2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Morning Sitting

Volume 13, Number 1

[ Page 3851 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2010

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Tributes

jean AUDREY munday

D. Hayer: A very prominent member of our community, Jean Audrey Munday, passed away on March 3. She was 82 years old.

Jean was a very community-minded and caring lady. She was very motivating, exceptionally active in our community. She served as a director and executive on many boards in numerous community organizations and associations.

Jean was a founding member of the Guildford Community Partners association. She was instrumental in building the Guildford community recreation centre, and she was a founding member of the Surrey seniors activity society.

Jean and her husband, Ray, have lived in Surrey for about 50 years and raised four sons and six grandchildren. Jean was a registered nurse, an airline stewardess, an active realtor, and she also put together the first syllabus for the Medical Office Assistants Association in 1962, after liaison with the medical staff and doctors.

In 1960 she was a founding member of the Riverside– Port Mann ratepayers association and was involved in improving the community in the Surrey-Guildford area. She was a very dedicated member of the Newton Fellowship Baptist Church for 30 years.

In 2003 Jean received the Queen's golden jubilee medal from our late MP Chuck Cadman for her contribution to our community and city.

She will be missed. She was an open, giving and loving personality, and the personality of Jean will be truly missed by all the Surrey residents of British Columbia. I would ask the House to recognize all her contributions to our city, our province and our country.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Good morning. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continuing estimates of the Ministry of Small Business — and in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 6, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

[1005]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 6 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; C. Trevena in the chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: Before I begin, I may say that I'd asked the deputy minister's office for a briefing on this bill, and I was told that no one was available until next week. So if I seem somewhat slow in my questions, it's because I really haven't had a chance to have been briefed on this very technical bill. It may take, therefore, a bit longer because of that.

Section 1 amends section 65, but it really refers to section 65.1, which refers to an "uncertificated security." Can the minister then explain, perhaps dealing with sections 1 and 2 together, what an uncertificated security is?

Hon. C. Hansen: What these two sections provide for is the issuance of uncertificated securities. The current provision only applies to securities that are issued as a physical certificate and does not consider the issuance of uncertificated securities. These amendments, sections 1 and 2, provide for this new way of issuing securities.

B. Ralston: What's the purpose of proceeding in this direction? I take it that it's got something to do with electronic versions of certificates as opposed to paper versions, but perhaps the minister could clarify that.

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the member is correct in that this does allow for the electronic issuance of securities that would no longer require to be done in a paper form. This is an initiative that's being driven by the CDS, Clearing and Depository Services, and is really recognizing a new, paperless way of issuing securities.

[1010]

B. Ralston: In proposed section 65.1 it refers to the Lieutenant-Governor designating "one or more persons as certifiers" and "one or more persons as counter-certifiers." Can the minister explain what that means and who those persons might be?

Hon. C. Hansen: This process would be the same as currently exists for physical securities and really allows for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate an individual. It would be somebody in the Ministry of Finance who would be designated as the certifier under this section.
[ Page 3852 ]

B. Ralston: In the proposed section 65.1(4) there's a reference to the same two persons that we spoke of and then "a statement in a form established by the minister." I take it that this is referring to a paper form, or would that similarly be electronic as well?

Hon. C. Hansen: This would provide for the signing off on the form that would be used electronically.

B. Ralston: Can the minister just explain: what would be the security provisions that would ensure that there were not counterfeit certificates of this type issued?

Hon. C. Hansen: Before a security is released to the market, to the dealers, it would be verified by lawyers, who would ensure the validity of the security in its electronic format. I think, basically, the issues around security of uncertificated securities have been looked at very carefully, and it is felt, actually, that it is a more secure method of dealing with securities than the previous practice of paper-based, certificate-based securities.

The Chair: Members, it seems that we're discussing section 2.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Ralston: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd hoped I'd made it clear to you that I proposed to deal with those two together. But that's fine.

Can the minister then advise — assuming that this section passes, as I'm sure it will — when this procedure will be implemented?

[1015]

Hon. C. Hansen: These sections will come into effect upon royal assent. Therefore, at any time after royal assent we would have the ability to issue uncertificated securities. The exact timing of the first issuance is something that we will work on in conjunction with other provinces. Other provinces are going down a similar road of providing for these uncertificated securities, so the exact timing of when the first issuance might occur is still to be determined.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

B. Ralston: This section takes us to amendments to the Financial Institutions Act. The first section amends a number of definitions, so perhaps the minister could explain the motivation for changing — in particular, adding the definition of "financial services." There's a change to the definition of "unaffiliated director" as well.

Hon. C. Hansen: The new definition of financial services facilitates proposed reforms to the act's enforcement tools. For example, section 99(2) is amended to permit the regulator to order a person to cease being a director or officer of a British Columbia credit union, insurance company or trust company if convicted of an offence arising from a transaction related to financial services.

B. Ralston: I'm looking again at the definition of an unaffiliated director. There appear to be some changes in that. I'm wondering what the significance of those changes is. The new definition strikes out the "or" at the end of paragraph (f). Paragraph (f) reads: "a relative of the individual described in paragraph (a) or (b) who occupies the same home as that individual…." Then "adding 'or' at the end of paragraph (g)" and then "adding the following paragraph…." It goes on for some length.

This appears to be an issue where it may be suggested that a conflict arises, and this would be the statutory provision that would regulate that. So I'm interested in the motivation for the changes.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is essentially correct. The change to the definition of affiliated director could apply, for instance, to lawyers and accountants who provide a significant amount of services to a financial institution. Oversight by the board of directors of a financial institution is the key element to proper risk management, and unaffiliated directors are a core component of ensuring that the oversight is independent of management. As with similar Alberta and federal restrictions, the change does not prohibit these persons from serving as directors, only serving as unaffiliated directors.

B. Ralston: Just so I have it clear, then. Someone who is in that position — for example, a lawyer or an accountant who did…. The reference is to "the total annual billing to the company in respect of the goods or services exceeds 10% of the total annual billings of the individual, partnership or corporation."

[1020]

Is the purpose of the amendment to permit that person to take a position as an unaffiliated director or the opposite, to prohibit them from doing that?

Hon. C. Hansen: If it exceeds 10 percent of their income, then this provision would restrict them from serving as an unaffiliated director.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear. I think that rather than 10 percent of the income of the individual, it's 10 percent
[ Page 3853 ]
of the annual billing of the company, as I understand the provision.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct. It would be in excess of 10 percent of the billings for that individual — or a partnership or a corporation, if that was the case.

B. Ralston: I believe the minister made reference to Alberta statutes. Does this provision mirror that of other provinces, or is it in the standard…? I forget the term, but there is a standard proposed corporate legislation that provinces are trying to institute uniformly across Canada.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is similar to language we find in other financial institutions legislation. With regard to other provinces and other jurisdictions, this is very similar to language that's currently in Alberta and in federal restrictions. As far as other provinces, we are certainly… These measures are consistent with what is happening in other jurisdictions but probably more closely resembles those of our neighbour immediately to the east.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

B. Ralston: This is a significant expansion of section 77, which refers to an insurance company's reserves. The present section reads: "An insurance company must value its claims liabilities and establish adequate reserves against those liabilities in accordance with the regulations."

This makes reference to requiring a company's actuary to determine that. Can the minister explain the motivation for these proposed changes?

Hon. C. Hansen: My apologies. I couldn't hear the member's question.

B. Ralston: This new proposed section 77 makes reference to the company's actuary, and I gather that this is the purpose of a number of these amendments — to introduce an actuary as a person who's legally required to make certain judgments about the operations of an insurance company. Can the minister explain the purpose of this section?

There's a reference to…. I believe these are new subsections further along in the proposed amendment: section 126.23(1)(a) and (1)(b). Can the minister explain the purpose of this amendment?

[1025]

Hon. C. Hansen: The reason for these amendments is that the British Columbia legislative framework for actuaries and actuarial requirements is outdated compared to the federal and Alberta frameworks. These proposed amendments would adopt the federal and Alberta legislative frameworks.

In 1991 the federal government adopted a modern statutory framework for actuaries. That legislation required the board of directors to appoint the company's actuary. It establishes professional qualifications. It mandates annual reporting to the board of directors, and it gives appointed actuaries the statutory right to access information.

The federal legislation also replaced specific validation requirements with the general obligation to value actuarial and other policy liabilities in accordance with generally accepted actuarial practice and gave broad discretion to the regulator to vary the standards.

B. Ralston: Presumably, this would incorporate what is already a practice within the insurance companies. That would be my first question. I just want to confirm that.

Secondly, this applies to all insurance companies, whether they're property and casualty or life insurance companies, I am assuming. What are the views of the insurance industry on these proposed changes?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, yes, this reflects existing practice. Secondly, yes, it applies to both property and casualty and to life insurance. Thirdly, the industry basically follows this practice currently. Therefore, it has no objections to the codification of these requirements.

B. Ralston: The minister made reference to the regulator. The new proposed section 77 says: "An insurance company must (a) establish adequate reserves against the value, as determined by the company's actuary." What's the regulatory mechanism? If there's a disagreement between what the company's actuary does and the regulator does, what's the method by which that's resolved?

[1030]

Hon. C. Hansen: If I had the member's question correct, it was: what would happen if there was a disagreement between the opinion of the actuary and the opinion of the superintendent? The answer is that the superintendent has the powers under the act to override the approach that the actuary may take.

B. Ralston: The purpose of the act seems to be, and we'll come to these sections later on, to require an insurance company to appoint an actuary for the company. Is there then still a provision for an independent audit by an independent actuary, I'm wondering? Or will the act of appointing an actuary and having that person do their work mean that there will be no requirement from the regulator for an independent actuary to view some or part or all of the company's operations?
[ Page 3854 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: As we get a little bit farther into section 14, there are provisions there that allow for the Financial Institutions Commission to appoint another actuary to undertake a valuation of an insurance company's liabilities. So yes, there is provision for outside actuaries to be brought in.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

B. Ralston: This section is entitled "Reinsurance" and basically strikes half the wording in the existing section. Can the minister explain why that is being done?

Hon. C. Hansen: This amendment removes the specific reference to limits on reinsurance of contract liabilities that may be placed by local insurance companies with unlicensed reinsurers. Really, the purpose behind this is to allow us to match the legislative framework set out in the Canada Insurance Companies Act for federally regulated insurance companies.

B. Ralston: I'm not sure from the minister's response, but presumably there's some concern about unregistered reinsurance companies entering into financial arrangements with domestic insurance companies. Will that prohibit that, will it better regulate that, or will it simply leave the field open?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is currently a limit with regard to reinsurance. A limit of 25 percent will be placed with unlicensed reinsurers. There is no intention at this point to change that from 25 percent, but this legislative amendment is in anticipation that some of those standards may vary in other provinces and federally. This will give us the power to stay current with those changes should they happen in the future, but none are contemplated in the near term.

[1035]

B. Ralston: By an unregistered reinsurer, can the minister explain what that is and what risks there might be to the policyholders of a domestic insurance company that may be touched by the financial difficulties of an unlicensed reinsurer?

Hon. C. Hansen: The reinsurers are licensed federally. To be a licensed reinsurer in Canada you have to have capital based in Canada. So if a company chooses to go with their 25 percent of reinsurance with an unlicensed company…. That would be a company that would not have capital in Canada. Therefore, the company that's seeking the reinsurance would have to have extra capital themselves in order to compensate for the risk of the unlicensed reinsurer not having capital based in Canada.

In terms of risks, the other controls balance out whatever increased risk there may be by that unlicensed company not having capital based in Canada.

B. Ralston: When one thinks of reinsurance, one thinks of the major global firms such as Swiss Re and Munich Re. Are they examples of companies that are licensed in Canada, in that they have capital in Canada, or would they fall under this category of unlicensed reinsurance companies?

Hon. C. Hansen: Most of the major reinsurance companies are licensed in Canada — most of the major ones that are operating in Canada. It may be that some of these large companies may have an arm that might be unlicensed, and in some cases, some of this reinsurance may be placed with those unlicensed arms of some of the existing large companies.

B. Ralston: Does the minister have information as to how many B.C. insurance companies or B.C.-based insurance companies utilize this provision of 25 percent reinsurance with an unlicensed reinsurance company?

Hon. C. Hansen: We don't have that breakdown. We don't have those stats, but it's our understanding that most of the companies operating in British Columbia would have some element of reinsurance with unlicensed providers, particularly the catastrophic risk. It would be common for them to utilize some small portion with unlicensed providers.

[1040]

B. Ralston: Is there a regulatory provision that requires a B.C.-based insurance company to report that percentage of up to 25 percent to the regulator and to report any changes? Is there a provision that requires timely reporting of any changes in that percentage up to the maximum?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, the regulator would have those numbers.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

B. Ralston: This is an amendment to section 97, which is entitled "Number of directors and unaffiliated directors." This would appear to refer back to our earlier discussion about changing the definition of unaffiliated director. Can the minister explain the purpose of this proposed amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: This provision provides flexibility to financial institutions by allowing them to apply for
[ Page 3855 ]
relief from the new prohibition on a person serving as an unaffiliated director. The broad new definition on unaffiliated directors may be unduly burdensome on some of the smaller British Columbia entities, and an exemption power could be used to alleviate this burden where it would be in the public interest.

B. Ralston: The wording in the proposed amendment is where "the commission believes, on reasonable grounds, that it is in the public interest…." Is it the intention or the practice for the commission to put forward or promulgate a more detailed description than that of the circumstances in which it might consider utilizing this section?

"Reasonable grounds" and "in the public interest," while they're commendable, are certainly very broad and open in terms of definition. How would this proceed at the operational level were this section to be passed?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is language that's common throughout the statutes affecting financial institutions. It is not anticipated that it would be used very frequently. But in cases, I think, with other similar wording in other parts of the statutes where it is a provision that gets used more frequently, it does, typically, lead to a policy framework or policy definitions around public interest. If it's done on very rare occasions, then those situations would be looked at on their own merits at that time.

B. Ralston: Is it anticipated that this is something that would trigger a hearing, or would it simply be a question of a paper application to the commission?

Hon. C. Hansen: It would be up to the commission to determine the appropriate process.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

B. Ralston: This section is entitled "Removal of directors and officers." This proposes to add a new paragraph. It says that "an individual who has been convicted of an offence in Canada or another jurisdiction arising from a transaction, business or course of conduct related to financial services…."

[1045]

Again, it seems to be a very broad definition, from theft to fraud to…. I'm wondering why the choice of that particular phrase has been taken rather than something a bit more specific or enumerating specific offences.

Hon. C. Hansen: This language is very similar to the powers available under the Securities Act and the Mortgage Brokers Act. In those cases we feel that this language works, and we are copying it, essentially, for this statute as well.

B. Ralston: Has there been any judicial interpretation of the similar language that's referred to in other statutes?

Hon. C. Hansen: Not that we are aware of.

B. Ralston: Has there been any interpretation by the commission here in British Columbia or commissions across the country interpreting similar legislation?

Hon. C. Hansen: These powers in the other statutes have been used, typically, to restrict registrants from practicing in other provinces if they've committed an offence in a different province.

Certainly under the passport system that we have now, if you have an individual who has violated legislation or laws in other parts of Canada, these powers would allow for that person's licence to be revoked in British Columbia. This would extend those powers to this legislation as well.

B. Ralston: Presumably, by its wording, "an offence in Canada or another jurisdiction," this proposed section is broad enough to capture offences in either the United States or Europe or, indeed, anywhere else outside of Canada. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

B. Ralston: In the existing subsection (f) it refers to "an individual who ought not to be in a position to control or influence a financial institution," and one would have thought that someone who'd been convicted of an offence relating to financial services is a person who ought not to be in a position to control or influence a financial institution. Given that there was that existing language, I'm wondering why it was thought that this further addition was necessary.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's true that section (f) could be used. By introducing this new section (g), it gives more specificity to these actions by an individual that would…. It would give more guidance to the regulator with regard to these specific actions that would lead to someone being ordered to cease being a director and officer of an institution.

[1050]

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise — perhaps the officials here may know: has there been a case or cases where the commission has felt that it couldn't act on the existing language, yet there was someone who fell into the description in the proposed new amendment (g),
[ Page 3856 ]
and therefore, they were not able to prohibit that person from becoming a director?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer to the member's question is no, there's not a specific case. But this new language that we are introducing does allow for consistency with other statutes, and it does reflect the approach that's taken in other jurisdictions across Canada.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

B. Ralston: This amends section 114. It appears simply to strike out any reference to "trust company" and substitute "credit union" in the several places that trust company appears in the existing statute. Can the minister explain why?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is really a technical change. It reflects the fact that in British Columbia we do not have local trust companies taking deposits. Therefore, this change is really to clean up the legislation and to reflect that fact.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

B. Ralston: This amendment adds a new subsection (b) to section 115(3), requiring the audit committee of a financial institution to meet with the actuary. I would gather, then, that this is part of the stream of amendments that relate to the new role of an actuary in an insurance company.

Hon. C. Hansen: Correct.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

B. Ralston: This appears to be a fairly narrow amendment, adding something at the end of paragraph (b) in subsection (2). Again, it appears to be a reference to: "…in the case of an insurance company, the company's actuary." So this would be another amendment instituting the obligation to include the company's actuary and financial statements and reports in this section. Is that a fair summary? If the minister can just confirm that, that would be agreeable.

[1055]

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct. The requirement to send the amended report to the director corrects what, in our view, is an obvious omission in the legislation. The directors are obligated in section 121(3) to mail the undated report to members. To meet that obligation, they need to receive a copy of the report in the first place.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

B. Ralston: This proposes to repeal section 122(3), which refers to authorizing the superintendent to "provide the auditor with information about, or obtained from, the financial institution" as a reference to section 218, which appears to be a confidentiality provision. Can the minister explain why this section is being repealed?

Hon. C. Hansen: The authority of the regulator to collect, retain and share information is being clarified in another section, which we will come to a little later in the bill. Therefore, this particular provision was redundant.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

B. Ralston: This amends section 123(1) and includes a reference to the company's actuary. Again, another amendment of this in, I think, section 13 would appear to be very much in the same vein of just simply including the company's actuary in the existing statute. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

B. Ralston: This is the substantive amendment which incorporates most of the references to actuaries and the operation of insurance companies. Since there are a number of subsections here all relating to the powers and obligations of an actuary and the relation of that actuary to the insurance company, perhaps the minister could give an overview of the section, and then I'll ask what specific questions I may have on the individual amendments.

Hon. C. Hansen: Generally, in terms of the purpose of this entire section 14, it establishes a new division in the act that will promote the efficient and effective actuarial reporting and ensure that there are appropriate reserves in respect of claims liabilities, thereby decreasing the risk of insolvency for insurers and protecting consumers.

This new framework will allow FICOM to better implement its risk-based regulatory framework by permitting it to more confidently rely on reports prepared by actuaries.
[ Page 3857 ]

B. Ralston: Given the new obligations of actuaries, and I'm not aware of the actual number of actuaries in the province, is the minister confident that there are sufficient actuaries to take up these new duties, given that they are now a requirement for every insurance company in the province?

Hon. C. Hansen: These changes don't drive new practice or a new workload on existing actuaries or obligations of the insurance companies because, as I mentioned at the outset earlier in this discussion, these changes reflect the practice that is currently being followed by insurance companies in British Columbia. What we are doing here is codifying the changes and ensuring that the actual legal requirements are consistent with those in other jurisdictions.

[1100]

B. Ralston: In the proposed section 126.14, in this division, there's a reference to actuaries who are not authorized to carry on life insurance business, as I understand it. That's a reference to the insurance company.

So is there a subcategory of actuaries who specialize in different types of life insurance companies, or is any single actuary qualified to perform these duties on behalf of any insurance company no matter what their lines of business?

Hon. C. Hansen: This section requires that an actuary or an individual appointed under this section 126.13 be a member in good standing of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, the national organization of the actuarial profession in Canada. In the case of an insurance company other than a life insurer, the regulator can approve another person as having the necessary training and experience.

B. Ralston: As I understand the actuarial profession, and my understanding may be imperfect, it's essentially a self-governing profession. So is the regulator then prepared to accept the qualifications of anyone who meets the qualifications of the self-governing profession, or is there a qualification process necessary that will be engaged in by the commission to determine a roster of approved actuaries, if I could put it that way?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are not contemplating any kind of an extra designation or requirements for certification as an actuary. The Canadian Institute of Actuaries has that process today, and we rely on that process for that certification. What this section does is also allow the regulator to approve a person other than an actuary who is in good standing with the institute in the cases of those non-life companies. But as I mentioned earlier, the current practice by insurance companies operating in British Columbia is that they do have actuaries performing these tasks that are set out in this legislation.

B. Ralston: In section 126.13 it makes reference to a situation where, if an actuary of an insurance company is not an individual, the actuary "must designate an individual who is responsible for acting on behalf of the actuary." Is that a situation where the actuary is a personal corporation, or is there some other circumstance envisaged here?

Hon. C. Hansen: It could be, as the member said, somebody acting with a personal service corporation, but there are also firms of actuaries, and if an institution was to contract the services of that firm, then what this requires is that an individual in that firm needs to be designated as the person being responsible for acting on behalf of the actuary.

[1105]

B. Ralston: Again, within this grouping, section 126.15 refers to a prohibition against…. A senior officer of an insurance company can't hold the position of actuary unless authorized in writing by the commission.

I haven't had an opportunity to review it. Is there a definition of what a senior officer in an insurance company might be?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is yes. In the existing statute there is a specific definition for senior officer.

B. Ralston: The provisions here, and the next several, appear to deal with the issue of revocation or declaration of a vacancy. Is there a similar mechanism now that the commission has had to resort to, to remove an actuary, or is this simply a question of covering every possible hypothetical circumstance?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is not a legislative provision currently, and that is one of the reasons why these changes are being brought in.

B. Ralston: I don't expect detail, but can the minister advise if that is a specific problem that's arisen? It would seem that if an actuary was no longer suitable to the commission, most prudent insurance companies would take very quick steps to make sure that they had someone who met the requirements of the commission. Otherwise, other regulatory action might well follow. It would seem that this sort of situation would sort itself out, but I'm wondering if it's a response to a specific concern the commission has expressed.

Hon. C. Hansen: These changes are not being driven by any particular circumstance — rather, anticipating that circumstances might arise in the future and that this will give the power to deal with them.
[ Page 3858 ]

B. Ralston: Sections 126.19 and 126.2 refer to what takes place when a vacancy arises. There's a requirement to notify the superintendent in writing. Is this something that would become a public document in the sense that it would be disclosed as part of the regulatory filings of a company? One could well imagine that if it were a public company, that might have some impact on public interest and share price.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's not anticipated that the commission would make that information public. In fact, there is a specific requirement in the act under section 218 that requires confidentiality and actually seriously restricts the ability of FICOM to release information.

[1110]

B. Ralston: I did reference section 218 earlier in relation to another provision, but is there a circumstance in which…? Obviously, the legislation is placing a great value on, and incorporating this in the statute, the office of an actuary, the appointment by the insurance company and the valuation that the actuary does.

Given that importance, is there a point at which a resignation and circumstances that maybe cast some doubt upon the efficacy of the work that the actuary had done and any concerns that that may raise…? Is there a point at which that might be disclosed publicly? Is that contemplated in this series of amendments or in the practice of the commission generally?

Hon. C. Hansen: That information would go not only to the regulator but also to the directors. The directors would certainly be free to make their decision as to whether that information should be released.

B. Ralston: Then the minister is saying that it would be left to the discretion of the board rather than any regulatory requirement to release any information. Presumably, at a point when we get to where there's a replacement actuary, it's referred to…. If there's a transition, that would become public, but the circumstances in which one actuary might have left would be left to the discretion of the board. One can well imagine that a board would not want to disclose anything that reflected badly upon the company. Does that not clash, at some point, with the public right to know?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's really the reason behind requiring that this report go to the superintendent. The superintendent in turn has the responsibility to look after the public interest. But if there were any financial implications that flowed from the resignation of an actuary — for example, if a new actuary came in and had to redo work that had been done by a previous actuary, and that had implications for the financial statements of the company — then that information would certainly be made public. There would be a requirement for that.

But there could be all kinds of reasons for the resignation of an actuary. Some of them might be personal. Certainly, we should not assume that it would be in the public interest for those reasons to automatically be disclosed publicly.

B. Ralston: Well, I thank the minister for that clarification. I certainly wasn't suggesting that it be disclosed in every case, simply where it would touch upon the financial value of the company, I think, and where there might be a legitimate public interest in knowing that. But I accept the minister's clarification and the overriding jurisdiction and discretion of the Financial Institutions Commission.

Moving to section 126.23, "Actuary's valuation," I take it that this merely codifies what actuaries have been doing in relation to insurance companies up till now. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that is correct.

[1115]

B. Ralston: There's reference made in the following section, 126.24, to a "special valuation." Can the minister explain briefly what a special valuation might be, as opposed to the regular valuation?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is something we touched on earlier with regard to the power to bring in an outside auditor. This authorizes FICOM to appoint another actuary to undertake a valuation of an insurance company's liabilities, and the insurance company is then obligated to pay the costs of that valuation.

B. Ralston: Is the circumstance now a question of practice — that this is something an actuary, by his or her professional code, would be obliged to do? Or is this merely codifying that professional obligation?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is a new power. Certainly the FICOM today could appoint an outside investigator, and that could be an actuary, to look at a specific company. But what's new in this provision is the requirement that it's actually the insurance company that would be required to pay for that process.

B. Ralston: In a similar vein, 126.28 would appear to…. It's entitled "Report on matters requiring rectification." Where an actuary discovers something that in her or his opinion has some "material adverse effects on the financial condition of the insurance company, and…require rectification," there's an obligation to report to the board of directors and to the superintendent.

Is this something that codifies what was a past professional obligation of an actuary, or is this a new power
[ Page 3859 ]
arising out of a concern that this may not have been done in every case in the past?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly if an actuary was a member of the Institute of Actuaries, that would come with those professional obligations that the institute establishes for actuaries.

This codifies the requirement and makes it quite clear, for any matters that come to the actuary's attention in the course of carrying on those duties that materially affect the financial condition of the company, that the actuary, under this provision, will have a statutory requirement that he provide that information in writing to the directors, the president and the treasurer of the insurance company as well as to the superintendent.

B. Ralston: Again on this fairly lengthy section. Section 126.29 would appear to give the commission a power to direct the actuary to expand his or her examination and to report on the method by which his or her conclusions were arrived at. Is this codifying an existing power of the commission, or is this a new power?

[1120]

Hon. C. Hansen: Currently, today, if the commission asked an actuary to undertake certain actions…. It would be a highly unusual circumstance, I think, where the actuary would go against the requests of FICOM, but this does codify it.

B. Ralston: The next section refers to a qualified privilege of an oral or written statement made under this act by an actuary. By "qualified privilege," obviously a lengthy legal interpretation is available if necessary.

But in a circumstance where a shareholder action was brought against the company, the board of directors, for the negligence in either failing to disclose or hiding some material aspect of the company, would this written statement by an actuary then be something that could be utilized in a lawsuit or not?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have a sense that, having no legal training myself and the Finance critic, of course, being a member of the bar, he probably has a much, much deeper understanding of qualified privilege than I will ever have. But as I understand it, the answer is yes. There are circumstances where this information could still be utilized in a hearing.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

B. Ralston: Pardon me, I meant to stand up on section 15 here. I did have one question on section 15, if the minister will indulge me.

There's a proposal to strike out reference to "in respect of its reinsurance business," and then there's a subsection which is substituted. I understand the change in the number of days. That just makes the requirement that the report be filed earlier. But can the minister explain why that would be struck out?

The Chair: With the minister's indulgence, the member would wish to return to section 15.

Hon. C. Hansen: What this does is really bring consistency between the timelines for filing between the insurance companies and the reinsurance companies to establish them both at 60 days.

On section 16.

B. Ralston: Yes. This is an amendment to section 158(3), which is a little bit difficult to follow. It makes a number of references to striking out sections and substituting section 136(1) and (2). Perhaps the minister could briefly explain what the purpose of the amendment that's proposed here is.

Hon. C. Hansen: This provision reduces the number of British Columbia regulatory requirements that apply to certain extraprovincial financial institutions, reflecting current regulatory practice and reducing the potential for conflicting regulatory requirements.

[1125]

B. Ralston: Section 136(1) and (2) refer to investment and loan standards, and they refer to what's called "prudent standards." Is that something that is a new requirement in relation to the matters that are regulated under section 158, then?

Hon. C. Hansen: The provisions, 136(1) and (2), currently exist. Those are not new. What this does is it removes some of the very detailed regulatory measures and focuses primarily on the more principle-based regulatory standards, such as the obligation to adhere to prudent standards in making investment-lending decisions. So this will still apply to these extraprovincial financial institutions, but it allows the regulator to take action if serious problems arise.

B. Ralston: Is the minister's staff aware if there has been a judicial interpretation of section 136(1) and (2)?

Hon. C. Hansen: We're not aware of specific cases under this statute, but the prudent person principle is a standard that is used internationally, and certainly most of the OECD countries, for example, have adopted this. We have adopted it with respect to other pieces of legislation, and this also brings us into consistency with other jurisdictions.
[ Page 3860 ]

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

B. Ralston: This amends section 160(3) and adds a new (g), which again…. Perhaps the minister could explain. It appears to be what the minister has called a principle-based regulation, which gives the commission discretion to decide whether or not a corporation is suitable to carry on business in British Columbia. Is that the purpose of this proposed amendment?

Hon. C. Hansen: This adds to the commission's powers that the regulator must consider the business record of an extraprovincial financial institution and the competency of its staff in deciding whether to grant a business authorization.

[1130]

B. Ralston: Presumably, that's part of the powers of the commission. At this point, in a general sense, does this merely codify past practice, or is this seen as augmenting or adding a new power that was necessary and didn't exist before?

Hon. C. Hansen: This certainly adds to the obligations of the commission to look at these specific aspects of an extraprovincial financial institution in considering whether to grant a business authorization.

Today there is provision in the existing language that allows the commission to not issue a business authorization if they believe that it is not in the public interest, but what this additional section requires is that they specifically look at these issues around business performance and staff competency.

B. Ralston: Can the minister give a sense of how many applications of this type would be considered by the commission in a year, and what's the process for making such an application in terms of the time that's required to do it?

Hon. C. Hansen: These companies would apply in writing to the commission. There are a few a year that would be looked at and added. If these companies are authorized federally in Canada, then the approval of their application provincially is automatic.

B. Ralston: I take it from what the minister said that that would be the usual avenue for, say, a foreign insurance company. It would be to obtain federal registration and then make a decision as to which provinces it wished to operate in. Would that be the usual avenue for registration?

Hon. C. Hansen: Almost all of these would come through the federal route.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

B. Ralston: I believe this mirrors an earlier provision, I think, aligning the timing of the reporting of the reinsurance companies. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

B. Ralston: This amends section 178(3), and this is a section that refers to "Payment of commission to unlicensed agents prohibited." It appears to grant to the commission a regulatory power, and this will be dealt with in the future by regulation rather than by including it in the statute. Is that correct?

[1135]

Hon. C. Hansen: That is correct, but it would be the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, not the regulator.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

B. Ralston: The present section 209 reads, "Capacity outside British Columbia," and it appears to give the superintendent power to act outside British Columbia. This appears to add a category beyond the superintendent, of other persons presumably acting under the direction of the superintendent.

Can the minister explain why that would be necessary? I would think that ordinarily, the simple application of delegation would be sufficient to include those people in the past. I assume this is for greater clarity or greater specificity. Is that the case?

Hon. C. Hansen: The intent here is to clarify that not just the superintendent but, in certain circumstances, investigators that he appoints or that the commission appoints have the ability to do investigations that may be outside of the province. Just as an example, now that B.C. credit unions are operating in other jurisdictions, it may be that an investigator from B.C. may want to examine documents that are held in another province. This would ensure explicitly that the power is there to do that.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.
[ Page 3861 ]

D. Donaldson: We're still dealing with the Financial Institutions Act here. This section repeals and substitutes wording in section 211 of the Financial Institutions Act. Part of it, from my understanding, is requiring credit unions, trust companies and insurance companies to report to the superintendent convictions and findings of contraventions by regulators in other jurisdictions arising from transactions related to financial services.

My question to the minister is specifically around credit unions. What would be the implications to credit unions of this new wording in this section?

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, it is relatively recent that credit unions have been operating in more than one province in Canada. It's certainly something that we want to encourage.

We think it's healthy for the credit union movement in Canada to have that ability, but at the same time, governments and our respective regulators have to have the ability to understand what is happening to those credit unions as they operate in other jurisdictions. So if there is an order by a regulator in another jurisdiction or if there's activity that's taking place that could impact their operations in British Columbia, we need to know about it.

D. Donaldson: Well, thank you for that answer. I appreciate the intent of what you're outlining there.

[1140]

I do have some questions related to, specifically, section 211.1(b), around the responsibilities to report to the superintendent in writing if the credit union "has been found by a regulator in…another jurisdiction to have contravened the laws of that jurisdiction." We're talking about outside of Canada in this amendment.

My question would be: how would this apply to a credit union even if the laws that could have been contravened in another jurisdiction don't line up with Canadian law? How does that transpire and play out in this section?

Hon. C. Hansen: This really requires for a notification requirement that the commission would have to evaluate what that information is, the seriousness of the breach. It would not necessarily trigger any action in British Columbia other than to make sure that the commission is aware of what took place.

D. Donaldson: What I understand with the answer from the minister is that the credit union, for instance, in this example is responsible for reporting in writing to the superintendent if they discover they've been found by a regulator outside of Canada that they're contravening laws of another jurisdiction outside of the country respecting financial services, even if they don't align with Canadian laws.

I'm trying to assess how onerous a task this might be for a credit union. If they weren't able to ascertain that and report in writing to the superintendent, what may be the consequences as a result of that, according to these changes?

Hon. C. Hansen: If there was a circumstance where a company was in breach of this provision, a failure to notify, the commission would have several avenues at its disposal. One would be to convict it as an offence under the act. The other would be regulatory measures that the commission could take against the financial institution with the existing powers that the commission has.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

B. Ralston: This is a new provision conferring powers on the commission to make an application to take evidence outside the province. I'm assuming that this conforms with similar provisions in the Evidence Act and other similar statutes. Secondly, have there been circumstances in which it hasn't been possible to obtain necessary evidence, given the absence of this provision up until the present time?

Hon. C. Hansen: This change is not driven by any specific occurrence, or we're not aware of an occasion where obtaining this information has been problematic, but we do want to make sure that the legislative provisions are there to enable it. This is also, word for word, what is established today in the Securities Act.

[1145]

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

B. Ralston: This is a new section that's added, and it's entitled "Collecting and sharing information respecting financial institutions." Can the minister explain what this change signifies?

Hon. C. Hansen: This clarifies the authority of the British Columbia regulator to collect and use information from other financial institutions, regulators and others, and to share information with other Canadian regulators.

B. Ralston: As the minister is aware, there is certainly extended discussion and a commitment from the federal government to create a national securities regulator. Is this, I suppose, a foretaste of the kind of information-sharing that might take place were a national regulator to be enacted and be in existence?
[ Page 3862 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: This would not be impacted by any initiative to move towards a national securities regulator, or vice versa.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

B. Ralston: This appears to be a fairly specific and narrow amendment, but perhaps the minister could clarify just what it means. There's a new section 253.1(8) being added to section 235(1), but the meaning of it escapes me.

Hon. C. Hansen: Section 235 requires that certain orders of the regulator be made in writing. This is purely a consequential amendment as a result of changes that we made to section 253.1.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

B. Ralston: This may also be a similar consequential amendment to section 237(2)(a), but perhaps the minister could confirm that.

Hon. C. Hansen: This section sets out hearing requirements for certain orders made by the regulator, and it makes two consequential amendments. It includes a new reference to the proposed new section 244(5), which authorizes the regulator to issue a cease order or a remedial order where a person has been convicted of an offence, and it removes the reference to section 253.1, which authorizes the regulator to order an administrative penalty.

[1150]

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

On section 30.

B. Ralston: This section refers to immunities, and there's an amendment that adds a person in subsection (1) appointed under section 277.2, and similarly in (b) there's a similar amendment. Perhaps the minister could explain what that means.

Hon. C. Hansen: This actually pertains to the provisions where a credit union is in financial difficulty. So what this does is it extends the immunity protection to cover persons appointed under section 277.2 to assist the administrator of a credit union in difficulty.

D. Donaldson: Could the minister describe situations…? Is this amendment in response to situations where these persons that were appointed under section 243 of the act to provide assistance to the administrator of a credit union that is under supervision, were not protected and the consequences of that?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are not aware of any circumstance wherein a person appointed to assist an administrator has refused to take the responsibility because of the lack of this provision, but we think it is reasonable to extend the immunity to those individuals who are assisting the administrator in the case of credit unions in financial difficulty.

With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.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); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 10:09 a.m.

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

J. Kwan: It's a beautiful British Columbia day, as my old colleague Gerard Janssen used to say.
[ Page 3863 ]

Let me pick up from where we left off yesterday with some of the questions. I'd like to actually explore a little bit — as we sort of got into it yesterday — the Small Business, Technology and Economic Development budget related to the "Asia Pacific Trade and Investment" line item.

[1010]

The budget from 2009-10 was about $12 million — $11.7 million, to be more exact — and then this year we're looking at about $20 million. There is about a $9 million difference — $8 million and change worth of difference. I wonder if the minister could explain the difference and what the anticipated programs are related to the increase in budget in that category.

Hon. I. Black: The increase in this area of our budget represents the third year of a three-year plan. In previous years we've been building the infrastructure in and around our focus on the Asia-Pacific — and, indeed, some of our other international trade efforts — and this is the year where we actually start rolling out the programming.

I will try to give the member some specific examples. It also includes, for example, a large instalment on our China wood commitment that was made by this government. That is effectively where it's focused — around the earthquake that took place and the subsequent initiatives from this government to impress upon the Chinese government that wood products are very effective building materials to be used in China. So there was a large commitment made.

About $2.45 million of the amount I just identified is the commitment — from the line item that the member is referencing — to effectively continue the demonstration that wood is a very good building product for the Chinese to use. Historically they have not been large purchasers of wood from British Columbia. It wasn't too many years ago that the wood exports were actually at zero. They've come a long way since then and are probably our fastest-growing export market for wood products. So this is part of that initiative.

[1015]

A second area is building out our network of overseas offices. We have trade and investment representatives around the world. We would like to add more of them, so there will be a portion of the money put towards that.

Finally, we've got our Asia-Pacific Business Centre, which is now operational. A lot of the programming in that centre is going to be rolled out this year as well, and that money will be used towards that programming.

J. Kwan: Okay, just picking up from that, the minister says $2.4 million for wood in China; that is to say, it's demonstration wood. Is that what the minister is talking about — that this ministry purchases from wherever and then ships over to China as demonstration projects? Is that what he's referring to on that? If I could get some clarification on that.

Then he talked about overseas offices. How much is being allocated out of that $20 million or so towards overseas offices? What location? Does the minister anticipate a full office, as in a trade office in whatever location with a staff complement? If so, what kind of staff complement are we anticipating for those areas?

This is actually a major shift, in fact, if it's the trade office that's being set up, from that of the previous minister, who is now currently the Minister of Finance, when he had the responsibility here. At that point, he swore against trade offices — meaning he spoke against trade offices quite vociferously — because of the extensive costs, he said.

His preferred approach to trade offices was to have trade representatives there, and therefore, we wouldn't have an office but rather would have someone work out of their homes, on a plane, on a bus or something like that, and that is what it seems was going on.

I have to admit that I thought that was strange, to say the least. How is anybody going to find anybody on a bus and on a train and on a plane to talk about business? I thought that was very weird, actually.

I'm glad to hear that there's a change in mindset here, because I think the presence — needing to make sure people know where you are, how to contact you and all of those things — is an additional piece to marketing British Columbia overseas. I wonder if the minister can elaborate on that.

I'm going to stop there. I have other questions about the Asia-Pacific Business Centre as well, but too many questions all at once might boggle the mind. So I'm just going to leave it there and then come back to the Asia-Pacific Business Centre questions.

Hon. I. Black: First, to the question on wood. Yes, I can confirm for the member that as I mentioned, this has been a demonstration project — a business development exercise, if you will — with the Chinese government that comprises the reconstruction of three buildings.

[1020]

One is a primary school, which was completed in September of 2009, and then two under construction. There are a special school for the disabled and a central elderly care centre, both of which are under construction. That is where the expenditures involved are going.

Two items worth noting. It's felt that this initiative is having a significant impact. It is estimated that we will export 1.5 billion board feet of wood to China in 2010. That is an increase of about 91 percent over 2009 alone. As I mentioned in my previous remarks, we were actually at or near zero in terms of our wood exports to China only a few years ago, so we're very, very pleased with the growing market we have there.
[ Page 3864 ]

Then I note this morning that there's an article — I believe it's in the Vancouver Sun — talking about a deal that has been struck by my colleague over in China at the moment, which identifies a wood purchase by China. That is tied directly to the efforts of our government to increase the profile of our wood products with the Chinese government and with the Chinese people over the last number of years.

Turning to the second question pertaining to our trade and investment representatives, the member is correct in her recollection as to the model that the government is deploying. There has not been a change. I thought I'd used the phrase "trade and investment representative" in my first answer, but that is the model we are using as we take our message around the world.

For the benefit of those not familiar with it, instead of using ex-pats from Canada and sending them abroad, which is a very, very expensive model, what we do — a model that we believe is very, very cost-effective — is hire in-country. We hire people to represent us within their own country, who understand the local lay of the land in terms of the business context, the culture, the priorities and the value systems of the people of those nations.

In the case of Asia, it's also very important — and I agree with the member on the point — to have a physical presence. I can confirm for the member that in each of our six offices in Asia, we do have physical buildings, as well, out of which these trade and investment representatives work.

J. Kwan: Okay. Let me just first deal with the wood issue in China, and then we'll move on to the trade offices, because I do have a number of questions stemming from that.

As I understand, the government is trying to explore opportunities with China in exporting wood to China. There have been some gains, although there are some problems as well.

It was cited, of course, that the size in which the logs are being cut and shipped to China does not actually meet their standards. There are issues which I know the industry is, hopefully, working through to address those issues to increase the volume and the opportunities that exist there.

I hear that from business people from China saying that this is only a small dent, if you will, into the opportunities there and that if there are some changes structurally from our side, things could be very different.

Having said that, I'd like to also explore with the minister whether or not any of the moneys in his budget this year — also compared to last year — have been invested in exploring opportunities for value-added initiatives in British Columbia, especially as it relates to the forestry sector.

[1025]

Hon. I. Black: To the member's question about promoting value-added wood products, I can confirm that yes, efforts are very much part of what is happening within the ministry. I'll give a specific example.

As the member may be aware, the world expo is taking place in Shanghai this year. At Shanghai there is, I'm advised, a very large pavilion between 3,000 and 4,000 feet in size, which is focused on B.C. lumber products and value-added products.

We are working in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests on this as well as with the B.C. Forestry Innovation Investment group, who are working with the two ministries in preparing for that exhibition. The BCFII, as they are known, has a focus on promoting British Columbia value-added wood products. That is one of the groups we're working with, engaged directly with our trade and investment reps in the six Asian countries to pursue that endeavour on behalf of the people of B.C.

J. Kwan: Yes, I'm aware of the Shanghai expo coming up. I was actually involved with a photo exhibition opening ceremony in Vancouver showcasing the Shanghai expo that's forthcoming in China.

Okay, so there is an opportunity to showcase value-added materials produced by British Columbia in China during the expo period. I'm also wondering, though: are there initiatives within government and within this minister's bailiwick where there are investments from government in supporting the development of value-added products and businesses in B.C. — so economic development initiatives that might be taking place here in British Columbia to expand that market?

[1030]

Hon. I. Black: Three parts to the answer. The first is that, as the member may know, there's been considerable recent investment on the part of Asian investors in our pulp and paper industry and wood pellets. It runs the gamut in a lot of ways, and it would be our ministry that has been actively involved in helping to arrange that — to corral that interest, point that interest and play matchmaker, if you will. That's one way in which we're involved in that.

The second is that we do work a fair amount with the B.C. FII with respect to sharing resources — basically, tackling it hand in hand when it comes to promoting the value-added sector of our forestry industry. They typically do take the lead, but we work with them quite actively.

The third part of the answer is that our trade and investment reps have communicated quite clearly that there is an appetite for a lot of the value-added wood products of our forestry sector — door frames, countertops, window frames, etc.

To that end, when we have any trade delegations going over or government officials going over — particularly
[ Page 3865 ]
if they are accompanied by some of the representatives from either the B.C. FII or, indeed, the companies themselves — there is high interest, and subsequently meetings are arranged with companies like that when they are overseas.

J. Kwan: For the value-added products that the minister talked about — the wood frame, door frame, countertops and so on and so forth — are we talking about having those items manufactured here in British Columbia, in terms of opportunities for British Columbians and different jobs created here in British Columbia? Or are we talking about exporting wood to China where, of course, they excel at production at very low cost? Will they be taking our wood, then, in anticipation for them to grow that industry over there in China?

I'm just trying to understand which way we are going here, which is an important point for us in B.C.

[1035]

Hon. I. Black: The answer, in short, is: it's actually both. There is interest in the riches of our logs, if you will, but there's also decided interest in the value-added side of our forest industry. I'm advised of a trade delegation last week of investors who were here looking at purchasing mills, where the work would get done here in British Columbia. So on the point that the member is trying to establish, with respect to where the employment takes place, the interest from the Asian community is actually in both veins.

I cite the example of some investors last week looking to purchase mills here, where of course the work would be done in British Columbia. I can also cite…. I believe it was called China wood expo. I believe it was 200 Chinese companies here. It was their high-end engineers. They were focused on the gamut of different wood products out of British Columbia, but certainly there was an interest, again, in the finished product or the value-added product, to use the member's term, at that event as well.

It seems that there's an interest in both the logs and the finished product on the part of Asian investors and Asian decision-makers, and the job of our ministry is to facilitate both of those areas of interest.

J. Kwan: In the interest of time, perhaps I could get the minister to commit to this. Clearly, there are a number of different initiatives that the ministry may well have embarked on with respect to promoting and capturing economic development opportunities for British Columbia in the trade area and also with overseas opportunities in other countries.

Perhaps the minister could commit to providing me with a list of those initiatives that the ministry is involved in, and of programs and opportunities that the ministry is seeking on behalf of British Columbians. Then we don't have to go through each one of those line by line here at these estimates. I don't expect that the minister has a full list anyway. Perhaps if we could do that, then we can move on to the next area, on overseas offices.

[1040]

Hon. I. Black: Yes. Hon. Chair, I certainly have no problem communicating that to the member.

J. Kwan: Great. Thanks. I'll be looking forward to receiving that from the minister. Hopefully, this time the stuff won't go somewhere else somehow or other.

Hon. I. Black: I'll walk it over myself.

J. Kwan: All right. Ah, my colleague just tracked down the stuff that was sent, apparently, yesterday.

Okay. On the overseas trade offices. The minister said that they are trade representatives, so we're still back to the bus- and the train-type mode, although it sounds like they also have a physical location. The issue that I take on these trade representatives is not so much that they are people from the industry, if you will, who actually know the market and know the opportunities that exist.

My issue is having a physical presence so that people know where to find these trade representatives. Because earlier — literally, Hansard will show — the former minister said that they would be on a taxi, on a bus and so on. I just thought…. I don't even know how you do that work if you're just flying around here and there. How do people track you down if you're working out of these various modalities?

In any event. Okay, so trade offices and trade representatives. Can the minister put on the record for me how many physical locations we have and where? How many trade representatives are at these physical locations? What are the new ones that are anticipated, and where will they be located?

[1045]

Hon. I. Black: I can confirm that the member and our ministry are on the same page with respect to the physical presence side of our presence in Asia. We have six offices in Asia, which I believe was the focus of the member's question. There are trade and investment representatives who have physical space in those jurisdictions, and they include Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Bangalore. Those are the six where we have trade and investment representatives.

The number of staff in each of those varies around the world. It averages about three per office. I hope that's helpful to the member. They would have three people in each of those offices.

Then the member asked about anticipated new locations. We're exploring three new locations for our trade
[ Page 3866 ]
and investment representatives to operate on our behalf. Those include Mumbai, Taipei and Singapore.

J. Kwan: When does the minister expect those other three locations to materialize?

Hon. I. Black: We're currently going through the exploration of the different options and what they entail and trying to establish the relationships necessary to proceed on these offices. It is our hope that that work will be done towards the end of this summer, at which point we'll be able to lock in on the specific timing that we would put down as our objectives or desires for when we would actually open the offices at that point in time.

J. Kwan: Sorry, I just want to go back one minute on the request for information. The minister was going to provide written information to us on the different initiatives that the ministry is embarking on, trying to expand opportunities for British Columbia in the trade sector but also with local potential initiatives here for economic development.

Along with that I'm wondering: with the budget of $20 million or so this year, what are the forecasts for the ministry in terms of trade missions that this ministry will be paying for us to go overseas — for the minister or his designate or representatives to go overseas — to try to capture opportunities? If I could get a list of that — of what the trade missions would entail and who would be going and to what locations and when — I would appreciate that.

I fully expect that the minister doesn't have all that information at his fingertips right now, so if I could get a commitment to receive that in writing from the minister, I would appreciate it.

I saw that the minister nodded, so I presume that he'll get up and confirm.

On that, I'll move on to the trade offices question as well. Could the minister please tell me: what's the budget allocated for each of these trade offices? I say trade offices with the understanding or proviso that it's the physical location. Then, of course, the trade representatives. So the detailed sort of breakdown of the budget for each of these trade locations.

[1050]

It could be because I'm asking for some fairly detailed information here for each of the trade offices. I keep saying trade offices. It's just a habit, but the minister knows what I mean by that. If I could receive that information in writing, as well, in terms of each location and what the budget breakdown is and the operating breakdown, etc., for each of those locations and trade representatives — I'd be happy to receive that as well.

Hon. I. Black: Going back to the member's first question pertaining to anticipated trade missions on the part of our ministry, at this stage I personally plan to have at least one trip over to Asia in the fiscal year '10-11. The details of that are not yet available, but we'll certainly scope them out and provide them to the member to the best that we have at this stage and try to put some stakes in the ground, which will hopefully be useful to the member on that one.

It is important to note, though, that some of the other ministries — and I think of our colleague the Ministry of Forests — will take trips over or go around the world to further the interests of their own ministry. That is not in any way unusual. They pay for those, and they plan those. They do consult with us as they get ready to go, to make sure that there's a consistency in our message.

Obviously, there's a perhaps on-the-ground knowledge that we can share with them to make sure that they're assisted and get the best use of their time and the taxpayers' money while they're over there. We do have a kind of consultative role, but we don't profess to take ownership for those trips, and they pay for them themselves.

So I don't want to set the expectation of the member that I can provide any other ministries who may be travelling, because they don't share that information with us until they announce that they're ready to go, and then we basically try to consult with them and assist them.

With respect to the trade and investment offices and requests for more detailed information, we will provide that in writing to the member, as requested — just with one caveat. It is a competitive process, because these individuals that we have hired are in many cases companies who have competed for the right to represent British Columbia in their jurisdictions. So there is an element of competitive information there that we have to be a little guarded with, to protect them and, frankly, to protect the negotiating position of the province of British Columbia.

But I think that there are some bulk numbers there on an office-by-office basis that should certainly give the member some context and flavour of our expenditures in this area. If we can use that as a starting point, I'll certainly commit to send that to the member in writing.

J. Kwan: Yeah, I'd be interested in receiving that.

When the minister says that there are issues of a competitive nature around releasing the material, is the minister talking about the contracts which the minister has signed with these trade representatives, because they're marketing it themselves? So if people knew, for example, that the province of B.C. pays them X amount to do this work, they may not be able to sort of go out there and drive a tougher bargain for potentially better contracts elsewhere?

[1055]

Is that what the minister is talking about? I'm not quite sure what he's referring to on the competitive nature of things.
[ Page 3867 ]

Hon. I. Black: To the member's question, the contracts in question are all actually managed through a formal RFP process. Like other procurement processes, these are managed according to the standards of the province of British Columbia, which allows for the protection of competitive information that any proponent would include in an RFP-type process. So to that extent, we have an obligation to protect their competitive interests and, indeed, our own.

When this contract comes up for renewal, as an example, if it was public information…. The breakdown and details — if you will, competitive information — of a given consulting firm or contractor that's bidding on these types of projects would give an unfair advantage to their competitors, who at that point are trying to compete to win the business as well.

J. Kwan: Okay. Then, on the expenditures, is it a breakdown of the trade representatives and their contract, whatever that contract is? Would it include a breakdown of the costs associated with the other staff — there's one trade representative and their support staff, I imagine — which the province of B.C. pays for? Then, I would imagine, for the physical space itself…. Is it space that B.C. also pays for, for these trade representatives there to exist and be housed in this sort of B.C. physical location? There's expenditure associated with that.

Is that what I can anticipate from the minister, along those lines, in terms of the operating expenditures of these trade locations with the trade representatives? I understand that on the contractual side of things, there are some safeguards there. I understand that, but overall, surely we can get the scope of the expenditures associated with each of these offices as they break down into the line items associated with it.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. I. Black: We will release all the information that we can under the competitive provisions of our procurement processes. We're bound by those.

But for the member's information, we effectively have one contract. We don't actually hire the support staff of the individuals. We pay them in bulk. It's one of the advantages to this particular process. We negotiate a contract to get a service at a bulk number. They are responsible for the hiring of staff. They pay their real estate out of that amount, and it is not government who does the breakdown of those different costs.

But we will provide absolutely everything that we can within the existing frameworks of our purchasing policies of the government of B.C. Within that framework we'll give as much information as we have available to us.

[1100]

J. Brar: I will probably go from China to India very briefly, for a short visit.

The minister just mentioned a few minutes ago that in India the government of British Columbia has what we call a trade representative in Bangalore. If the minister can provide a bit more information as to when that was opened and if there's any location of that office.

Hon. I. Black: I can confirm for the member that the trade and investment rep was hired in February 2009, and the real estate was secured in the late spring of that year. I can get the specific date for the member. The specific address and photos, I understand, are available on our ministry website. We don't have that with us, but if the member would like me to get that and send that to him, I can do that, or I can refer the member to the website. The physical address of the building is there.

I'd just add as a corollary that this is a really interesting office for us. We're piloting a neat project that may be of interest to the member opposite. Bangalore, as many know, is kind of viewed as the Silicon Valley of India, and there are a lot of budding technology companies there.

What we have done in this trade and investment office as part of that contract is to actually have additional real estate made available on an incubator-type basis, where British Columbia companies that would like to get established and do business in India have actually got some physical space that they can work with in trying to reach out into the community there and to expand their reach as Canadian companies with respect to business partnerships, marketing opportunities, etc., which is so crucial, especially in the partnership end of things in the technology sector.

The Bangalore office does indeed, to the member's question, have a physical address, and it's being used in a rather unique and innovative fashion.

J. Brar: What are the operating hours of that office?

Hon. I. Black: I'm advised that they operate on standard business hours.

[1105]

J. Brar: I just want to make sure, because the question has been a bit confusing. I just want to make sure that there's a physical location and that the operating hours are, as the minister said, regular time in Indian operating hours.

My understanding is this: there is a physical office with what you call a sign there — B.C. trade representative — and the phone number and all that kind of information, as we provide in a normal case. I just want the minister to confirm that there's a physical location with a sign — B.C. representative office — with set operating hours.
[ Page 3868 ]

Hon. I. Black: I'm advised by my staff that I can answer affirmatively to each of the member's questions.

J. Brar: The second thing I want to confirm…. The minister just mentioned that they're working on three other possible locations, which includes one location in India — that is, Mumbai — and Taipei and Singapore. I just want to ask the minister: is there any other location other than Mumbai which is being considered at this point in time by the minister — in India?

Hon. I. Black: I can confirm for the member that with respect to our formal trade and investment representative contracts that we have within our ministry and the physical offices that they subsequently open within the Asian jurisdictions, Mumbai is the only office being contemplated on a go-forward basis by our ministry at this point in time.

It's a very large commercial centre. There's lots of logic behind why that's the case. But while there may be other opportunities within India as we go forward, at this point I think the priority that we're placing with respect to new trade and investment representative relationships, as we have them within our ministry, remains Mumbai.

J. Brar: I'm a bit confused about the locations as to what those factors are, based on which the location is basically chosen. Like Delhi, for example, is the capital of India, and Delhi is not part of those two options. I just wanted to ask the minister: what are those key factors, based on which the location is chosen for the B.C. trade representative office — whatever we call it?

[1110]

Hon. I. Black: The member asked kind of two questions at once: what's the basic criteria that we use, and second, why is there not more focus in Delhi? I think that like any ministry and any government, we have to apply our resources where we feel we can get the most return on that investment.

Delhi, as we know, is one of the major political centres within India. It is also where we've got the Canadian high commission, so we believe that we can capture much of the economic opportunity for Canada, and particularly British Columbia, by leveraging an office that exists there in the high commission's office.

But we also take advice beyond that. We also take advice from groups such as the Asia-Pacific Trade Council, who steered us towards our existing offices and concurred with us that Mumbai is the more logical place to next focus our resources as we seek to grow our presence in the Asian countries.

J. Brar: Once again, my understanding is that at this point in time we have one trade representative in Bangalore, and the other one is being considered, which is Mumbai. So I understand that. I just want to again clarify: are there any kind of trade-related activities taking place in Chandigarh by the B.C. government?

Hon. I. Black: Yes, I can confirm for the member that there is. The individual in Chandigarh is not a trade and investment representative. It's a consultant from whom we are benefiting in furthering our interests, but that is a contract owned by the Advanced Education Ministry. It's a rather unique relationship, but that representative is furthering our interests on a contractual basis that is different from our trade and investment representatives that have been discussed here.

So just to clarify for the member: there are different types of relationships. We own wholly the contracts with trade and investment representatives within our ministry, and the location that we've described, contemplating Mumbai as our next physical location with a trade and investment rep securing that location as part of his or her contract. We have the benefit of a contract that is held by another ministry, the Advanced Education Ministry, with respect to economic development consulting that is being done in the Chandigarh region.

J. Brar: Can the minister confirm, then, that there's no trade representative in Chandigarh opened by the government of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Black: To be very clear to the member, what I was speaking about was that the Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development has trade and investment representatives under a very specific model. We are fortunate that we are benefiting from a contract that exists with another ministry in the Chandigarh region of India.

My understanding — and I have to defer to the ministry responsible — is that the primary focus is one of the provincial nominee program and looking for that entrepreneurial element, which certainly benefits us provincially from an economic development standpoint, and that there's a focus on labour and labour mobility and skills that are being focused with the individual in the Chandigarh region.

[1115]

But I think there's definitely an economic development benefit to British Columbia and to our ministry in the work that we do in India. It is my hope that there would be active communication between our trade and investment representatives and the consultant in Chandigarh, but that is not a relationship that reports in through our ministry.

I don't want to comment too much further on it when it's not one that we own, but I would state that I do believe there's a definite economic development benefit we get from that relationship, and I consider it a bit
[ Page 3869 ]
of a bonus, if you will, based on how the consultant is focused.

J. Brar: What happens on a normal case, if we ask any question which falls under any other ministry, is that this minister says: "That's not my responsibility." But now I'm specifically asking a question as it relates to the responsibility of this minister, and I will repeat the question. Is there any office opened by your ministry — any B.C. trade representative open — in the city of Chandigarh in India? Yes or no?

Hon. I. Black: I thought I was fairly direct. There is no trade and investment representative, as we have them within our ministry, in the Chandigarh region of India.

J. Brar: Now, I have asked the question about: what are the key factors based on which location is chosen? And I would add to that. In the last election the Premier of this province made the promise to the people of India — and, particularly, went to Surrey to make the announcement — that they will open up a trade office in Chandigarh.

Secondly, I would like to say that in B.C. about 80 percent of the population comes from Punjab, and Chandigarh is part of Punjab. The offices we are opening are in Bangalore, which is not a bad thing, and then in Mumbai, which is in another part of the country.

I just want to understand from this minister his business plan. The people who are here come from that particular location; 80 percent of the Indo-Canadian population in B.C. comes from Chandigarh. So how does it make sense to not open an office in Chandigarh and to open the offices in Bangalore and Mumbai?

I would like to ask the minister to clarify that and also to make a business case on that — as to why he chose not to recommend opening the office in Chandigarh, when the Premier promised it and when we have 80 percent of the Indo-Canadian population in B.C. from around the Chandigarh area.

[1120]

Hon. I. Black: The different offices that we have around the world often have different focuses. It was only in the recent past that, I believe, our Attorney General was in the Chandigarh region opening the office of the consultant that I described just a few moments ago.

The focus of that particular work that had been done by that individual in that office in the Chandigarh region is one of entrepreneurial development, consistent with our provincial nominee program, which is wholly owned by the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development. It is for that reason that they are in that area.

That opening of that office celebrated recently by the Attorney General, as far as I can see, makes good on the commitment that the Premier made, which the member opposite is referencing. All I was saying is that that is owned by a different ministry because of a different focus on that area. But the labour market development, the skills development area and the entrepreneurial focus as manifested through the provincial nominee program are the primary focuses of that individual, which is why it's contained within another ministry.

So there isn't the inconsistency. There's just the parcelling out of the work being done by a different ministry because of the very specific focus of that office in the Chandigarh region.

J. Brar: Clearly, this is another broken promise of this government. The Premier of this party goes to the city of Surrey in the middle of the election and makes an announcement that this government will open a trade office in Chandigarh, and as soon as the election is over, it becomes something else.

Clearly, there is no office, this minister has said, by this ministry — particularly, we call it trade representative — in the city of Chandigarh. I still fail to understand why the Premier would make a promise before the election and then not deliver after the election on his promise and why he chose to go to the city of Surrey, with significant populations from India, and make that announcement and then open the office in Bangalore and Mumbai — which is not a bad thing, by the way.

I would ask the minister to include the city of Chandigarh in his list for opening a new trade representative in Chandigarh, because as I said before, 80 percent of the population in the province of British Columbia from India comes from Punjab and Chandigarh. That's why it makes sense to open an office in Chandigarh specifically focusing on trade, as the minister is opening offices in other areas.

That's important because the Premier of this province made a promise with the people of Surrey and people of Indo-Canadian origin during the election. That's why it's important as well. I would ask the minister to include the city of Chandigarh in his list for opening this office as quickly as possible as promised by the Premier of his party.

Hon. I. Black: There are other arms of government, agencies of government, that have got offices in different regions in India. The FII, as we mentioned earlier, is an example. I understand that they've got two offices in India. You put these offices where it makes some sense to match up the needs and the opportunities of each of these regions relative to the agenda of British Columbia and to furthering our plans here.

[1125]

The member just mentioned the fact that 80 percent of Surrey's population — his words, not mine — comes from that particular region of India. To me, it makes perfect sense, then, that if you've already got the mobility
[ Page 3870 ]
of people — which, I should point out, is an important part of trade as well…. Trade is not just about exporting and importing of raw goods and finished goods. It's also about the movement of people.

To that extent, to me, it makes intuitive logic — if you've already got a region of the country of India where there's an obvious movement of people taking place already, because, as the member said, 80 percent of Surrey's Indo-Canadian population comes from that region of India — that the trade office that you would have in that region would be focused on the people element of trade, which certainly would include entrepreneurs.

There are great entrepreneurs that we have in British Columbia of Indo-Canadian origin, and there are great entrepreneurs that exist in India, in the Chandigarh region, who perhaps are looking for opportunities to bring what they do and their skills to British Columbia and to Canada — not just to start out new lives for themselves but also to bring what they have to offer, their skills, to help grow our economy on this side of the Pacific Ocean.

In that context, to me, it makes perfect sense — if we're going to open an office in the Chandigarh region, as has now been done, as was celebrated in the not too distant past by our Attorney General when he was in that region — that the focus should be entrepreneurship, that it should be the provincial nominee program and that it should be skills development and mobility. By the member's own description, that makes perfect and intuitive sense.

The fact that that would be an office opened by our government but under a different ministry which happens to own the provincial nominee program, to me, makes perfect sense. It fulfils the commitment made by the Premier of British Columbia.

That's not to say that we wouldn't look at expanding. I think it's important to understand — perhaps this will help the member — that, as I mentioned earlier, it is my expectation that the trade and investment representatives and the model of the trade and investment representatives that we have deployed around the world would communicate with each other within a given country — and across a continent, where it makes sense as well.

Likewise, within India itself, it's my expectation that our trade and investment representative in Bangalore would be in contact with the trade consultant that we have got hired in the Chandigarh region and that is focused on the entrepreneurship and the provincial nominee program.

To me, it is my expectation they would be in contact with each other. As that representative reports back to us and identifies more opportunities, if the Bangalore representative is not able to assist in that regard, which is my expectation, and perform the duties that a trade and investment representative performs, that that's a good problem to have. That would be a great problem for them to bring to us as we contemplate where we're going to go next within India.

For now, however, we have done the spadework and much of the research and are pulling together the data around opening our next office. Mumbai appears to be the higher priority from an economic development standpoint of British Columbia, but there is no finish line in the exercise of analyzing your priorities in a given region around the world.

It is my hope that one of the many benefits of the relationship that now exists in the Chandigarh region of India will be to educate us on other opportunities that may exist in that region, which may indeed involve opening a trade and investment representative's office that we have in our ministry somewhere down the road, but I don't want to predict that part of the future until we have that relationship established and have the data to work with.

J. Brar: Clearly, the minister is refusing to even consider Chandigarh as a preferred location for opening trade representation. That's what the minister said. What I understand the minister to say is that Mumbai is a priority at this point in time and Chandigarh is not. That's understandable, because as I said, I have asked the minister categorically a specific question. At the beginning the minister said that we have only one office in Bangalore, and the minister is considering opening another one in Mumbai. He never mentioned anything about Chandigarh.

Then I asked what the key factors are for choosing the location to open an office. The minister said that, somehow, they believe Bangalore and Mumbai are better locations because in Delhi we have our embassy there. I asked the minister…. This is about the promise made by the Premier of this province before the election that they would open an office in Chandigarh, and they mentioned a trade office.

I want to correct the minister. There's a big difference. The minister is Minister of Small Business. There's a big difference between a trade office and the PNP program. The PNP program is an arm of the immigration department. It's not a trade office. That's a totally different focus.

[1130]

The focus of a trade office is trade, economic activity, Minister — you should know that — and that's what was promised by the Premier of this province, not the PNP program. PNP is a simple arm of immigration, not trade activities.

The Premier and this government have betrayed the people of Surrey, betrayed the people of India on this case, because they made the promise before the election, and now they are refusing to open an office in Chandigarh.
[ Page 3871 ]

The minister mentioned two times, although I never asked about it, that there is a trade office open in Chandigarh. Do we have the location of that office? Do we have a building for that office? Do we have the sign there that there's a B.C. trade office in Chandigarh? I would like to ask the minister to clarify that.

Hon. I. Black: The member, in his preamble, basically said the opposite of everything I had just finished saying. I won't go through it on a point-by-point basis, but it's clear that I disagree with the member's assessment of the situation.

I believe it was January 22 when our Attorney General stood, surrounded by entrepreneurs in the Chandigarh region, celebrating the opening of that office. To suggest that the provincial nominee program, which is one of the most successful programs that we've run in British Columbia at so many different levels…. I mean, the dean of our business school at the University of British Columbia was one of the first people to come through that program.

The focus of getting skilled people into the right jobs and getting the latitude from the federal government to actually attract the right people to our country when we need them in the areas where we need them — that is absolutely an area of economic development. In fact, the member may not be aware of this, but that program actually was at one point in this ministry. It started in this ministry. It's clear that the linkage is there. History is very clear on that. The pragmatics and the mechanics of the program itself are pretty clear on that.

To the member's question, I am advised that there is a physical office — they're referring to it as an opportunity office; a trade opportunity office is what I believe they're calling it — in the Chandigarh region. I don't have the address of that office. I can certainly get that for the member or simply refer them to the ministry that actually owns the contract for that individual who is representing our interests in developing our economy in British Columbia in the Chandigarh region of India.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister could commit to provide to me information related to the Asia-Pacific Trade Council, where they have done a number of reports — China, Hong Kong, India, Japan and South Korea. Then there were discussion papers as well — Southeast Asia and Taiwan.

In these reports there is a list of recommendations on things that they recommended to the government in terms of taking action. I'm curious to know which of those recommendations have been acted on and the progress related to their recommendations to the government. I won't go through all the recommendations, because there are many.

[1135]

In the interest of time, I wonder if the minister could commit to responding to me in writing on what recommendations have been acted on by the government and the progress, if you will, related to the suggested recommendations from the Asia-Pacific Trade Council from these reports.

Hon. I. Black: As the member referenced, there was a series of recommendations made by the Asia-Pacific Trade Council to government. What we did with those recommendations was develop the Asia-Pacific initiative, and we did that in conjunction with the Asia-Pacific Trade Council. So our objective was to take their number of recommendations — and I understand that in one report they're actually a very long list of recommendations — and develop that into the approach that is known as the Asia-Pacific initiative.

It was done in conjunction with them, with the Asia-Pacific Trade Council. They validated the Asia-Pacific initiative to connect the dots, if you will, with what we are doing on a go-forward basis. It's executing on that initiative, the Asia-Pacific initiative and the plan within that, which is actually the focus of the budget lift that the member first asked me about when we started this morning.

J. Kwan: So the strategic plans for the Asia…. Presumably there are plans in place for each of the different regions that were cited in the report — what the Asia-Pacific council had asked for — and they deemed that as implementation of the recommendations. Is that what I'm hearing the minister say?

[1140]

Hon. I. Black: I can confirm for the member that, yes, the Asia-Pacific Trade Council is aware that government's response to their reports was the Asia-Pacific initiative. The objective of that was to take from those recommendations an approach that government could use on a go-forward basis, taking advantage of their advice and their wisdom that went into their reports.

It is my understanding, from my conversations with them, that they deem that an appropriate response to their various reports. We remain very grateful for their guidance in putting that stuff together in the first place.

J. Kwan: Let me ask another question on the Asia-Pacific Business Centre that the minister mentioned. It's a fairly new centre that's been set up. I'm wondering how much of the budget within the ministry is allocated to operate that centre. Presumably, the operating funds are coming from this ministry. What programs do they have in place for that centre?

Again, in the interest of time, I'd be happy to receive that information in writing and in detail from the minister. If that's okay with the minister, then I'm going to yield the floor to my good colleague the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke to ask a question on a riding-specific issue.
[ Page 3872 ]

N. Macdonald: In the ministry's major projects inventory, one of the projects is Jumbo Glacier Resort. The date on the most recent list that I've seen, which is December 2009, is spring of 2010.

The question is: what is the status? If the minister has that information, I'd appreciate it — or if you can direct me to the ministry that would have that information.

Hon. I. Black: As the member may be aware, the large projects under major projects inventory…. It is an inventory that is done. It's a weather vane, one of the weather vanes that we use as to our economic health in the province of British Columbia. It is gathered by an independent third party who basically works with what I call a statement of intent on the part of various proponents around the province of projects of a certain size.

I believe that it's by size of building permit and the projects themselves. This helps us to determine the overall economic optimism, if you will, on the part of those who would invest large sums of money to put people to work in B.C. It's an important weather vane that we track.

With respect to the specific project, our ministry wouldn't track the status of that. While it may be included in the list that we get — and it is published on the Web, I believe — we wouldn't get the specifics around each of the projects as to where it's at and how it's doing other than grouping them into those that are in the planning stage, those that are in the execution stage and those that are in the completed stage — to coin a phrase.

[1145]

I don't have the specifics for the member, but I will certainly commit to finding out who does. We'll communicate that to the member, if that's acceptable to the member.

N. Macdonald: To get a sense. So I go to a different ministry, and you'll…. I would presume that would be the Tourism Ministry. If you could maybe correct that and give me that information. Do you also have sort of a list, for instance, with this project, like who the investors are? Do you have any specific information on the project at all, or is this simply a list where you're taking information from other places? None of it is very specific, and it's just put into a list. For instance, with this project, do you have a list of who the investors are in this project?

Hon. I. Black: A couple of things for the member opposite. Just to give the actual definition of this. We do this on a quarterly basis, as the member may know. It lists all major projects that are proposed, planned or underway. Those are the specific categories. I was being colloquial in my last answer. It's proposed, planned or underway.

They are projects that have a capital cost of at least $20 million within the Lower Mainland and valued at $15 million or more if you're outside the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. It is basically a listing that they gather. The individual who gathers this on behalf of government does so using a variety of sources. Very often it will be business permits, but it can be also be private statements of intent on the part of a developer, or something like that.

It is not tracked in terms of who the investors are for the different projects in terms of what we publish and what we track. We don't have that level of detail. We don't attract that. We're not looking for it.

I am noting the hour, hon. Chair. I would like, however, to state a correction on the record. Yesterday in our discussion in the hallway with the media pertaining to my attendance at various Olympic events, I distributed a list to the media which was correct. My citing from that list, which was distributed to the members opposite and to the media, however, included a misstatement on my part. I wanted to correct that on the record to make sure there's no doubt.

There were seven different dates at which I attended Olympic events, sporting events. On one of those dates — and the list actually shows this — there were two events. I referenced that I'd been to seven events. That number is actually eight, and if you look at the list that was distributed to the members opposite and to the media, it actually shows both of those events on that piece of paper.

Certainly, the information has been distributed accurately. However, when I cited it in conversation I used the number seven. I should have used the number of eight, and I wanted to remove any shadow of doubt from that piece of data for the House.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.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