capacity, in that regard. That's why I'm asking those questions.

If he was forthcoming in answering the questions in the broader sense of what the ministry is doing, then we could move forward. But he wouldn't. He continues to avoid these questions, to obfuscate and push them off to someone else. So what choice do I have, Mr. Chair?

In this context, this is why the minister is faced with these questions, and maybe it's making him feel uncomfortable. That's not the intent. The intent is to try to get some answers here to see what sort of advocate we have and what studies have been done within the ministry, by the government. What understanding and extent of the understanding does the minister himself have with respect to the impacts of the HST on his major stakeholder group? So far all I've heard…. No doubt the minister can make endless speeches prepared by the public affairs bureau to spout out what a great job they're doing.

Just for the minister's information, stakeholder groups from his ministry have said to us in opposition that had they known the HST was on the table before the election — in other words, had the Liberals not misled the public during the election period and said that they would not implement the HST only to turn around and do exactly that — that would have been their number one issue during the campaign.

This was communicated to us by a variety of stakeholders from the small business sector, Mr. Chair. They continue to say that. They've said it on the public record, and they most certainly have said it privately, as well, to various opposition members at different times.

[1510]

So it's very interesting to note that the minister simply doesn't want to deal with these issues in this context. It's clear to me that the minister, frankly, in my view….
[ Page 3745 ]
I believe the minister hadn't actually looked at those reports in any detail, if he's looked at them at all.

In fact, I'm not even sure if there are reports that exist related to impacts to the small business community. If there are…. He offered to actually go to get the Mintz report for me, which is on the public record, and I appreciate that offer. But maybe he can offer this. Get the reports that are not on the public record — particularly the reports that impact the small business community, pertaining to the HST.

How about those? How about tabling those for the public eye, and then maybe we can actually get some facts on the table for discussion.

Hon. I. Black: Just for the record, I didn't say the questions were of a personal nature; I said that the attack was of a personal nature. There's a distinct difference. The questions are not at all of a personal nature and not at all relevant to why we are here.

The member opposite asked the pertinent question, somewhat rhetorical, of what choice she has. Well, I would suggest the choice she has is to ask me questions about my budget.

The Chair: May I please remind the member…. I think it's getting repetitive now. The minister has answered the questions you were looking for. Maybe we can go to different questions. I don't know if the answers will be different.

J. Kwan: No kidding it's getting repetitive that the minister is not answering the questions. It's clear as day. Even though it's cloudy out there, it's clear as day that the minister is not answering the questions. And it's for the public to see. People can see what's going on here. I think they can see through it as well — why the minister is not answering those questions. The public will speak, Mr. Chair, no doubt, on this issue plus many others.

Frankly, for a minister who is responsible for the small business community to not take this matter seriously in the manner in which he's responded is very unfortunate. It's unfortunate for the sector, it's unfortunate for the economy, and it's unfortunate for British Columbians who rely on this sector to generate the economy for everyone's benefit.

The next area…. I would like to move on, because obviously, the minister is not going to come around to recognizing the importance of providing factual information to the public on the HST. The minister, well, prefers not to table the facts. Let's just put it at that — shall we? Their practice has been to mislead the public, and that's a much better approach for the Liberal government, no doubt.

We're now going to move on to the next area, which my good colleague has been waiting patiently to engage with the minister on: Olympic-related matters as they pertain to the ministry. I'll pick up after that.

K. Corrigan: I had some questions related to the Olympics and some costs associated with the Olympics. Last year in estimates the Minister of State for the Olympics, Mary McNeil, said that she would be able to provide numbers — the number of employees that were involved in the employee loan program for VANOC, that they would be tracked and accounted for. But she wasn't able to provide any of that data at that time. In fact, I haven't received any of that data yet.

I also was told by her at one point, in an exchange, that maybe what I should do when I want to get information about costs of the games, various costs, is to go to the individual ministers involved. So I'm going to ask questions of the minister of state and I will ask them of individual ministers as well. That's why I'm here today.

My first question. I'm wondering if the minister could let me know the total number of paid employees that this ministry loaned to the games.

[1515]

Hon. I. Black: Again, for the sake of consistency, the 2010 Olympic Games, as marvellous a celebration as they were and successful as they were, took place in the '09-10 year, not in the '10-11 year. If the member has some questions on our go-forward plan with respect to exploiting the Olympic Games, opportunities in our '10-11 budget, I'd be pleased to answer them in this venue and any other questions that I could take outside of this venue.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm going to go through these questions anyway, because if the minister is going to tell me that this information is not going to be provided in estimates after I asked in the last estimates for the minister of state responsible to provide the information, and I was told, at a time when the estimates were almost over — so we were towards the last of the ministries — that the way to do that was to ask in estimates of the various ministers involved….

This is the first opportunity that I've had to do that, so I just want to get it on the record. If the answer is that we're not going to be able to get that information, then I want to be clear. So I will ask all of these questions and give the minister the opportunity to respond.

However, as an alternative, I would certainly welcome it if the minister would confirm — perhaps not answering here — that I will receive that information and in a timely way. I'm sorry to be pushy about that, but I did ask the minister of state in the estimates in October for that information, and I haven't received a bit of it yet.

I need to try to get some clarity and to try to tie this down, because we were told by not only the minister
[ Page 3746 ]
but also by the head of the Olympic secretariat, Philip Steenkamp, that that information was going to be tracked — that it would be tracked and that it would be available and that that could be given to me. That hasn't happened yet.

Considering that there is an estimate of perhaps up to $23 million — that was one of the estimates, I think, that was in the paper — of how much this is going to cost the provincial government and given the fact that we're being told that this is not part of the $765 million that is supposed to be the full cost of the Olympic Games, I think it's important to the taxpayers of British Columbia to try to tie down what these numbers are. I think it's surprising that the minister would not want to be forthright about this information, if the information is available.

I've already gone to another estimates where the information was there. It was ready for me, and I received it. I really appreciated the forthright manner in which it was put together and provided to me. In contrast, I guess that I'm not going to get the same cooperation here.

Just to be clear, then. Would the minister agree to provide, perhaps within the next couple of weeks, the information that I just requested — that is, the number of employees that were engaged in the employee loan program for the Olympic Games and, in addition, how much that would have been worth, essentially — in other words, what their salaries were and how long they were gone — so the total amount that would be attached to those employees going to the employee loan program, whether or not that amount includes benefits and who paid them, which ministry paid them? That's the first set of…. That's the question at this point.

Hon. I. Black: Again, I'm not trying to be unnecessarily obtuse here, but for the benefit of those watching at home, the purpose of our discussion here is to discuss the $60 million of taxpayer money that is to be used in the operations of the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development for the period of April 1, 2010, through to March 31, 2011.

[1520]

I am advised…. To the member's question: first of all, I can't speak for any other ministers who have been standing where I'm standing here. I can't really comment on what has been said or not said or the context and the specifics of other ministers, but what I can say is that the Olympic Games secretariat is, as I understand it, publishing a report on this topic. I'm advised that information from our ministry has been forwarded to that report, and at that time that information should satisfy the request of the member opposite.

K. Corrigan: My problem is that I don't know what that report is going to include. I don't know whether it's going to include a breakdown of all the ministries and how many employees there were in each ministry and how much that was worth and who those people were or what their positions were, which is information that I'm interested in.

I'll tell the minister why I'm interested in that. I'll give you an example. I was downtown during the Olympics having a great time one day, and I ran into a friend of mine who has a very senior position in government and who I would imagine is paid probably in the range of — I don't know — probably $120,000 or $130,000 a year, a fairly high-level employee.

That person was spending two weeks of taxpayer-funded time as a host — assigned to be there as a host, as a volunteer for the Olympic Games — and said unequivocally that it wasn't a question of whether they wanted to go. They were assigned to do it. That's a cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia — and a diversion from their work — of several thousand dollars for that person.

I think it's important for the taxpayers to find out this information. I have no idea what the Olympic secretariat report is going to say, so I'm going to continue asking the questions, because I want it to be clear and on the record that I'm being told that I'm not going to be allowed to have this information, which is part of this ministry, which should have been tracked and apparently has been tracked, and which I was directed to come back to estimates for.

My understanding was to come back to estimates to ask those questions. This is the first opportunity that I've had to do that. You can say that this is dealing with this budget, but the reality is that this involves taxpayers' money that went through this ministry, and this is the first chance I've had to ask these questions.

I am going to ask about the volunteer program. I'm wondering how many ministerial employees received additional time off to volunteer for the games?

Hon. I. Black: First of all, to be very clear to the member opposite, it's not me who is saying it. It's not my ministry that is saying it. It's not my political party that is saying the purpose of this forum is to discuss the 2010-2011 budget estimates. It's the rules of this House which determine that that's what is to be done here. It's not by some sort of preference I have that that is the focus of these discussions. I think it's important that the record reflects my sentiment on that one and, indeed, the fact that that is the case.

First of all, I'm not saying for a moment that the member's questions don't have merit. I'm not saying that for a moment. In fact, as I've mentioned, that information, which is to do with the previous budget year, has been forwarded for the publication of a report, which I understand, I am advised, should answer the member's questions.

To try to drag information from previous years into these discussions, notwithstanding the fact that it is not
[ Page 3747 ]
within the purview of this forum to do so, presupposes the outcome of what that report is going to be.

[1525]

My message is that we have contributed to that report. We are not the Olympic Games secretariat. We don't publish the report that's being referenced, and I would refer the questions on the report, its content, its structure and how detailed it might be to the appropriate minister.

K. Corrigan: You're saying that it's the rules of the House, so I'll just ask the minister, then: is the minister suggesting that the previous minister, the Minister of Labour, who was quite pleased to answer the questions, was breaking the rules of the House by answering those questions?

Hon. I. Black: I am not going to speak to what previous ministers have or not have said in this forum. I am simply advising what the staff sitting behind me here are prepared to discuss today in the focus of this forum.

The Chair: Member, the Committee of Supply debate provides a broad opportunity to question the administrative action of the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development. I encourage the member to pose questions related to Vote 43.

Point of Order

J. Kwan: On a point of order, please. The rule and the practice of this House has been, for the last 14 years that I've been around, that when estimates debate comes about, we actually have the opportunity to ask about the budgets related to this year and for the previous year.

The fiscal year for 2009 has not yet ended, Mr. Chair. This ministry funds those programs, and some of that funding is ongoing. And yes, this goes out to the 2010 budget. Pertaining to the questions that my colleague has asked, they are completely relevant.

This ministry was responsible for the hosting program of the Olympics, for the many hosting activities which this ministry was responsible for. One of the questions that I heard my colleague ask centred around how many staff within the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development were assigned to be volunteers as part of the hosting of the Olympic Games in Vancouver, Whistler and Richmond. Surely the minister can provide that answer to members of the public.

The Chair: Member, thank you for your point of order.

As I stated before, this committee debate provides a broad opportunity to the question of administration, but I encourage the members to relate the questions and pose the questions related to Vote 43, even though it does provide broader opportunity to question the administrative action of the ministry.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much for that direction, and perhaps the same could apply to the minister for answering the questions.

The Chair: Yes, Member.

Minister, the questions related to Vote 43.

Debate Continued

Hon. I. Black: To be honest, I'm not particularly clear after all what the question was that's been put to me, and I'm not sure which member's question it is that I'm being asked to answer here, hon. Chair.

I will suggest, however, to the member opposite that I don't have a problem taking the information that we have forwarded to the Olympic Games secretariat outside of this forum and forwarding it to you. That's not a problem. It's just that the focus of this discussion is on the 2010 budget and Vote 43, as you have pointed out.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: The minister is talking about being willing to forward the information, and I appreciate that.

My assumption would also be that in the 2010-2011 year there will be continuing expenses related to looking at the benefits, looking at the costs, looking at the impact and evaluating the Olympics as they relate to this ministry.

Assuming that there will be some costs — including time, perhaps — in gathering the information that I've asked for that you need to provide me with, there will be costs that will be under the 2010-2011 budget.

As far as I'm concerned, then, it is relevant to 2010, because I'm asking you to do some work that's going to cost you some money as part of your budget, so the questions that I'm asking are relevant.

Hon. I. Black: What's the question? Which question do you want me to go after?

[1530]

K. Corrigan: The thing that I'm asking is: why is it not relevant, if there's going to have to be work that's done in 2010-2011 in order to assess the Olympics, even if it's just getting together the information that I'm asking? Then there is a budget item, a line item, as small as it might be, for 2010-2011. Why, therefore, will you not answer the questions that I'm asking?

Hon. I. Black: To the member's most recent question, insofar as we have expenses within our budget for the 2010-2011 year that pertain to the follow-up exercises, whatever they look like, from the Olympic Games,
[ Page 3748 ]
I would absolutely be interested in answering those questions from the member opposite if she wants to formulate them in that manner — absolutely. That's why we have all the staff here.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate the comments that are made by the minister — that the minister would be pleased to forward all that information. I will take full advantage of that.

I was going to ask, as well…. I'm going to ask it anyway, because I don't know whether or not this is in the report that is being prepared by the Olympic secretariat. I will ask the minister whether or not information about the number of tickets and who got the tickets for the Olympic Games is included in the information that went in that report.

Hon. I. Black: The Olympic Games secretariat was compiling that information during the course of the games themselves. They were the repository of that information during the course of the games, including the elements of that topic which touched on the specific part of the business-hosting program for which this ministry was responsible, as part of the broader integrated hosting program for the 2010 Olympic Games.

I can confirm, that they were, as the people who were gathering that information in preparation for the report that's being discussed…. There is no net new information to come from our ministry contributing towards that report. It was gathered by the Olympic Games secretariat during the course of the Olympics themselves, and it is on that basis that they will produce the report that has been committed by government.

K. Corrigan: I've received an assurance that we're going to get that information. I guess what I would also like, then, is an assurance that this report is a comprehensive report that has individual ministry information: who got tickets; what events they attended; the purposes they were there for; the guests they took; what MLAs attended with the minister, if the minister went; the outcomes and benefits; and so on. These are the questions that I intended to ask in these estimates, and I want to be assured that that kind of information is going to be included in that report.

Hon. I. Black: I am not in a position to give that assurance, because I am not the author of that report. As mentioned, it is not only outside of our ministry; it is also outside of the '10-11 years that we're here to discuss. I can't give that assurance because I am not aware of how the report is being compiled.

The Chair: I'd like to just remind the member that we're sticking to Vote 43 for the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development operations.

K. Corrigan: Well, if I can't receive any assurances that I'm going to get that information or that the public is going to get that information, then…. I was advised that I would receive information about the Olympics and have not received that information.

I'm going to ask the minister. How many of the ministry staff, or the minister himself, received Olympic tickets or Paralympic tickets?

Hon. I. Black: Madam Chair, there's a twisting of my words taking place here. I want to make sure it's very clear.

[1535]

What I said was that I am not, as the minister, and we are not, as the ministry, the authors of the report to which the member refers. It is for that reason and that reason alone that I cannot offer the assurance on behalf of my ministry the way that she would like.

I am not in any way undermining the commitments that have been made by other ministers or our government with respect to the full reporting on that matter which, I might remind the member again, is from the '09-10 year and not from the '10-11 year.

K. Corrigan: Does the minister not recall whether or not the minister attended any Olympic events?

Hon. I. Black: My recollection of the '09-10 year is not in question. However, none of the expenditures associated with '09-10 are also not in question for the purposes of our forum here. If the member opposite would like to discuss our plans for going forward following the great success of the Olympic Games in '10-11, I'd be delighted to do so.

The Chair: Member, can I please remind you that we are sticking to Vote 43, specifically to the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development.

K. Corrigan: I wanted to also ask a question and find out about whether or not there were any other Olympic costs associated with this ministry that either will be covered in that budget or will be covered in the budget that is coming up in 2010-2011. Ones that I haven't asked about, for example, are the cost of Olympic tickets, the cost of volunteers or the cost of the employee loan program.

Hon. I. Black: I can confirm for the member that there are no expenses in our 2010-2011 budget associated with volunteers for the 2010 Olympic Games. I can confirm that there are no expenditures anticipated for our 2010-2011 budget with respect to volunteer secondment to the Olympic Games, and I can confirm that there are no expenditures contemplated within our 2010-2011 budget with respect to Olympic Game tickets.
[ Page 3749 ]

I can, however, also confirm that in the context of our 2010-2011 budget, we do have the responsibility and, thankfully, the skilled people to take advantage of international opportunities as we focus on business development exercises around the world.

To the extent that we have just hosted effectively the world's largest trade show, as they've all come to us, we now have the opportunity — and the responsibility, frankly — of returning to the mode of business operations within the ministry that existed prior to the games, which is that we do outbound trade missions and host individual trade missions as they come to British Columbia to investigate how they might invest here, create jobs here, help grow communities here, etc.

So there are expenditures within our 2010-2011 budget associated with our business as usual, for lack of a better phrase, as we pursue those opportunities both on an inbound and outbound trade mission basis and by taking advantage of our trade investment representatives who exist around the world to benefit the people of British Columbia.

[1540]

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if there are any expenses in the 2010-2011 budget for an employee loan program for VANOC or the Olympics.

Hon. I. Black: I can confirm that there are no expenditures of that kind in our 2010-2011 budget.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me what the difference is in the amount of the budget for an employee loan program for 2010-2011 as compared to 2009-2010.

Hon. I. Black: It's a bit of a difficult question to answer, only inasmuch as there was no line item in our '09-10 budget that referred specifically to a volunteer or secondment program of any kind, so there's no real ability to do the math the way that the member is requesting.

However, I did commit earlier, and I was sincere in my offer, that if the member just drops us a quick note to make the request as to the information she's looking for regarding the secondment during the '09-10 games — again, outside of this particular forum — that information, I suspect, will answer the question that she's looking for.

K. Corrigan: I'm quite happy to have that information, and I'm willing to accept that, if that information is going to be provided to me.

I'm going to ask, as well, just to make sure we have it on the record…. I would like to know what the breakdown is between the costs for the employees and whether that includes benefits. I will ask the minister, then: is there a cost in the 2010-2011 budget for the benefits for any employee loan programs to the Olympics?

Hon. I. Black: No, there is not.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could then tell me what the comparison is of the cost of benefits in this area between 2009 and 2010.

Hon. I. Black: It's the same answer I gave a moment ago. There was no line item in one budget to compare with a line item in another budget, but as I mentioned, I'd welcome the request to my office on a specific basis from the member, and we will reply accordingly.

[1545]

K. Corrigan: I'm surprised by that answer, because what I've been told — and what I was told by the Minister of State for the Olympics and by the chair of the Olympic secretariat — was that that information was being tracked. In fact, the minister has already confirmed that that information has gone to the secretariat. Maybe I could just receive a confirmation that that specific information is in the information that went to the secretariat.

I guess the follow-up question to the minister is then…. If that information could go to the secretariat, I'm not quite sure why it is that we can't get that information today and why it's being discussed as not being a line item when it was, in fact, being tracked.

Hon. I. Black: Madam Chair, you yourself have already advised the member that the reason that that information is not being discussed in this forum is because this forum is to focus on the 2010 and 2011 budget year. There are no anticipated expenditures of the type that the member is asking about in that budget.

Point of Order

J. Kwan: On a point of order. The point of order is this. The member is asking the minister this question: how does the 2010-11 budget, in comparison to the 2009-10 budget in various different areas, differ in terms of expenditures?

Surely the minister can provide that answer, because it's a comparison between budgets. The minister will say that he will only answer questions related to the 2010-11 budget, but we want to know: what is the difference between this budget and last year's budget in various expenditures? Surely the minister can answer that question, and surely that is in order. Madam Chair, I take your guidance.

The Chair: The Chair has no authority to compel a minister to answer a question, but I do find it in order.
[ Page 3750 ]

J. Kwan: Thank you.

Debate Continued

K. Corrigan: Given what the Chair has said, I think I will continue on asking the questions that I asked earlier, then.

I've asked about the employee loan program, and I understand that it's in order for that information to be provided. So I'll ask that question again — a repetition of the question, unless you want me to state it again.

Hon. I. Black: Please state it again.

K. Corrigan: Okay. My question was, first of all, whether or not there was included in the budget for 2010-2011…. Was there any money assigned to employees being involved in an employee loan program for the Olympics or Paralympics?

Hon. I. Black: No, there were no line items of that kind in the 2010-2011 budget.

K. Corrigan: My question was not whether there was a line item. My question was….

Hon. I. Black: Or expenditure.

K. Corrigan: Or expenditure. No expenditure. Okay.

My next question, then, is: how does that compare with the expenditures for the employee loan program for 2009-2010?

Hon. I. Black: I believe I've answered that question — that I'm willing to share that information with the member and that I plan to follow up upon receiving a request from her through my office.

K. Corrigan: Similarly…. So I'm assuming from that that the minister is not able to answer that question today. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Black: I'll be pleased to forward that information to the member once we're finished with our estimates process here.

J. Kwan: On a point of order, Madam Chair. Is the minister saying he's not providing that information because the questions are out of order, or is he saying that he doesn't have the information, doesn't know the information and will provide it after the estimates process so that he can compile that information for the member who is asking them?

Hon. I. Black: What I am saying is that we have furnished a set of information to the Olympic Games secretariat, that I would like to provide the same information to the member opposite and that I would like to do so in a written format.

[1550]

K. Corrigan: Apparently, these estimates are going to go on later than today, and we'll be back on Monday. So I'm wondering if the minister could confirm that this information will be brought back to these estimates on Monday.

Hon. I. Black: We will provide that information to the member opposite once I can get the appropriate information in the format that is consistent with what we shared with the Olympic Games secretariat.

K. Corrigan: I just want to confirm, with these various areas that I've asked about — the employee loan program as well as the volunteers — that the minister is saying that the minister will provide the information that I have requested in these estimates, because I don't know what the form of the information was that went to the secretariat.

For example, I don't know if it is clear, from the report that went to the secretariat, how many employees were covered; whether or not the amount that is being estimated is for the employees' salary or whether it includes their total benefit package; how many people were involved; and who they were. I want it to be clear that that information is the information that the minister is going to bring back.

Hon. I. Black: I'm advised that that is the information, and I'm also advised that we could probably get that to the member as early as tomorrow.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that, Minister. I appreciate it.

Could I also confirm that that information is also going to be including the information with respect to the costs related to the volunteers? That would be the volunteer program, where volunteers received additional time off in order to volunteer for the games. They used some of their time and some taxpayer-supported time.

Hon. I. Black: I'm advised that we would be able to probably get that information and submit it with the original request, also by close of business tomorrow.

K. Corrigan: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that.

I also wanted to ask, then: in the year 2010-2011 how much is it estimated that this ministry is going to spend on Olympic tickets?

Hon. I. Black: I've already answered. The fact is that there is no expenditure anticipated for Olympic tick-
[ Page 3751 ]
ets in 2010 and 2011. A report on ticketing is expected shortly — sometime this spring, I understand — from the Olympic Games secretariat.

K. Corrigan: To the minister: I'm wondering how much the expenditure on tickets in 2010-2011 compares to the expenditure on tickets in 2009-2010 by this ministry.

[1555]

Hon. I. Black: I can confirm that the difference year over year from 2010-2011 versus 2009-2010 is zero. Our ministry was not the ministry responsible for buying Olympic tickets.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister, then, saying that no one from this ministry attended any Olympic events?

Hon. I. Black: The member's question again is relating to the Olympic Games, which took place in '09-10. As I've advised the member that, irrespective of that, there is a fulsome report forthcoming in the spring on the entire ticketing allocation and use by the government.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I wonder if the minister could just be helpful, then, to avoid these questions going to each and every ministry — although they may, anyway — and whether or not the minister could point me in the direction of which ministry it is that was responsible for purchasing Olympic tickets.

Hon. I. Black: I'm at a little bit of a disadvantage here, Member. I can only suggest the member start by speaking with the Minister Responsible for the Olympics as to who was…. I wouldn't want to speculate as to which other ministries may have an involvement in purchasing tickets for the Olympic Games. I can only confirm what I shared already — that our ministry was not a purchasing agent associated with the games.

K. Corrigan: You perhaps can help a little bit. If, in fact, this ministry received any Olympic tickets, is the minister saying that this ministry does not know where those tickets came from?

Hon. I. Black: No, I was not suggesting anything other than the fact that the expenditure associated with those was not handled by our ministry, and that the event, in any event, took place in '09-10 and not '10-11.

K. Corrigan: In 2010 and 2011, are there going to be any estimated costs for this ministry of any expenses related to Olympics with regard to hosting, any meals, hotels, travel or other costs that I haven't asked about yet related to the Olympics?

[1600]

Hon. I. Black: I am very, very pleased with the opportunity that lies ahead in the 2010 and 2011 budget for focusing on and leveraging the Olympic Games that we recently hosted in Vancouver, Whistler and Richmond — the opportunity to take some of the business relationships that were developed and expand upon them, and the ones that we already had, further develop.

In our various trade missions that we have planned for the coming fiscal year, we will be very much looking to leverage the opportunity of the Olympic Games in a variety of ways across Canada, down into the United States and certainly to the Pacific Rim countries, but with respect to getting into some sort of a detailed breakdown of what money was spent in '09-10 on the Olympics, I would refer the member to the public accounts.

K. Corrigan: I guess I'll have to go through them one by one and ask for a comparison, then, if that's the way we're going to do it.

My question — unless the minister is willing to provide an assurance that we could get that information as well — is on costs associated with this ministry in 2009-2010 in all Olympic-related expenses, including tickets, including who had the tickets and what they attended and whether or not there are other expenses related to meals, hosting, hotels, travel and so on.

If the minister is willing to provide an assurance that that information will be provided to the taxpayers of British Columbia, then I'm willing to accept that we'll wait a few days for that information, and we'd be pleased to have it. I'm looking for the very specific information, and if the minister is not willing to do that, I'll go through every single item line by line.

However, I want to make the more general point that this is the year 2010. We are discussing…. We are in the year 2010. We've just had the Olympics, and there has been no other opportunity to get this information, so I'm asking, on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, for this information.

I actually think it's quite outrageous that I have to go through and ask for comparison because the ministry is saying that this is not relevant. I think it's relevant to the taxpayers of the province.

Do you get my question out of that? Does the minister get the question that I'm asking for that information? However we get it is fine.

[1605]

Hon. I. Black: I want to make it very clear to the member opposite that I — and I'm quite comfortable speaking for my colleagues — am not holding in any
[ Page 3752 ]
way at disrepute the importance of the questions being asked, not for a moment.

Frankly, I think that at the end of the day, we're so very proud of what happened in this city and through the results of the Olympic Games — not just the athletic achievement and the grand spectacle that it was at a very high level for British Columbians and for Canadians but also that our very specific efforts on the hosting program were an enormous success. We're very, very proud of that hosting program.

The information about that hosting program, to be quite candid…. Number one, putting aside for a moment that this forum is not the right one to debate the fiscal year that's still underway, the fact of the matter is that a lot of these costs and a lot of the information associated with the hosting program are still being compiled, to the point where a report has been committed by government on the hosting program particularly focused on ticketing — without question.

To presuppose the outcome of that report by starting to take what information we have now, which isn't complete, for which we're still waiting to gather more information, I don't think does a service to Her Majesty's Opposition or the taxpayers of British Columbia. So we're certainly participating in the compiling of that information. That process is underway. It is not complete yet.

Putting aside the fact that Vote 43 does not contemplate the questions that are being asked…. You know, the flame has just gone out. The Olympic Games are barely behind us. We are at the stage now where that information is being compiled to produce a report which I believe will be instructive to the member opposite, and I would encourage the member to give that process a chance to complete — the gathering of that information, the compiling of it and the presenting of that information — as has been committed by government.

K. Corrigan: If the minister could assure me that that report is going to contain all the information that I have asked for about this specific ministry, then I'd be perfectly happy to wait for the report. But I'm not sure that the minister can do that.

The comment that this ministry did not purchase tickets and, therefore, related questions to who got it are irrelevant is, to me, wrong-minded, because the reality is that money flows all over government and between ministries. I think people want to know about the delivery of the program, whoever paid for it.

If there are expenditures or energy spent on a program within this ministry, including hosting and going to events — it supposedly had a value — then I think this is the right place to be asking the minister about those questions. I certainly can go through each of those things one by one, and I suppose I will need to do that.

[1610]

I will ask the question. In terms of hosting, how much is in the ministry budget for 2010-2011 for a hosting program related to the Olympic and Paralympic Games?

Hon. I. Black: First of all, I want to reemphasize to the member that I don't think the intent behind her question is in any way dishonourable. I don't think that it's in any way unreasonable to want to understand how expenditures took place on the part of government in something as successful as the Olympic Games and our little piece of that being a subset, if you will, of a broader integrated hosting program.

Not for a moment am I suggesting that the question doesn't have merit, and if my previous statements didn't emphasize that strongly enough, I hope that this one does. I'm not suggesting that for a moment.

What I did say, however — and I've actually answered this specific question that was just asked, I think, two if not three times now — is that there are no anticipated expenditures in 2010 and 2011 for the expenditure type that the member referenced.

I want to repeat what I just said as well. The data around the Olympic Games is still being compiled. It is premature to start speculating — because, frankly, there would be a degree of that — as to what happened, never mind the fact that that's not the intent of this forum. I would encourage the member to wait for the report.

If the information within the report is not to the member's satisfaction, then I encourage the member to articulate that in a letter to me, and we'll try to address it from that point forward.

K. Corrigan: The question that I just asked was how much was being spent in 2010-2011 on hosting, and the minister said that that had been answered. I believe that the answer earlier, then, was zero.

I'm wondering how that compares to expenditures by this ministry for hosting in 2009-2010 related to the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Hon. I. Black: As I mentioned, the information that the member is seeking clarity on is still being compiled, and a report on that topic is being prepared. Once all the information has been assembled, I would encourage the member to follow up with me if that report does not meet her satisfaction once it's released.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister could let me know when it's expected that that report will be complete.

Hon. I. Black: The author of that report would be the Ministry for the Olympic Games, and therefore, I wouldn't want to speak on their behalf. But I'm advised that the term "late spring" is being used to de-
[ Page 3753 ]
scribe the time frame when that report is expected to be published.

[1615]

K. Corrigan: Late spring the ministry that is responsible for the Olympics…. And there's still a lot of work to be done in terms of compiling that information. I'm wondering if this ministry has provided all that information that is in the report, including the various areas that I talked about — tickets and so on. Has this ministry already provided all that information to the minister of state?

Hon. I. Black: I can advise the member that, no, the information is still being compiled. I'm advised that the actual cut-off date, I believe, is April 14 for the current fiscal year, by which time all such information has to be gathered. At that point, I'm advised, it is then compiled to form the report that the member and I are discussing.

K. Corrigan: When is the beginning of the fiscal year? Just remind me. I believe that it's April 1. Is that correct? Is it possible to assume that between April 1 and April 14 this ministry will still be compiling some of that information to go in that report?

Hon. I. Black: Not having the benefit of an accounting degree, I'm advised that the process from the first of April — which is the technical beginning, if you will, of our next fiscal year — and the 14th…. That is the year in process, I'm advised, which is basically when our valuable civil servants who are involved in doing that transition from one fiscal year to the next…. That is when they lock down on the previous year's expenditures, call it a day and embark on the new one. So that's the explanation for the April 1 to April 14 time frame. It's strictly from an accounting procedural standpoint that is standard within government and, frankly, business as I understand it as well.

From what I've been told, it is safe to say that by the end of March and the first of April, all available information would be in hand. It gets locked down and properly classified through that two-week period, and then the report can be compiled and produced by the appropriate ministry.

K. Corrigan: But I do believe it's safe to say that between April 1 and April 14 there will be some activity within this ministry related to the Olympics and that there will be costs related to the Olympics, if it is compiling information and passing it on. As far as I'm concerned, questions related to the Olympics are relevant, and the information that is going to be in those reports is relevant if it's still within the ministry from April 1 to April 14 in any way.

I just want to say one more time that I'm pleased to get this information in whatever way. We've already had confirmation that we're going to get information about the employee loan program and the costs associated with it immediately, and that we're going to get information about the costs associated with volunteers.

What I am seeking in this line of questioning is to get confirmation of very specific information about the Olympic tickets that have been used by this ministry or staff and costs associated with that, as well as costs of the hosting contracts, meals, hotels and other expenses.

[1620]

I will stop asking questions if this minister will assure me either that this ministry will provide that information to me or I can be assured that that very specific ministry-by-ministry information is going to be included in the report of the Olympic secretariat or the ministry of whoever is providing it. He said that it's the Olympic secretariat.

Point of Order
(Chair's Ruling)

The Chair: Before we proceed, I would like to clarify a matter before this committee. Earlier today the member from Mount Pleasant raised a point of order relating to the propriety of posing questions relating to the current 2009-2010 fiscal year during the debate on Vote 43 for the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development, which covers the 2010-11 fiscal year.

It has been the common practice of Committee of Supply for many years that in pursuing questions relating to the forthcoming fiscal year or prior, discussions also typically take place regarding the current fiscal year by providing a forum for detailed examination of fiscal plans for a ministry. Committee of Supply debate is often informed by including comparative information from the present fiscal year.

Although all debate must ultimately relate to Vote 43, questions relating to ministry expenditures in the 2009-10 fiscal year are not necessarily out of order.

Debate Continued

Hon. I. Black: Just for the member's information, by the way, notwithstanding the Chair's comment, any work done after April 1 by accounting folks to close off the previous year is actually booked against the previous year, for what it's worth.

Notwithstanding that, however, as I mentioned, the data surrounding our ministry's involvement…. And we are one part of it; the business hosting program of the Olympic Games is still being compiled. That information will be forwarded. A report will be issued, and if the report and the detail within it is not to the member's
[ Page 3754 ]
satisfaction, I would encourage the member to advise my office once that is released.

K. Corrigan: I appreciate that response, and just to finally nail this piece down once and for all…. The minister is then confirming that the minister and the ministry will provide the information about all the questions that I have asked, then, about that?

Hon. I. Black: Again, of course I can't speak for other ministries. I can only speak for my own. You know, we're dealing with a bit of a process that's not yet complete when we speak of the success of our Olympic Games hosting program and our piece of that, but we have it on the record as to what the member's request is, and as that report is compiled, if that level of detail is not to the member's satisfaction, then I encourage the member to write to us, and we'll do what we can within the boundaries of freedom of information at that point in time.

[1625]

K. Corrigan: Unfortunately, that sounds to me…. I think I heard the words "freedom of information." That brings fear into the heart of the opposition, because we have dealt with freedom of information a lot. Sometimes it's a very difficult process and it comes back with documents that are blacked out, and so on.

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Time delay, costs — absolutely.

I'm going to ask specifically, then: will the minister commit to provide information about those specific expenses, and if not, why not? I'm wondering about…. Maybe we need to go through each of these.

The value of meals and hotels and travel and hosting costs. I don't want to be belligerent here, but when I get an answer back saying: "If you don't like it, do an FOI…." All I'm looking for is a confirmation that that level of detail is being gathered and that it can be provided to me once it is gathered. I'm assuming that all has to be done no later than early April, because of what the minister has already said.

Hon. I. Black: I wasn't meaning to be obtuse with that answer and certainly not confrontational. Anything that we do when we respond, whether it's to a member opposite or to anyone in the public, is subject to personal information and privacy protection. That may have come across as a red herring. It wasn't meant to.

The only reason for not being as confident with the answer as perhaps the member would like me to be is that it's still being compiled. I can't presuppose what the format of that report is going to look like.

Presuming that we're not dealing with proprietary information on certain businesses, which is their right to have kept private, and that other things that are laid out within the personal information and privacy protection act, which we have an obligation to follow as government…. That was the only reference that was intended through that. It was not meant to throw off the member opposite.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate that. I'm looking forward to that information.

I only have one more question. The various expenses related to the Olympics that are being compiled and are going to be part of this report — is it the minister's understanding that those expenses related to this ministry are part of the $765 million budget for the Olympics by the government?

Hon. I. Black: No, it is not my contention that the expenses associated with the business hosting program of the last couple of months were part of the estimates provided by the Minister of Finance for staging the Olympic Games and the associated security costs that subsequently followed it.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, welcome back. I like your tie, by the way.

I'd like to just follow up on some questions that my colleague had opened up with related to Olympic expenditures pertaining to the ministry so that I get it straight in terms of process here.

[1630]

The minister first advised that the questions related to the 2010 Olympic expenditures would come out of the '09-10 budget cycle and, therefore, do not pertain to the estimates debate discussion before us today.

It has since been clarified that it is entirely appropriate for these questions to be asked in the estimates process as pertaining to the historical practices of this House and that, more to the point, by way of comparison with the '09-10 budget versus that of the '10-11 budget, one can certainly find out how budgets have varied, in terms of expenditures within the ministry. So it is entirely appropriate for these questions to be asked and answers to be gotten.

I understand, with the exchange, that a whole host of questions from my good colleague who is the critic for the Olympics have been asked around these expenditures. The minister said that he doesn't have that information at the ready and that it is being compiled at the moment. Let me, then, just direct the minister to a couple of areas that I would like to explore.

The minister will recall that last year, in November of 2009, I asked the minister for information on hosting activities related to the ministry and the related expenditures. Notwithstanding, somehow, the commitment was made to provide the various information that was asked in that set of estimates, and supposedly the informa-
[ Page 3755 ]
tion was passed on to my office sometime in February, even though we were expecting to get that information in November. Somehow that information didn't arrive at my office, and the minister had his staff deliver that document to me today.

I've had a quick review of it, if you will — not a full review of all the information provided but a quick review of it — and in the attached letter from the minister relating to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games the minister states:

"You'll recall that I had confirmed during the estimates debate that there are no expenditures planned within our ministry for any 2010 Olympic tickets. Notwithstanding, the ministry is making plans to purchase a small block of Paralympic tickets for hosting international business leaders along with business leaders from British Columbia, and this expenditure would be under $9,000."

So we went from "not purchasing any tickets" and that it "doesn't fall within this ministry" to at least one admission, by the minister's own letter to me, that there had been a purchase of tickets. So which is it? Had there been no purchase of tickets, or is this letter correct, from the minister — I guess the original would be signed by the minister — that there were purchases of tickets?

Hon. I. Black: I can clear that up very quickly. The question asked of me was pertaining to Olympic tickets. These are Paralympic tickets. It is not a nuance, in my view. They are very different. Not in any way to mislead the member or anything else, I draw that distinction.

J. Kwan: It's sort of like dealing with my daughter. If I don't ask the right question, I won't get the answers. So be it. Here we are in this chamber doing exactly that.

Well then, let me clarify and re-ask the question. How many tickets were purchased by way of Olympic and Paralympic tickets by this ministry as part of the hosting program?

[1635]

Hon. I. Black: I can confirm for the member that there was money transferred from our ministry to the Olympic Games secretariat to purchase some Paralympic tickets, slightly under the $9,000 quoted in the letter of November. They are currently compiling a report as to how those tickets were used.

J. Kwan: So to be clear, then, the ministry bought no Olympic tickets but bought Paralympic tickets for the purposes of hosting?

Hon. I. Black: The member is correct that we got no Olympic tickets, and the Paralympic tickets purchased are the ones that I just described.

J. Kwan: I'll look forward to receiving the information on the detailed breakdown of what tickets were purchased and who attended these events. Presumably, the minister will provide that in his report.

Hon. I. Black: Yes, I can confirm that the report being cited, as prepared by the Olympic Games secretariat, will be including both Olympic and Paralympic tickets' use.

J. Kwan: My colleague actually asked this question as well, but I just want to be clear about events that the minister attended and those of ministry staff, if you will. Presumably, some ministry staff attended some of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, utilizing tickets, then, purchased by some other source outside of his ministry.

First, am I correct in making that assumption? And will the minister confirm for me: did he attend some of the Olympic and Paralympic events, and if so, which ones?

Hon. I. Black: I want to make sure I captured all of the member's question here, so I'll give this a try and see if it answers the question. There are two or three parts to it there.

My understanding is that a report coming from the Olympic Games secretariat will have a list of the use of the tickets, both for the Olympics and the Paralympics, and if anyone from government, whether elected or unelected, used any of those tickets, that will be cited within that report.

J. Kwan: For the minister — we won't have to wait for the report to get this information, as he knows whether or not he attended any of the Olympic events or Paralympic events. So could he please tell us, today, now, which events he attended — Olympic and Paralympic events?

Hon. I. Black: I was very, very proud to play the role that I did in leading up our business-hosting program during the Olympic Games — the 11,000 participants that participated during the course of those games; the hundred-plus events that were hosted, not including any of the athletic competition; plus the almost 80 different bilateral meetings that took place with senior members of government, particularly ministers, and our visiting business communities from across Canada and, frankly, from around the world.

I can confirm to the member that I indeed did have the pleasure and the responsibility of hosting during one or two of the sporting events, and I will have specifics included in that report when it is released from the Olympic Games secretariat.

[1640]

J. Kwan: Why is the minister not telling us today which events he attended? Surely he knows that infor-
[ Page 3756 ]
mation. We don't need someone else to compile that to give it to the public. Why is he not telling the public? He's very proud of his job that he's done, and so he should share that information with the public. We're through the process right now. I think the taxpayers have the right to know through this set of estimates process. Will the minister please answer the question?

Hon. I. Black: There is no question that I am very, very proud of the role that I played both through that business hosting program and, indeed, in the role that I serve as minister in this government and for this file. But I am not going to pre-empt the release of a report that has been committed. It has being compiled, and that information will be released in accordance with the time frame that has been set out and discussed here this afternoon.

J. Kwan: The expenditure that came out of his ministry to attend the games…. Part of that, of course, is that he's paid by the budgets '09-10 and forward-going,'10-11, as the minister of the Crown. Not to pre-empt anything but simply to get answers related to the expenditures within the ministry's budget and that comparison between '09-10 and '10-11 on the attendance of these Olympic sporting events, what event or events did the minister attend during the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games? And who did he attend those events with? Can the minister please tell this House?

Hon. I. Black: Asked and answered, hon. Chair.

J. Kwan: That's the pattern of this minister, I have noted — first, to try to say that any question asked about activities related to the ministry…. He will come back and say it is not to do with Budget '10-11. When you punch the holes through that argument and establish that those kinds of questions are entirely in order and should be answered, the minister then says: "Oh, oops, sorry. That information is being compiled. I do not know the answer to that."

Then you punch through that argument and say: "Okay, you don't have that information which is being compiled, but you do have information that you already have at hand." In fact, one might even argue that nobody else may know in this room, including staff, except for the minister himself. For those were the activities that the minister himself engaged in.

Then he comes back with the answer and says: "Oops, sorry. We better wait for that report that needs to be compiled that will come at a later date." So you see a pattern here, Mr. Chair. Certainly, people will see a pattern here with this minister's continuous attempt to not provide answers. When the question is asked clearly around that and there is no logical rationale whatsoever for the minister not to answer, he'll get up and say: "But I've already answered that question." It kind of makes me feel like I'm in the twilight zone or something.

You know, it may be funny to some members, but I've got to tell you. We're in a fiscal budget where the government is coming forward with significant policy decisions that impact British Columbians in a variety of ways — whether it be cuts to programs; whether it be taxation policies that impact the small business community negatively; whether it be short funding in the education sector, resulting in school closures or even cancellation of school days, shortening the number of days that children have to access the education environment. All of those are on the table for discussion.

[1645]

Here we are in the estimates debate. The purpose of the estimates debate is for British Columbians to know and understand the expenditures that have been utilized in the '09-10 fiscal year — what they were used for — and for the public to assess whether or not that money was used wisely and then, going forward for the 2010-11 budget year, to determine what direction the ministry is going with the expenditure related to this fiscal year's budget. Then the comparisons should be made between last year and this year so that we know what the differences are in terms of different activities that might be undertaken by the ministry.

But no matter how you slice it or how you cut it, I suppose, Mr. Chair, this minister would not answer the questions even though he has the answers at hand. Why is he trying to hide this information from the public?

Hon. I. Black: You know, the member is in part correct when she talks about patterns of behaviour. There are three patterns of behaviour taking place here this afternoon. The first is the effort to circumvent due process when it's convenient.

The second has to do with that of being unreasonable. You know, it's very clear, and for the people watching at home…. The Olympic Games have just ended. The Olympic cauldrons are still smouldering, for goodness' sake, and we're sitting here trying to compile the data to communicate to the people of British Columbia how they went — from a financial standpoint, you know.

The preparation for these games set an enormously high bar to reach. We completed all the venues for the first time in Olympic history a year ahead of schedule, and on or under budget. Never been done before. It was done in British Columbia.

When we think of the performance of our teams during the games…. I don't just mean the athletes. I mean the people, and never mind the 25,000 blue-coated volunteers. I'm talking about the men and women who worked extraordinarily long hours to host the world, in their different capacities. I'm very proud that so many of them were part of my team, and they did great.
[ Page 3757 ]

But the event is just over. The Paralympics just ended, and we find ourselves now with data just being compiled and reports just being prepared. I don't think it's reasonable, even to the people watching at home who maybe understand nothing about government, who understand nothing even about business….

If you just had an event where 250,000 people came to town, where you had the entire place alive and events happening all over the place — government and non-government events — it's not unreasonable to say: "You know what? We said we'd get you some reports. The reports are coming. We've committed to it." We've committed to it publicly. We've committed to it in writing. We've said what kind of reports they're going to be.

To start coming to a forum like this and say that my lack of willingness to allow Her Majesty's opposition members to cherry-pick from information that's just being compiled…. When there's such an enormous track record of context not being applied or perhaps not being appreciated, it's not a reasonable line of questioning. And to suggest that that somehow paints me in a manner that has just been done…. You know, I'll let the viewers at home decide whether that is fair or not, but I don't think it's reasonable.

We've made commitments as a government as to reporting out on the Olympic Games. We're going to fulfil those commitments. The data has just been compiled. You know, to suggest and then — as has often been done by this member — to extrapolate comments made and rulings made by this Chair and others regarding the purposes of this forum here….

It was very clear in the ruling made by the Chair — that comparative-type discussion relative to one budget year versus another brings into play the current fiscal year. I'm fine with that. I would not for a moment undermine or in any way second-guess the ruling of the Chair of this House.

But to extrapolate that and use that, by extension, to suggest that information that is still being compiled for a consistent presentation across ministries to the people of British Columbia…. It's not reasonable to say that my unwillingness to cherry-pick the small little bits and pieces that I might know, or that my team might know, from a much broader experience and somehow that…. And even within our own team it's still being compiled. To suggest that not offering up incomplete bits of data into the public realm is somehow not being straightforward is a ludicrous notion, Mr. Chair.

[1650]

I've made it very clear to the previous member who was asking questions that once these reports are out, if the report is not to the detailed satisfaction of the members, then I suspect there are a variety of ministries involved that they can write and ask for additional information.

I would extend that same offer to this member as well, but I will not apologize for giving the process that we have in place the chance to work — the process that we have in place to take enormous volumes of information from what is arguably the biggest spectacle that British Columbia is going to see this century — and take the time to appropriately determine what happened financially with the programs that, by every measurement we can see at this early stage, have been an overwhelming success. To take the time and process that information is not something for which I will apologize.

I've told the member in the past, and I'll tell the member in the future that if it is not to her satisfaction insofar as our ministry has a small piece of that information, she's welcome to write and ask for additional information.

J. Kwan: Well, so far the government's track record has not exactly been stellar and forthcoming with information related to Olympic expenditures. Mr. Chair, you'll recall that in the government's own budget document, even this year it states that the Olympic expenditure is somewhere in the area of $760-some million.

In reality, we all know that is not the truth. We know that the number is far larger than that. Some estimate it to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6 billion to $8 billion. So far, not so good on that account.

Then there's the issue around expenditures related to tickets and purchasing and attendance by MLAs and government representatives. So far, not so good on that account either. The opposition has actually had to FOI that document to get the information. Guess what. When we got the FOI document, it was whited out as to the value of those tickets. It took several question period questions to grill this out of the minister responsible to provide that information.

Then there were the Crowns and other agencies within government, and even at that, we don't know what exactly the total numbers of tickets purchased are and who attended. Now the minister says: "Oh, but don't worry; it's all good. We are going to provide that information to you in a report. Surely the report will come."

Then the minister says: "But how dare you cherry-pick to ask questions that might come forward in that report?" Well, it only happens that the questions I'm asking pertain to the budget estimates related to this ministry, which this minister is responsible for, and to hosting activities which this minister, as the minister, attended as the host. But how dare I ask those questions? Do I have the right to ask those questions, Mr. Chair? By insinuation from this minister, he's saying that I do not. Really?

He is the minister of the Crown. He is responsible for these activities. He's proud of these activities, and he attended them. Why can't he tell the public now? What is he hiding? If he has nothing to hide, then tell the public. Tell the public which sporting event he attended. Who did he attend with? He knows that information.
[ Page 3758 ]

At the ready, right now, he has that information. If he wanted to provide that information and be honest and open and transparent with taxpayers, with members of the public and with the opposition, he could provide that information right now. But oh no, he wouldn't do that. He wouldn't dream of it.

I suspect this. Why he wouldn't do that is because he would want to make sure that the report is done in such a way that it is sanitized, to make sure the public affairs bureau would have had the chance to comb through that information and come through with press releases so they can spin the public about all of that.

But this should not be anything that needs to be spun. If the minister and this government actually believe in transparency and openness, if they believed that the work they have done is indeed worth its while and worth the taxpayers' money, then be forthcoming. Tell the taxpayers, and let them be the judge of that.

[1655]

I know that in this budget, the public affairs bureau got a budget increase — some $640,000. So I guess they'd better be put to work to do something. Better spin out a couple more press releases. No doubt there will be some coming forward related to this report.

You know, we don't have to necessarily utilize the public affairs bureau for every single little thing that the minister does — or the ministry does, for that matter. These are straight-up questions for the minister to which he would not provide answers. By doing that, it harms nobody except the credibility of the government itself.

It breeds a culture of secrecy that this government has embarked on and continues down that road. It's in spite of the fact that the Premier, when he came to office, had said that openness is better than hiddenness. That's a direct quote from the Premier. That's what he said, yet the practice of this government, including this minister, is anything but open and transparent, and that's unfortunate. It's actually unfortunate for the people of British Columbia.

Let me just go on with other discrepancies on this. The minister won't tell us how many tickets, how many events, which events he attended — the Olympic and Paralympic events — or who he attended with. Then let me ask another area of discrepancy in information that had transpired earlier with my colleague.

Through a freedom-of-information request, I got three contracts related to hosting activities and records related to any of the program dollars or expenses associated with hosting international guests related to the 2010 games. In that document, it actually cites approximately…. I believe it says that $180,000 in accommodations was being provided related to the Olympic Games.

I'm curious with respect to that. With the report that will be forthcoming, would it outline specifically the expenditures related to the hosting activities of this ministry in their area of accommodations: where the hotels, if you will — or wherever the accommodation was being provided — were located, which agency provided for that, which company provided for that, who stayed in those accommodations and for how long?

The Chair: Committee A will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:59 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. I. Black: In the member's question, she went on at length suggesting that perhaps I was proposing that she did not have the right to ask questions. I want to make it patently clear to this House, and to the member opposite in particular, that I believe it is sacrosanct for any member to stand up and ask whatever question they like at whatever time they like. That is a tenet of our democracy.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it is an appropriate venue or that the structure of the debate is going to be conducive to giving the answer that a given member, for whatever political party in whatever jurisdiction of our country that we happen to be in, will be satisfied.

I wanted to make it very, very clear that at no time in my remarks was I suggesting that the member should be in any way censored or stifled or muzzled or anything at all like that. I think that's just simply not the case.

My remarks were more focused on the fact that I felt that the line of questioning, asking for piecemeal information when data is being compiled with a pre-existing commitment to publish a report, was unreasonable. A reasonable person listening to the debate and understanding that information is being compiled on a very, very large-scale event that just finished, around which the government has committed to releasing information as soon as it can be compiled and put out to the public….

Looking for piecemeal information without the full context of the program…. Again, I remind anyone who might be viewing at home that our ministry is one of several that were involved in the integrated hosting program of the Olympic Games.

My comment very specifically was that I didn't think it was reasonable to be as upset as apparently I made the member by not wanting to release the piecemeal information that we do have, particularly when, frankly, we're still compiling the information ourselves within our own ministry. We are still in the fiscal '09-10 year. That year is not complete. The Olympics are days behind us at this point. We just don't wish to circumvent the due process, no matter how passionate the plea to do so from the members opposite.

The member then went on to ask a question pertaining to the details of the report on the business hosting program with respect to who the participants were and the
[ Page 3759 ]
various costs associated with the participants and specifically mentioned the block booking of hotel rooms. I wanted to advise the member that the report being published is being published by the Olympic Games secretariat. I am not aware of the format of that report and how it may provide information, so I cannot speculate as to whether it will meet the criteria that the member has asked about.

I would just ask that if we can link some of these questions to the relevance of the 2010 and 2011 year, then I believe that's within the spirit of the vote that's in front of us in this committee.

J. Kwan: I accept that the minister says he does not have all of the information before him related to the ministry's activities in the expenditures of hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games within his ministry. I accept that.

But I do not accept the notion that pertaining to the minister's own activities related to the Olympic and Paralympic Games in terms of which sporting events he attended and with whom he attended these events…. For him to not provide this information to this House at this time — I do not accept that.

I do not accept the idea that somehow, somewhere, sometime down the road that information would be forthcoming from another ministry and another minister on activities that this minister himself has undertaken.

[1715]

I do not accept the idea that this report that will be forthcoming somewhere, somehow, sometime down the line may not have all the detailed information which the opposition is requesting at this time.

I do not accept the idea that when that report surfaces, and if it does not provide the detailed information that we're seeking, that we should, therefore, seek it again. No doubt when that comes around, we will be in yet another set of estimate processes, and no doubt the minister will sit in his chair and get up and say, "It has nothing to do with this budget cycle," and play this game all over again.

I do not accept what the minister is saying, and it is not acceptable for the people of British Columbia. We have said over and over again on this side of the House that for the games to be successful, the government must also be accountable in providing the information to members of the public.

The minister says: "Oh, but don't worry. It's forthcoming." Then in the same breath, he says: "But maybe not in the scope in which you're looking for, and if that happens, you can always ask again."

Well, there's a saying that kind of goes something like this: until the cows come home, we could be asking these questions — FOI'ing them, upon thousands of dollars being put forward, upon time delays and delays. Then maybe, just maybe, you get a bunch of blank papers that won't tell you exactly what happened.

Right here, right now we have an opportunity — right here, right now. That is the reason why the minister is in this set of estimates, to answer these questions directly and to be held to account.

So I'd like to ask the minister again: which sporting Olympic events did he attend during the Olympic and Paralympic Games and with whom? Did he bring delegations there? If he brought delegations there, what did they discuss? What business opportunities did he discuss during perhaps the hockey game — maybe even the men's hockey game at the crucial moment when Sidney Crosby scored in overtime?

What did he discuss at that moment, if he attended the game? Or maybe he didn't attend the games. Let us know. Let the taxpayers of British Columbia know.

Hon. I. Black: Hon. Chair, I'll defer to your judgment as to the relevance of the question pertaining to 2010-2011.

The member opposite is well known for passionate speeches, and I suspect that it's not the last one I'm going to hear. The fact remains that no matter how the member may wish to extrapolate remarks made here, to characterize or take in or out of context remarks made by me or others, it's difficult for me to sit and give the assurance about the contents of a report that I'm not writing. It's difficult for me to predict and to assure the member opposite of her satisfaction with a report that I haven't seen.

[1720]

It's been very consistent…. Again, I can't help but wondering whether the people at home are shaking their heads at this point, because I think it's…. They were, according to all the data we can see, almost to a person, every one of them watching some or all of these great Olympic Games. They know that the glow that they're feeling from these very recent activities is still there. As I've suggested earlier, the cauldrons have just gone out.

As part of the preparing for these Olympic Games and part of getting ready to report to the public, we made it very clear that we were ready to share information with the public. That report is being compiled at the moment. The work is underway. The data is still being compiled. It's not finalized yet. Once it is finalized it will be shared with the member opposite.

I appreciate the fact that they might not suit the political purpose of the member opposite, but there is nothing being hidden in this process. It is simply being compiled. When it's ready the information will be released, and the member will have access to the information she is seeking.

The Chair: The questions that you're asking are not necessarily out of order, but the question has been asked
[ Page 3760 ]
on a number of occasions and has been answered, maybe not to what you would like to hear, but the question has been answered in a number of different ways also. If you would like to continue on with a new line of questioning. Thank you, Member.

J. Kwan: Well, I'll certainly continue to ask, Mr. Chair, and thank you for that guidance. I appreciate, as well, the clarity on the fact that these questions are not out of order at all. I appreciate that very much.

The minister answered my question with this response — that it may well be, he says, that he's not responsible for the report that's coming out. He's simply going to be providing data to the ministry who is responsible for compiling the report. How they sort of decipher all of that, how they churn out that information and data and what information and data they churn out is their responsibility. Basically, that's the response of the minister.

Well, then that's precisely why I'm asking these questions. The minister, by his own admission and, as I would anticipate, when the report comes out and there will be lacking, I suspect…. It will be lacking in information by way of details around this expenditure related to the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Then there will be this whole dance that the government will engage in, in not providing the information. And then when asked of the minister, he will refer you to that report — sort of like the HST debate we just had earlier.

When I asked the minister about what reports and what studies this ministry has done related to the impacts of the HST pertaining to the small business sector, he responded by saying: "But that's not my responsibility. That's the Minister of Finance's responsibility. So to that end we haven't done any of those reports." Then he washes his hands and says: "It's not me. It's someone else."

Just as easily as he has done that with the HST issue, this minister could very well come back and say: "That report? I didn't put the report out. That information…. I didn't write the report. It's some other minister who is responsible for it."

So hence, precisely why we're here today and precisely why I'm asking these very specific questions of the minister about his own actions: which Olympic sporting events and Paralympic sporting events did he attend? With whom did he attend these events, and what discussions took place during these events to advance the economic opportunities and investment trade opportunities for British Columbia?

That way, the minister can't say that some other minister created the answers. It would be, as they say, straight from the horse's mouth. He can define it and contextualize it in any way that he wants to and provide that information straight up for British Columbians, if he wants to be accountable and open and transparent. I give him that opportunity now.

Hon. I. Black: I appreciate the member's efforts to redefine my job description on the fly as it suits her in a given line of discussion or debate, and it goes back and forth in several different ways, but I don't have that luxury.

[1725]

The fact of the matter is, as has been stated many times here today, there is a report being compiled on all the ticketing surrounding the Olympic Games. That is not new information for the member opposite.

The timing of that report is expected to be in the spring, so we're not talking about years and years of delay. I mean, it's not unreasonable for anybody watching at home to consider that putting out a report on some fairly specific information around an event that was enormous in scope — an event of which we're also very proud, at least certainly on our side of the House, having never, ever failed in our support for it, for John Furlong or any of the events that subsequently played out so tremendously in front of 3½ billion people….

But you know, as I've said several times now today, I'm not going to circumvent the process that's underway. The member can make dramatic speeches and try to redefine what my job is here, but unfortunately, that doesn't change the due process that's underway. We've committed to producing a report. We are gathering the information for the report.

Anyone watching at home would consider it most reasonable to allow that process to complete. We're days — days — since the conclusion of those fantastic Olympic Games. We will get that information together. It has been committed by the ministry associated with the Olympics. Our ministry, again, for the benefit of those just tuning in, contributes to that report, and we will look forward to that report.

As I've said to the member, I've made the offer that if the information contained within it is not to her satisfaction, then she can advise me of that, and we'll try to improve her level of satisfaction with the information contained therein.

J. Kwan: The minister says if the report, when it comes out, if I'm not satisfied with the information contained in it, that I could advise him of it.

Well, let me say this. Will the minister commit today that he will actually provide the information that we requested if it is not contained in the report, stand-alone? Will he commit today that he will provide that information in a timely fashion if the report does not provide for the level of details that we're asking here right now in this set of estimates?

Hon. I. Black: Providing assurance on something I haven't seen yet is a speculative exercise that I'm not going to engage in here. There is subjectivity when one reads
[ Page 3761 ]
a report as to whether it does or does not contain information to a given individual's satisfaction. I'm not going to get into that line of debate. I've made it clear to the member that I'm not trying to shut down dialogue on the topic. Our ministry owns a very small piece of this particular report. I look forward to seeing the report as we continue to bask in the success of the Olympic Games.

Frankly, as this is time, I would imagine, to focus — especially with the staff I have here — on the 2010-2011 budget year, our work around the Olympics is just beginning. I look at the economic development opportunities that have fallen out of the games, with respect to the opportunities and the meetings and the discussions and listening to the various members of the business community who flew here from great distances, some of them across oceans, who sat and listened to us describe everything that British Columbia had to offer and used phrases like: "I didn't know that."

In one particular case the individuals turned to us and said: "We have to look at British Columbia more closely." We had one individual who controls a tremendous capital investment budget on an annual basis turn to us. When we described the tax-friendly policies that now exist in British Columbia and the efforts that our government has undergone to overcome the difficulties of the earlier part of the last decade….

We found ourselves in a position where they were looking to us and using the phrase "game changer," talking about what we have done to this province in terms of the economic opportunities and the investment attractiveness, in terms of people wanting to invest here and create jobs here and grow communities here. They describe those efforts as being game-changing.

We are following up on all those conversations, and as we go forward from this point and execute our 2010-2011 budget, there is much work ahead. It's work that we are ready to do. We have the trained people to do it. They have been focusing inward as the world came to see us, and now we will resume our outward focus as an investment development and an economic development arm of government.

[1730]

We will take advantage of these Olympic Games, and we will focus those efforts externally to the benefit of British Columbians, not just in the Lower Mainland but across British Columbia and across the different sectors that we are so proud of today and in which we would like to see great growth tomorrow, the green technology sector being just one example — the new media and the wireless area of our technology sector. All of these companies and all of the individuals involved in these sectors have seen British Columbia in a new light thanks to the efforts involved in the Olympic Games.

As we go forward in the '10-11 year and execute on the budget plans that we have, our objective, the responsibility inherent on the shoulders of the public servants within this ministry, is to push those agendas forward and to capitalize on those interests and to help them evolve into meaningful investments into British Columbia for the benefit of all British Columbians across the province and across different industries.

J. Kwan: Well, then, let me actually put the question to the minister in another way, because the minister said that he could not comment on a report that he has not yet seen, so therefore he cannot say whether or not whatever information we're asking for would be in it or not, nor could he commit to the requests that if the information is not there, will he actually personally ensure that he answers those questions directly with the opposition? He wouldn't commit to any of that.

So let me put it another way, then, to the minister. Will he endeavour to do this, to make sure that the ministry who is putting together this report will answer the following questions related to the Olympic and the Paralympic Games: what events did the minister attend? What staff from the ministry attended these games? What is the stated purpose of them attending? Why was it necessary? What guests did they take to these games, or what guests did they meet with at these games? Did the minister attend these sporting events, Olympic and Paralympic events, with any other MLAs, and how does that relate to the work of the ministry?

What is the perceived outcome of benefit according to the minister's definition? What expenses were incurred at these events — inclusive tickets, meals, hotels, travel and any other costs? The tickets that the ministry had gotten…. Did any of the tickets provided to the minister or his staff go unused for whatever reason?

These are some of the detailed questions and the level of detail that we would like the report to show for every ministry but certainly for this ministry and this minister. So will he rise up in this House today and say: "Yes, I will endeavour to make sure that the report answers every single one of those questions"?

[1735]

Hon. I. Black: As mentioned earlier today, I'm very, very proud of the involvement I had through the hosting program of the Olympic Games, and that included the responsibility of hosting at Olympic events, particularly the sporting and specifically the sporting events. That's not anything resembling a secret at all.

What the member is asking me to do…. I realize the latitude being given vis-à-vis this line of questioning. While it bears no line of sight, as far as I can see, to 2011 budget estimates, I think that it is a bit of a stretch to ask me to comment at this stage on — given that it's been clear from earlier today that my ministry did not purchase any Olympic tickets….

The member is asking me about expenditures that did not take place within my ministry, asking me to comment
[ Page 3762 ]
on specific breakdowns pertaining to ticket use when it was divulged very clearly and confirmed very clearly earlier that this ministry did not purchase in '09-10 — and nor is it planning to in '10-11 — any Olympic tickets.

The request that's being asked of me is about an expenditure that is associated with another ministry, number one. So logically, Chair, I'm not sure how I can handle that one, and she's asking me once again to make commitments vis-à-vis a report that is not being authored by this ministry, a draft of which, to my knowledge, has not been prepared because information is still being compiled. I can't even comment on having seen a draft of what will be the report that is released.

I'm afraid I am left with little option but to say that we have, as government, committed to producing a report on the ticketing of the Olympic Games. That commitment stands firm. Nothing has changed in that commitment. The timing of it has not changed, and I have not been advised of anything by any of my staff — that there's anything resembling a delay in the gathering of that information or the subsequent publication of that report.

So no, I have no reason to stand here and be concerned that with the commitment made vis-à-vis sharing the information around the ticketing strategy of the Olympic Games — again, published by a ministry which is not mine — there's any cause for concern there on the timing. But I am not in a position to comment on the content and start making assurances about what will or will not be included in that. That is a question for another minister. Whether the Chair sees fit to entertain those vis-à-vis the 2010-2011 budget year…. I would leave that to your judgment at that point in time.

I'm left with…. Once again we find ourselves seeming to be defending the Olympic Games and everything they had to offer. I find that that's so unfortunate — to be there so shortly after the Olympic flames went out. It seems like there's a rush to throw a bucket of cold water on the smouldering cauldron of the Olympic Games.

Well, that is not the belief of this government. It is our belief, frankly — pardon the pun — to fan the flame, if you will, of opportunity that has come from this and to pursue them accordingly within the lines of business that this ministry has, lines of business which are nicely articulated in very large binders pertaining to 2010 and 2011.

Those challenges are not small, but I'm confident in the people we have. I'm confident in their experience leading into the Olympic Games and going back many, many years in terms of the economic development focus of government contained within this ministry, that the people are in a position to capitalize on those.

If the member would like to ask me questions about those, I'd be delighted to share with her the view that we have as to how we can truly leverage what has been a spectacular event that was enjoyed by almost all of the British Columbians that we have around us.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister says he's proud of the games, and it is true that the cities of Vancouver, Whistler and Richmond, the participating cities, did a fabulous job. There's no doubt about that. But we've said it over and over again — that for these games to be a success, truly deemed to be a success, the government needs to be accountable and open and transparent.

So far, as I've said earlier, the record has not been exactly stellar on this account. The minister just said: "Oh, but I can't answer for other ministries related to these questions." Well, I'm not asking for the minister to answer for other ministries. I'm not even asking the minister, to a certain extent with some of my questions, to answer for his staff.

[1740]

I'd be happy to start from here, for the minister to answer questions for himself related to the Olympic Games and the sporting events — which ones he attended. Why did he attend them? Who did he attend these games with and for what purpose? I'd be happy for him to come forward with that piece of information at this moment in time.

If the minister was truly proud of the games, as he states that he is, then he should be forthcoming with this information. He has nothing to hide. He has nothing to worry about. But clearly, the way in which this is going, the minister is not proud enough to be upfront with the public with this information.

It only leads one to wonder why. Why is he trying to hide this information? What is there to hide at all? Why doesn't he just tell us? Then we'll move on with other questions.

The minister also just said that his ministry didn't buy tickets, but as pointed out earlier by his own admission, in a document that he just gave to me this afternoon from his staff, they bought tickets for the Paralympic Games. We don't need to belabour that point. I just want to know the truth. I just want to know the truth about what's happened.

As it pertains to this 2010-11 set of budget estimates and how it relates to these questions, I would like to know how much money was expended for the hosting of the Olympic and Paralympic Games by this ministry in a comparison of this fiscal year's budget to that of last year's. Then, related to that, in the attendance of those activities, who went? Then, more specifically for the minister himself, what sporting events did he attend? The minister could be forthcoming with that.

On the question around these events and the costs associated with them, let me ask this question. For all of the Olympic events which the minister attended — ticketed events, that is, for the Olympic and Paralympics…. Did he attend all these events as a minister of the Crown, and therefore, all those tickets were paid for by an agency of government?
[ Page 3763 ]

Hon. I. Black: Again, the pattern of the member opposite is to give a bit of a preamble before kind of changing tack. I want to be very careful of my choice of words here. The member opposite, in her preamble, made reference to the notion that there was some sort of an admission made pertaining to the purchase of Paralympic tickets and also made reference to wanting to uncover truth.

[1745]

That is dangerously close to suggesting that we have at some time this afternoon not answered questions truthfully. I know that that's probably not what the member was implying, but I want to be very clear with this House that I take great exception to any suggestion that I did not answer questions truthfully or accurately.

Pertaining to the Olympic Games, I want to go on to say that yes, it is very true that the report pertaining to the use of Olympic tickets and Paralympic tickets is forthcoming from a ministry other than mine. I have made it clear that within that report, there will be information about the Olympic events that I attended on behalf of government as I very proudly participated in helping show off the best of what our province has to offer and in developing the relationships that one does in such a context and in such an environment.

I won't for a moment apologize or suggest that there was anything untoward about fulfilling my responsibilities in that regard. I will not…. As I've said here, I am not going to pre-empt the release of that report — not here and not Monday and not Tuesday and not Wednesday of next week, as far as we can go on this line of questioning. It's been a couple of hours now. That's just not going to happen.

I can tell the member this. I made reference, and it has been released by government, that during the course of these Olympic Games, our hosting program, beyond the 11,000 participants that it involved, had over a hundred different events. Those events aren't the sporting events. Those were the various meetings, round tables and gatherings of our international guests with our local companies and with our local entrepreneurs in looking to establish more business being done in British Columbia. Those events started very early in the morning to very early at night.

The bulk of my time spent during the Olympic Games, frankly, was engaging in as many of those events as I could get to between breakfast and midnight. I believe that it was about 19-odd days in a row, if I'm not mistaken. To that end, I can answer this one piece of the member's question very specifically, which is that I did not attend Olympic events outside of my official hosting responsibilities of the government of British Columbia. Frankly, I didn't have time.

I had to enjoy the glow in the streets as I ran from one meeting to the other through the crowded streets of Robson, both before and after various hockey games with the different countries involved. It was thrilling, and I was very envious of those on the streets, frankly, but duty called, and duty was done. I'm very, very proud of the effort of my team associated with that, and I look forward to sharing more on these topics with the House in the days to come.

Having said that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 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.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175