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)

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 3

[ Page 3939 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2010

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure today to welcome three representatives from the B.C. and Yukon Catholic Women's League. Joining us today are Marianna Caldwell, the president, from Aldergrove; Nancy Simms, president-elect, from Kamloops; and Sandra Stajduhar, resolutions chair, from Trail. I ask all the members of the House to please make these members of the CWL very welcome.

R. Sultan: We are graced today by members of the critically important insurance industry. We have in the galleries with us representatives from Wawanesa Insurance, Peace Hills, the Dominion, Chubb, AXA and CNS. They are led by the Insurance Bureau of Canada staff, led by vice-president Lindsay Olson, supported by Serge Corbeil and Miranda Lee. Would you please make them welcome.

[1335]

Hon. B. Bennett: Today in the precincts we're having a meeting with members of UBCM and the provincial government to discuss matters relating to local government elections. In the gallery we have two members from UBCM who are part of that task force: Mary Sjostrom, who is mayor of the great city of Quesnel, and Barbara Steele, who is a councillor for the great city of Surrey. Please help me make them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: It's a pleasure for me to be able to introduce to the House today the members of the Technology Education and Careers Council of British Columbia. TECC was first formed in 2008 by ASTTBC to bring together industry leaders in education, different associations, to advance technology education and training.

Board members today here include Sandy Innes of TELUS; Jan Marston of Terasen; Josh Blair of TELUS; Steve Cardwell of the Vancouver school board; Harry Diemer of the B.C. Safety Authority; Diane Sullivan from the B.C. Safety Authority; Andrew Hay from Okanagan College; Reid Johnson, Health Sciences Association; John Leech of ASTTBC; Debbie Nagle, the vice-president of B.C. Hydro; Grahame Rainey, president of the B.C. Science Teachers Association; Sid Siddiqui of Stantec; Bryan Tisdall of Science World; Harry Watson of Metro Testing; M.J. Whitemarsh from the Canadian Home Builders Association; Lesley Wilson, the principal of Concost Consultants; Don Wright, president of BCIT; and Glen Wonders, the vice-president of Terrane Metals.

They're here to meet with ministers and MLAs today, and I'd ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

M. Elmore: I have two introductions today. I'd like to welcome and introduce my partner. Angelina Cantada is here. As everyone can appreciate, it's not easy being a partner of an MLA, given our schedules. I'm reminded of that constantly. She's got great support from my family and friends and all my supporters. I appreciate her support.

She's also an award-winning director. She won the best female director for the Vancouver Short Film Festival. She was a finalist in the Crazy8s film festival. Her short film Sikat, the story about a Filipino caregiver, will be making the rounds of the film festivals around the world. I please ask you to give her a very warm welcome.

I'm also very pleased to introduce a good friend of mine, a good friend of the House here. The former MLA for Vancouver-Kensington, David Chudnovsky, is in the House. He's continuing to be very actively involved in Vancouver with the Coalition of Progressive Electors, organizing in Kensington and right across Vancouver. It's great to have him here.

L. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of public servants seated in the gallery today. They are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. The workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work they do and the work of the ministries and how that all affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them very welcome.

D. Hayer: At this time I'd also like to welcome Barbara Steele, one of the best councillors in the city of Surrey and also one of my constituents. Would the House also make her very welcome.

Statements

ABORIGINAL LANGUAGE PRESERVATION

Hon. G. Abbott: On March 27, 1989, a resolution was passed by the Assembly of First Nations to declare March 31 National Aboriginal Language Day. This is a day to promote the use of indigenous languages in the workplace and/or social settings. Aboriginal language and culture, as you know, are an important part of the rich diversity of British Columbia.
[ Page 3940 ]

British Columbia has the greatest diversity of First Nation languages in Canada. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples identified that two-thirds of all indigenous languages in the country are found in British Columbia, which has 32 distinct indigenous languages.

While British Columbia is the most linguistically diverse region of Canada, many of these languages are facing a rapid decline, and some face the threat of extinction within the next decade.

[1340]

Within British Columbia the lead organization responsible for First Nation language revitalization is the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council, a provincial Crown corporation established in 1990 by the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act. I'd ask the House to join with them in celebrating National Aboriginal Language Day.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the 39th Provincial General Election and Referendum on Electoral Reform, May 12, 2009; the Auditor General report No. 11, 2009-10: Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF YOUTH IN BURNABY

R. Lee: Burnaby has many talented and inspiring youth leaders who make a difference in the province and enrich the lives of others. Today I would like to congratulate some of the talented youth in the city of Burnaby. They are an inspiration to many and show us that no matter how young you are, you are capable of accomplishing some very special stuff.

Recently 11-year-old Burnaby resident Scott Xiao came second in the Canwest Canspell National Spelling Bee in Ottawa. Nazampal Jaswal of Byrne Creek Secondary won the BMO Loran award, which is the largest undergraduate scholarship in the country, valued at $75,000. The two have shown that they are amongst the top performers in the nation, which is truly a remarkable feat.

Meanwhile, Burnaby's grade 12 student Stephen Scaccia recorded and released an independent five-track CD and donated all of the proceeds to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation. At the age of ten, Jacob Lam and Hamza Hijazi organized a very successful soup drive for victims of the Haiti earthquake. This type of compassion is so wonderful to see in our young people.

Tomorrow the Michael J. Fox Theatre will be showcasing Burnaby's talented youth from ten to 12 p.m. The event will feature over 90 young people. It's very encouraging to see that they are making an impact on our community.

Burnaby youth are certainly an inspirational bunch determined to make a difference early in their lives. It is without a doubt that the future of B.C. looks bright. I would like the House to join me in applauding the achievements of these talented British Columbians.

SHELBOURNE COMMUNITY CELEBRATION

R. Fleming: I'm pleased to talk today about an upcoming celebration called the Shelbourne Community Celebration. The district of Saanich has partnered with a number of community organizations in my constituency to present the Shelbourne Community Celebration on Sunday, April 11. The event celebrates a United Nations World Health Organization initiative called 1,000 cities, 1,000 lives. It starts with a family bike ride escorted by the Saanich police along Shelbourne Street.

The global goals of the 1,000 cities, 1,000 lives campaign are to open up public spaces to promote healthy lives. This includes recreation activities, of course, the use of parks, town hall meetings, environmental cleanup campaigns — in my constituency — and promoting commuting alternatives to end congestion and the air quality impacts for motorized vehicles. This campaign is also aiming to collect 1,000 stories of urban health champions who have taken action and had a significant impact on the health of their cities.

There are two components to the Shelbourne Community Celebration: as I mentioned, the family bike ride, which departs at 11 a.m. at the Gordon Head Recreation Centre; but from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Shelbourne Plaza, community members will have an opportunity themselves to learn about and provide input into creating a new vision for the Shelbourne corridor.

Work has already started on the Shelbourne corridor action plan to develop, in consultation with the community and other stakeholders, a comprehensive, long-term community plan, a 20- to 30-year vision for the entire corridor and the neighbourhoods on either side of Shelbourne Street.

I want to applaud the many community organizations and the district of Saanich, who are organizing the Shelbourne Community Celebration. I want to wish it great success and invite and encourage local residents to join me there and any members of the Legislative Assembly — my neighbour from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, for example — to come out and support the Shelbourne corridor action plan.

[1345]
[ Page 3941 ]

ETHEL TIBBITS AWARDS

L. Reid: We have the Oscars, we have the Emmys, and in Richmond we have the Ethels. The women who help make Richmond a great place to live, work and play will be recognized in beautiful new surroundings during this 17th annual Ethel Tibbits Women of Distinction Awards and luncheon. Locals are encouraged to make nominations in any of the five categories — sport, youth, arts, community and business — by filling out a form on the Richmond Review's home page at richmondreview.com. The nomination period closes this Friday, April 2 at 5 p.m.

Since its inception in 1994, the Ethels have raised tens of thousands of dollars for Nova House, a shelter for women and their children escaping domestic violence. Named after founding publisher Ethel Tibbits, the event has raised money for other women's charities, including the maternity ward at Richmond Hospital, the Richmond Women's Resource Centre and a scholarship fund for women returning to school.

Ethel Tibbits was a pioneering newswoman who started her career as a Vancouver Province reporter in the 1920s before moving to Richmond, where she married husband Orland Delos Tibbits in 1926. In 1932 she began working at a fledgling newspaper, the Richmond Review. Within a year she bought it. Together, Orland and Ethel ran the paper out of their store, called Blundell Grocery. Orland was circulation manager and Ethel was the editor of the Richmond Review.

Ethel was known as a force to be reckoned with. Week after week she explored the daunting issues of the Depression era, writing intelligent and hard-hitting editorials. She was tough, insightful and strong in her opinions. For example, in 1933 she predicted England would join the rising conflict in Europe. In 1942 in a series of editorials she openly criticized the government's plan to intern Japanese Canadians. She was ahead of her time, hon. Speaker, and became a legend in Richmond.

Last year's winners were Melanie Pudlas in the Arts, Ami McKay for Business, Nina Graham in the Community, Marilyn Grubb in Sport, Prianka Dhir in Youth and Frances Clark in Pioneer. We congratulate them, and we look forward to this year's winners, who will be announced on April 17.

UN CONVENTION ON RIGHTS
OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

S. Hammell: This month Canada ratified the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It was an important moment for Canada. All of us who enjoyed the Paralympics watched people of exceptional abilities and amazing skills. It was inspiring to see many competitors rise above all challenges and meet and exceed their goals. Watching these successes also gave us a heightened awareness of the issues and challenges of those among us with disabilities.

This ratification came after years and years of hard work by leaders and advocates from all walks of life. To celebrate this moment meaningfully means recommitting ourselves to principles that lie at the heart of this pact.

The convention formally recognizes belonging as one of the most fundamental human rights — belonging, Mr. Speaker — and as a society, country and province, that's a promise we have to live up to — to inculcate an attitude of respect and openness, to make our infrastructure more inclusive and accessible, and to work towards a shift in how we perceive disabilities, a shift from a deficit located in a person to a problem located in our environment or in our attitudes.

Our Paralympics showed us the way. For many of us, they awoke in us a new definition of what we consider abilities. Now it's for everyone in here and around this country to do their part, and it's this ratification that can make a historic moment, that can take us to that new place where we all belong and where disabilities are just a problem.

VAISAKHI

D. Hayer: Next week is the beginning of many cultural festivals and the beginning of Holy Week — for Christians, a celebration of Easter; for Jews, of Passover; and for Indian-heritage Canadians, of Vaisakhi, which officially begins on April 14. Vaisakhi is when thousands of British Columbians of the Sikh faith observe the founding of the Khalsa in 1699 by the tenth guru, Guru Gobind Singh. It also marks the beginning of the Sikh New Year.

At the same time, Buddhists celebrate because Lord Gautama Buddha was born on the full moon of Vaisakh in 623 BC. For Hindus, it is called the Hindu/Vedic New Year. And similarly, Vaisakhi is celebrated throughout the world. Vaisakhi is the start of harvest season. It is a special time to celebrate our future and our togetherness. While we all look back at the historic teachings, we also look forward to the hope and promise that Canada provides for all of us.

[1350]

Mr. Speaker, Vaisakhi is also a time of tolerance, respect and honour. Like Easter and Passover, it is a time of rejoicing and reflection, a time to observe the past while celebrating harmony and peace. It is a festival of two weeks' duration.

On April 8 Vaisakhi Mela will be held in Surrey. On April 10 one of the largest Vaisakhi festivals in North America will be celebrated in Vancouver by the Khalsa Diwan Society of Vancouver, established more than 100 years ago. Another very large Vaisakhi festival will be
[ Page 3942 ]
held in Surrey on April 17. These festivals bring together everyone, regardless of their race, colour or creed. It's a time to practise, rejoice and enjoy.

I urge everyone in this House to join the festivities in their community to celebrate the incredible diversity of our different cultures.

CRISIS LINE SERVICES
IN TRI-CITIES AREA

D. Thorne: I rise today to mark the end of a Tri-City institution which has served our community since 1972. The SHARE crisis line, which has provided life-saving support for thousands of men, women and children, hangs up the phones for the last time tonight.

Over the past 38 years more than a half-million calls have been answered by over 2,000 friendly, helpful, trained volunteers. They have handled a range of issues, from suicide prevention to requests for financial help. As well as saving lives and helping their fellow citizens, these volunteers have learned skills that have helped them in all aspects of their lives — how to handle emergencies, communication skills and, especially, the importance of staying calm. Many went on to careers in the helping professions.

The new, centralized crisis line is based in Surrey and will serve all of the Fraser Valley. We don't know yet if volunteers from the Tri-Cities will trek across the bridge to Surrey. The volunteers' very valuable skills may be lost. It might look good on paper to unify three crisis lines, but we may in fact lose valuable volunteers in the process.

I can't help but grieve the loss of this local opportunity for caring citizens to give back to their community. A community is not made by roads or structures or buildings. A community is made by its citizens coming together to form a rich tapestry of caring and support.

We will miss the SHARE crisis line and are forever grateful to the thousands of volunteers who gave so generously of their time and talents. Our community has been a safer, gentler and healthier place to live. Thank you, volunteers, and will tonight's volunteers please turn out the lights.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON FAMILIES

C. James: From restaurant meals to haircuts, medical supplements to school supplies, the HST is going to make life more expensive for B.C. families — a tax that the government promised not to bring in and that comes at the worst possible time. But that's not all. The HST, in fact, is being imposed on families who are also being hit by fee hikes and cost increases starting tomorrow. Tomorrow British Columbians start paying more for ferry fares, bus fares, B.C. Hydro, Terasen, camping fees. In the coming months the list is only going to grow longer.

So my question is to the Minister of Finance. During a time when families are struggling to come out of a recession, during a time when small businesses are working hard just to stay afloat, how can the B.C. Liberals continue to hit British Columbians with more costs that they can least afford?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition stand up and pretend she's a defender of small business when, in fact, they voted against the reduction in taxes for small businesses. It's surprising to hear the Leader of the Opposition stand up and talk about how much money B.C. families have left in their pockets, because they voted against the reduction in personal income tax that we have brought in over the last eight and a half years.

[1355]

Mr. Speaker, I think what British Columbians are waiting for is to find out what the NDP position is on the harmonized sales tax. Is it as the Finance critic says — that if the NDP ever form government, they're going to keep it? Or is it as the Energy critic says — that no, they would eliminate it but bring in a whole bunch of other taxes? Or is it as the member for Cariboo North says — that taxes aren't bad, harmonized taxes aren't bad?

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition can stand up and show some leadership for once and actually explain to British Columbians where she stands on these important issues.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's pretty clear that this Finance Minister and this government will say almost anything to have the public avoid taking a look at the reality that this government is making life more difficult for families — almost anything. Let's take a look….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

C. James: Let's take a look at the reality. For families, starting tomorrow, a 7 percent increase in ferry fares, more than a 9 percent increase in hydro rates, TransLink fares up as much as $14 a month, camping fees up as much as $5 per site. What a cruel April Fool's joke to the
[ Page 3943 ]
public in British Columbia, a cruel joke by the same B.C. Liberals who announced the HST just weeks after they promised not to bring it in.

Again, my question is to the minister. Why do B.C. families always come last under the B.C. Liberals?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the question is: who is providing leadership on behalf of the official opposition? Is it the member for Cariboo North, who says that harmonized taxes are a good thing? Is it the Finance critic, who says that they would keep the HST if they ever form government? Or is it the Energy critic, who says that he would eliminate it, would jack up a bunch of other taxes? And the question is: what other taxes would they increase?

Interjections.

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

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll tell you what strong leadership is. Strong leadership is making the kinds of decisions that resulted in a net increase over the last eight years of 400,000 jobs in British Columbia. That's strong leadership. Weak leadership is when you have a Leader of the Opposition who's trying to talk out of both sides of her mouth and actually will not even stand up and tell British Columbians what that party stands for, if they stand for anything.

We are a party that shows strong leadership in creating jobs. We will create jobs for the next ten years, and the introduction of the harmonized sales tax and the elimination of the job-killing PST is an integral part of that.

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

C. James: It's very clear to the public that that side of the House is standing up and saying yes to a hurtful tax. We will say no to the HST on this side of the Legislature. That will be clear.

[1400]

But the April Fool's tax hikes aren't the only ones that British Columbians are facing. Starting January 1, residential care rates also went up. So did MSP premiums. Hydro rates, ferry fares, TransLink, camping fees, residential care, MSP premiums. Between the HST and the ongoing fee increases, the B.C. Liberals have made it clear they just don't get the pressures that families and small businesses are facing.

Again, my question is to the minister. When will the minister stop defending the B.C. Liberal HST betrayal, and when will he start addressing the needs of families and communities in this province?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, let's look at the record — what B.C. families are paying in total taxes compared to what they paid ten years ago under the NDP. In every single income category, every single family in British Columbia is paying less today under a B.C. Liberal government than they would have paid for the same amount of income ten years ago under the NDP.

When it comes to the NDP's position on the HST, we've heard everything from yes, no and maybe. It's time for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and tell British Columbians: if they were ever to form government, would she repeal it? If she would repeal it, would she actually jack up all of the other taxes as the Energy critic is proposing? She should come clean with British Columbians and tell how she's going to increase taxes to replace the $5 billion worth of revenues that they would forgo.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Finance is very quick to brush aside the legitimate concerns of hundreds of thousands of British Columbians about this tax. The fact is that this tax will hit B.C. families hard. It will have a negative impact, particularly on small business, and it will lead to job loss right away — 10,000 indirect or direct jobs in the tourism industry, $750 million revenue lost in the restaurant industry.

Seniors will be hit by the loss of the equivalent of one month's income a year. Hundreds of thousands of B.C. residents will be affected by increased strata fees.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: Obviously, they don't like the truth.

Fee hikes taking effect tomorrow will only add to the pressure on family budgets and on business budgets here in the province. Why did the B.C. Liberals continue to dismiss the negative impact the HST will have on families and on businesses here in the province?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's a bit surprising that this member is trying to pretend he's a defender of small business in British Columbia when actually you find that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has been a 100 percent supporter of the shift to the harmonized sales tax going back over ten years. The Retail Council of Canada has come out solidly in favour of the harmonized sales tax because it's better for their consumers. The B.C. Agriculture Council is 100 percent in favour of the harmonized sales tax because it's good for farmers.
[ Page 3944 ]

You know, the member from the West End tries to pretend that he's a big champion of the motion picture industry. Well, the motion picture industry is 100 percent in favour of the shift to harmonized sales tax.

The member for Cariboo North tries to pretend he's a champion for the forest industry, yet the forest industry is 100 percent in favour of the harmonized sales tax.

[1405]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The government's decisions and indeed the response of this minister show that consistently they do not understand the pressures facing B.C. families. They're out of touch with the needs of British Columbians, and they are refusing to shift their focus to the real needs in our communities.

Why won't the minister acknowledge that the narrow focus of his government on the HST is ignoring the real needs and concerns facing B.C. families today?

Hon. C. Hansen: If this member cared about B.C. families, he actually would have supported the tax cuts that we brought in. If you take an example of a family of four earning $30,000 a year, do you know how much less that family of four earning $30,000 a year is paying in total taxes today under a B.C. Liberal government compared to ten years ago? It's $1,793 a year less in total taxes.

I'll tell you how you support B.C. families. You support B.C. families by providing strong leadership that creates jobs in British Columbia, and that's exactly what the HST will do.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES SECTOR

S. Simpson: If the minister wants to talk about strong leadership, strong leadership starts with saying the same thing before the election as you say after the election. If this minister wants to…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

S. Simpson: …talk about families, I'd like him to find the families that think a $2 billion tax transfer from corporations onto their backs is a good idea.

The non-profit service providers in this province are facing increasing pressures from the B.C. Liberals. We're seeing cuts in funding, increased costs like the Medical Services Plan fees and now the HST.

The Federation of Community Social Services of B.C. has stated: "It is essential that B.C.'s harmonized sales tax be fiscally neutral in its impact on the community social service sector in order to ensure the ongoing delivery of quality social services by non-profit agencies throughout the province."

The action of the B.C. Liberals does exactly the opposite. Will the minister kill this tax and protect these services?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is wrong. The member clearly has not done his homework, because if he had, he would know that we have already announced an HST rebate system that will ensure that all not-for-profits in British Columbia will pay no more under an HST system than they currently pay today.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What the minister will know is while they provided some relief, they have not provided the relief to the industry, to the sector. The relief is insufficient.

[1410]

You compound that relief with cut grants, you compound that relief with liabilities around the health benefits trust, you compound that with increases in Medical Services Plan, and you create a problem for those agencies that deliver public services on behalf of the government and the people of B.C.

What this minister and this government are doing with the HST and these fee increases is putting pressure on the agencies that meet the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. That's a direct attack on those citizens. This minister knows it, and he could do better.

Will the minister show some support for vulnerable British Columbians for those critical services and end the HST today?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is interesting how many different positions we're getting from the opposition, whether it's their stand on whether they're going to do away with the HST or not…. Now we've actually heard two different claims from the member from Hastings from one question to the next. Even then, he still hasn't got it quite right. He acknowledges that there is some relief for HST. There's actually full relief for charities to cover the incremental cost of HST.

I'll tell you that the most important thing to support those social service agencies around the province is to make sure that we've got a strong economy, that we come out of this economic downturn stronger.

I can tell you that the best thing that we as governments can do to support families in British Columbia is to make sure that they've got access to jobs. Based on the analysis done by one of Canada's leading economists, this HST will create a net increase of 113,000 jobs. That is a huge benefit to B.C. families.
[ Page 3945 ]

CAMPSITE AND PARK FEES

R. Fleming: With the HST introduction, this government is raising the costs for British Columbians from the morning they get up and buy their first cup of coffee till every waking moment, day in and day out. That's the reality for families.

Starting this long weekend, they're raising the costs of family campsites and camping trips for families. Starting tomorrow, B.C. campers will pay twice as much for back-country experiences like in Garibaldi, Juan de Fuca, Strathcona. Families will pay to use campsites right across British Columbia. Yet this government is downsizing the parks budget again. They're closing parks at the same time that they're raising fees on British Columbia families.

My question is for the Minister of Finance, because he gets to keep the money in this case. Explain why British Columbians should pay more to use their park system when it's in the state and condition that the Outdoor Recreation Council calls the worst ever.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, all of the funds that are raised from these fee increases actually go to help maintain our parks in British Columbia.

This is actually about supporting families.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's actually about time that this member woke up and smelled the coffee, because if he actually did some research…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: …into how the HST works, he would stop spreading some of the misinformation that he and his colleagues have been spreading.

For example, I quoted yesterday from this brochure from the member for Delta North. He's a little sensitive about this one, I gather, because I gather this one was actually funded with taxpayers' money out of his constituency office.

[1415]

In here, in the context of how much HST supposedly is going to cost, he says: "Think of it this way. A $20 meal after taxes will cost you $25.40."

I can tell the member that he needs to do a little bit more work on his arithmetic. It's actually, as my colleague says, classic NDP math. He should actually be providing factual information, and I challenge this member and his colleagues to do a little bit of homework and stop spreading misinformation.

B.C. HYDRO RATES

J. Horgan: Tomorrow hydro rates are going up again. Over the past two years they've gone up 11 percent. Tomorrow, on April Fool's Day, they're going to go up another 9 percent. It doesn't end there. Over the next two years another 20 percent increase.

The minister is going to stand in this place in a moment and say: "This is so that we can upgrade infrastructure." The reality of the situation is that the Minister of Finance is asking B.C. Hydro to provide another $750 million above what they've done historically to pad his fiscal folly. On top of that, they're asking B.C. Hydro to pad the pockets of their private power pals rather than put the public first.

My question to the minister is a simple one. Scrap the energy plan. Put people first. Get public power back on the agenda, not private power.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll thank the member for his question, and I'll thank him for understanding the answer he's going to get early, because it is a result of the fact that B.C. Hydro is investing billions upon billions of dollars in their infrastructure, in the hydro assets that actually all of us benefit from.

From the generation to the transmission, all of those assets that are governed and owned by British Columbians are in need of upgrade due to an artificial rate freeze during the 1990s. Although it was good politics, thinking you didn't have to raise rates, it actually cost British Columbians billions of dollars as a result of the lack of infrastructure upgrades that were dearly needed.

FERRY FARES

G. Coons: As British Columbians prepare to travel for this Easter weekend, B.C. Ferries is busy raising fares again. Not only is there an across-the-board fare increase, but B.C. Ferries has decided to punish people who want to go camping on the islands. People with trailers and other vehicles more than 20 feet long are being slammed by a 153 percent increase. Now there's an outrageous charge to bring your bike on board, which has always been free. So much for green transportation.

British Columbians are being forced to pay more, and island communities will be hurt once again when people realize they just can't afford to travel on B.C. Ferries.
[ Page 3946 ]

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. When will the minister get a handle on this taxpayer-funded company that this government created and get it under control?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: The last time we saw any evidence of the management that the members opposite had with B.C. ferries, they were being floated out of the harbour on the back of a barge.

[1420]

In fact, taxpayers in British Columbia are supporting B.C. Ferries to the tune of almost $200 million. They've expanded their fleet, they've upgraded their facilities, and their service is far better than we've ever seen under the terms of the members opposite.

SUPPORTED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

S. Fraser: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Niles Brick is a teenager with complex special needs issues in Port Alberni. As of midnight tonight he, like other youth, will be cut off the supported child development program that has provided them with one-on-one care that is absolutely essential.

Dr. Chris McCollister is a pediatrician for Niles and other teens with complex disabilities. He says that Niles and other youth who are about to be cut off of this essential program need that one-on-one care. "It is not a luxury or an option. It is a matter of life and death."

It is Niles's 16th birthday today, and the minister is taking away the very program that keeps him and many children safe in this province. Will the minister ensure that on this, Niles's birthday, Niles and other teenagers and youth receive the care that they require?

Hon. M. Polak: First, I want to assure the member that there have been absolutely no reductions to the supported child development program. In fact, that budget has increased from $37 million to $58 million.

It's important to understand that the supported child development program is for children up to the age of 12, and the agencies and regions attempt by exception to assist those who are older. When they have not the capacity to do so, the ministry works with those families to bring in other, more appropriate services.

I can assure the member, without speaking to the individual case, that I am more than happy to discuss with him any additional assistance we can provide to any families in his area.

FOREIGN WORKERS AND
ESQUIMALT GRAVING DOCK PROJECT

M. Karagianis: Today building trades workers gathered in Esquimalt to protest the federal government's hiring of 35 temporary foreign workers in the graving dock. Half of our shipbuilders are out of work, and yet those foreign workers are taking our jobs and being paid with tax dollars. In any other province in Canada, the Premier or the Labour Minister, who in this case lives just down the road, would be at front and centre in defending those jobs for our workers here in British Columbia. But sadly, that's not the case in British Columbia.

Will the Minister of Labour join today with the skilled workers in this community, contact his counterpart in Ottawa and stand up for B.C. jobs for B.C. workers first?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Stilwell: Even with current unemployment rates, there are shortages in key sectors in the economy. Depending on the season, that can be exacerbated. There are times when short-term contracts cannot be filled by Canadians or residents.

Specifically with respect to this project, it is a federal contract to install the new crane and is part of a complete contract. Immigration authorities provided a labour market opinion that the workers are here as business visitors.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: We have in the precinct with us Reed Early. He's a fine member and constituent from the Cowichan Valley. Please join me in welcoming Reed.

[1425]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism will be under discussion. In this chamber we will begin with committee stage debate on Bill 8.
[ Page 3947 ]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 8 — Energy, Mines and
Petroleum Resources Statutes
Amendment Act, 2010

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 8; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

On section 1.

J. Horgan: I have to confess some surprise to be on my feet today. I had asked for a detailed briefing from ministry staff on what are, by and large, technical amendments to legislation that was passed by closure in this place, as I referenced in second reading just yesterday.

This bill was tabled 49 hours ago. In that time we've had a whole host of other responsibilities and tasks to perform. I am now asked to take a bill, Bill 20, rather than a statute from the statute books that alight the bookcase just to my right.

I'm getting a violin from my friend from Shuswap, and I'm hopeful he'll play for me the entire 3½ hours that I'll be on my feet quizzing the minister on this important piece of legislation. I can use the support and enthusiasm from him at all times.

Hon. R. Coleman: Can I get the Reader's Digest version?

[1430]

J. Horgan: No, there will be no Reader's Digest, Minister. There will be no Reader's Digest version today. Much of the discussion we'll have could have most likely been addressed through a briefing. The minister and I have talked since his appointment, in fact, about trying to change the tone and decorum of debate.

I don't hold him responsible for the mismanagement of the legislative agenda of the House Leader. Clearly, the absence of legislation on the other side makes it sadly inevitable that we have to go through committee stage on a piece of legislation that has only been here for 49 hours.

I've been sleeping through some of those hours, most of them when the government members are speaking but also when I'm at my home. Nonetheless, 49 hours is probably a lot of time to be dealing with what's becoming the largest and most important industry in the province of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: The last 4½ minutes have seemed like a long time.

J. Horgan: Get used to it: 15 minutes a clause, 15 minutes a clause, and if you want to keep me going with mirth and merriment, I'm delighted, absolutely delighted. The House will be here until….

The Chair: Member, can I bring you back to the bill under discussion?

J. Horgan: I'd love to come back to the bill, which I'll do periodically over the next 15 minutes.

As I said in my second reading remarks, which I believe have not yet made it beyond the Blues…. I can't refer to them to ensure their accuracy, nor can I refer to the minister's comments at the end of second reading debate, because, of course, they're still in draft form. That's how quickly we're gone from second reading to committee stage.

As I say, I don't want to hold the minister responsible for this. I believe that the Government House Leader is the one that should be accountable for bringing forward legislation as if he were making sausages rather than doing the public's business, doing the work that people expect of us when we come to this place.

Again, I'm hopeful that the minister will be humble when he takes to his feet to answer the hundreds and hundreds of questions I'll now have for him, rather than his able staff, who are, in most instances, as a former staff person, better prepared than a minister on any occasion. I certainly know that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations can confirm that thesis. I'm certain of that.

As I was saying, we've had 49 hours to review this material. I had begun my consultation, as an opposition critic, with people in the community that will be affected by this. I would have hoped that I would have had a bit more time, perhaps the weekend, to have those discussions. But there has been a series of e-mails that have come forward, and they'll be able to assist me as I proceed through, clause by clause.

We are on section 1 of Bill 8. As I said, I would have hoped that I could have gone to the statutes and reviewed what clauses we're going to be amending. As I look at the statutes, I see that for the Oil and Gas Activities Act, one of the two pieces of legislation we're amending with Bill 8, sections 1 through 118 are not yet in force.

When I read section 1, I'm in good company, because it's the Agricultural Land Commission Act that we're amending. But as we get through other clauses, I'm regrettably going to be forced to go through what was a draft bill passed by closure with one minute of debate at the end of the fourth session of the 38th parliament.

I wouldn't expect that the minister would see this as an appropriate way to do the public's business. I expect there are one or two ministers on the other side that would see that as appropriate, but I'm hopeful that my colleague from Peace River South would recognize that this puts both him and I in a very uncomfortable position unnecessarily and, in fact, jeopardizes the public business in this place as a result.
[ Page 3948 ]

If I'm nothing, I'm Irish, and when I get angry, I get grumpy, and when I get grumpy, I get fastidious. So I'm going to be fastidious as we go through this bill. The Chair will know full well the rules of this place, and I have approximately 15 minutes to assemble my thoughts as I'm reviewing the legislation and posing questions to the minister. I'm hopeful that his staff will recognize that it is not my desire to keep them here tarrying unnecessarily, but sadly, that appears to be the case.

Again, hats off to the Government House Leader for his expert managing of the process here. With the hundreds of thousands of dollars that go into running the Legislature, you would think, hon. Chair, as we look at Bill 8, section 1, that the Government House Leader would have some respect for the taxpayers' dollar and would also have some respect for the desire of all members of this House, I think certainly all on this side and many on that side, to do our able best to scrutinize legislation as it comes forward.

We have an opportunity at third reading here on Bill 8 in section 1 to do that. I'm always mindful of coming back to that most important point, that we are discussing Bill 8, section 1, over the next number of minutes.

[1435]

I'll just read the section, for those who don't have access to this bill. I know there are people in the gallery who will be anxious to know just what the member for Juan de Fuca's talking about, so I'll read the section. It goes as follows: Section 1, under the explanatory notes it says: "Agricultural Land Commission Act, section 20, is consequential to the continuation by this bill of the mediation and arbitration board as the surface rights board." That's the explanatory note, people in the gallery, for section 1.

On the substance of the bill, the clause reads as follows, hon. Chair. If you'll indulge me, I'll just read it for those who are here and those who are watching at home. "Section 20 (3) (a) and (b) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 36, is repealed and the following substituted." This is the substitution that we'll be doing right now.

The member for Chilliwack — that area, over that way — will be interested in this. Minister, you've got your notes there. It's: "(a) the Surface Rights Board, or its predecessor, the Mediation and Arbitration Board, under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the Mining Right of Way Act or section 19 of the Mineral Tenure Act."

Now, as I understand it, as we discuss in committee stage this first clause of the bill…. As I understand that, we are amending consequentially a number of other pieces of legislation. Now, normally, I would go right to my right here. The camera doesn't pick this up, but there is a bookcase full of statutes that have been passed by this place by parliamentarians that have come before us. Many of us here, some of the good work we've done is contained in documents just to my right.

Now, I'm able to go and look at that bookcase and find the Agricultural Land Commission Act, and I'm able to look at the consequential amendments. But I'm still puzzled, so I'll put my question to the minister, and I'm hopeful that he will be fulsome in his response. Can he explain the necessity of this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Before I respond to the member's first question, I'd like to introduce the staff I have with me here today in the Legislative Assembly. To my right is Barbara Thomson, who is the director of corporate policy and legislation, and to her right is Gordon Goodman, my assistant deputy minister of oil and gas division.

The reason for this amendment is simply the fact that we are changing the name of the mediation board to the surface rights board, and that is a consequential amendment that will follow in the Agricultural Land Commission Act so that it is reflected there.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the introductions of Ms. Thomson and Mr. Goodman. Thank you very much for coming. I hope you enjoy your time here in the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia.

We assemble here four times a week and have discussions about pieces of legislation that are vital and important to the well-being and development of the economy and the social fabric of British Columbia. It is actually my privilege and honour to do so on behalf of my constituents in the constituency of Juan de Fuca.

As I explained to my constituents, and to those on this side of the House and others in Shuswap and Langley and White Rock, why these consequential amendments are being made…. Perhaps the minister could show me where in the Agricultural Land Commission Act I can find these sections that are being amended by section 1 of Bill 8, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 2010.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You would find them in section 20(3)(a) and (b) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

J. Horgan: We are changing the name of the surface rights board from the mediation arbitration board under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Can the minister tell me why we are amending that section in this act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: For the very same reason. We're changing the name. It is going to the surface rights board as it clearly states in here, and I think it better reflects, actually, what this means to the people on the ground, particularly in northeast B.C.

J. Horgan: If it better reflects, does that mean, then, that there is no mediation and arbitration being done by the surface rights board?
[ Page 3949 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, there still will be mediation and arbitration. The process will remain. The name change is to better reflect, actually, what it is on the ground to the landowners up there, which is really what this is about — surface rights.

[1440]

J. Horgan: Does not the mediation and arbitration board deal with mediation and arbitration? If so, why would we want to change the name if it clearly identifies the purpose and function of that board in the title, which is mediation and arbitration?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member for his very important question. This really reflects what takes place in the rest of western Canada when we deal with these issues relating to oil and gas. This is a surface issue, so we're changing the name to the surface rights board. It will bring us in line with others but truly does reflect what this is about.

J. Horgan: Then the minister is saying that "mediation and arbitration board" didn't accurately reflect the mediation and arbitration that was taking place on the watch of that board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This board was named 50 years ago. This is an update to better reflect what takes place and what it's about. It is about surface rights. There is a full mediation and arbitration process that takes place, but this is going to be renamed the surface rights board.

J. Horgan: Well, I'm curious that…. Surface rights — my goodness, that could be almost anything. I don't get a sense, and I'm sure that those watching at home or in the gallery don't get a sense from "surface rights board" just what exactly that might be.

When I think of mediation and arbitration and a board, I think of a tribunal or a group of individuals who will mediate and arbitrate differences between parties. I get a clear understanding from the previous title what exactly is going on.

For the life of me…. I question — maybe members can help me out here — surface rights board. I don't get any sense whatsoever what the function or role of that entity is. However, mediation and arbitration board makes complete sense to me. I'm curious. Again, what's the necessity to change the name of the act? What motivated the change?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Well, you asked where this originated and where it came from, and I know that you've indicated you've had the opportunity to talk to some people in the northeast, as I do virtually every day. It actually was a discussion we had with members of the Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee up there that thought it better reflected what took place.

"Mediation and arbitration" actually is all-encompassing. What we're talking about here are surface rights, so it was reflected from what we refer to, the acronym, as NEEMAC. The people on the ground up there thought this would better reflect what actually takes place.

J. Horgan: Was the suggestion from NEEMAC just that — a suggestion from the board? Or was it a proposal put forward by government to the board for their consideration?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It has been raised by numerous stakeholders over the years, the last five years, talking about finding something that better reflected what actually takes place. Mediation and arbitration do take place, but as I said in a previous answer that I gave, it's more broad-ranging. It encompasses everything. What we're dealing with here are surface rights issues, and with the result of that dialogue that we had with people in the northeast, we came forward with this change.

J. Horgan: Again — I don't know if the minister doesn't understand my question — I'm wanting to know if the proposal to amend section 20(3)(a) and (b) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act was suggested and recommended by the majority of the board, the totality of the board.

Was it a proposal that was put forward by ministry staff and then endorsed? What was the chicken-and-egg on this one? Whose idea was it? What was the genesis of this notion that we should spend time here in the Legislature amending this section of this act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It was proposed by stakeholders, as I indicated previously. We then took that forward to NEEMAC. Many of the stakeholders are certainly friends, family of the residents and the members that sit on NEEMAC. It was discussed and was felt that this was the right decision to make and move forward with.

[1445]

J. Horgan: Could the minister provide minutes or any other evidence that NEEMAC proposed these changes that we're debating here today?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We can actually supply those. I'm not sure that this will be reflected in the minutes. I know there's discussion that takes place. It's interesting. I think this truly does reflect what goes on, on the ground.

I know that the member is Irish, as he indicated earlier, and is going to take a considerable amount of time. I'll continue to answer the question the same as I have. This better reflects what goes on, on the ground.
[ Page 3950 ]

This has been talked about for numerous years in the region that I represent that's affected by oil and gas. We have proposed the change. I think it makes sense. Our government thinks it makes a great deal of sense, and the people of the northeast think it makes sense.

J. Horgan: Perhaps the minister could advise me. If this was something that had been discussed for years and was the focus of consultation and vigorous discussion — although no minutes can be provided — at NEEMAC, why it is that these proposals weren't contained in Bill 20, which was passed in this place, as you know, hon. Speaker?

I'll just remind you. Members who have come and gone may not be aware of this. Bill 20 was introduced by the previous government in the 38th parliament. It was debated at second reading briefly, and of course, a commitment was made. It was a very, very voluminous bill — 207 clauses in total.

I was told at the time, after a thorough and detailed briefing from ministry staff, which I have not been able to have in the case of Bill 8…. I was advised at that time that consultation had been extensive when Bill 20 was introduced. I was advised at that time that the entire region was gleeful at the prospect of having an updated and modernized Bill 20, which was then the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

The minister at the time and in this place said that this was the culmination of many, many years of work. The minister today has referred to that. Yet 18 months have gone by, and 118 sections are not in force. Before we can even celebrate the anniversary of the passage of Bill 20, we're here amending it before it even becomes the law of the land. Therefore, when I look at the statutes book, I see but one page rather than the 207 clauses that we debated — albeit only for one minute — at third reading in May of 2008.

So if the discussions a year and a half ago had been exhaustive and all areas had been canvassed and a comprehensive and thorough bill had been prepared to consolidate the previous pieces of legislation…. There were a number at that time: the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, which we'll talk about; the Oil and Gas Commission Act; the Pipeline Act; and amendments to the forest practices act. Now we have amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

I'm wondering if the minister could advise me how it was that the comprehensive and thorough negotiation and consultation that took place to prepare Bill 20 managed to miss this very important change — making up the name "Surface Rights Board" and removing "Mediation and Arbitration Board."

Why didn't that happen in the previous bill if it is so important and had been the subject of so much negotiation and consultation? This is a curiosity to me. I know the minister wants to take his feet, but I want to ensure that all members of this place and those watching at home have a thorough understanding of why this is curious to me.

I mean, I am often intellectually curious. My colleague from Stikine mentions that to me, on occasion. "My goodness, member for Juan de Fuca," he will say, "you are intellectually curious." That is why we want to take some good deal of time…. The member for Langley appreciates that. We want to take a good deal of time reviewing this information, as we should.

Again, if only the Government House Leader had appreciated the importance of having a thorough dialogue and having a critic and a minister better understand each other and their staff so that we didn't have to waste the time of the Legislature on petty, petty issues like the change of a name of a board.

It's a shame. It's unfortunate. But again, I want to make sure that the public has a thorough understanding of what we're talking about here.

We had a bill that was so important to the government of the day — the current government, the current Premier — that it was passed by closure. Less than a year and a half ago the government felt this was so important and had been so comprehensive — the negotiation and the consultation — that no rock needed to be turned. Everything was as it should be. It was complete, comprehensive, exhaustive. Pick a superlative, any superlative.

[1450]

I can recall that the minister then, Richard Neufeld — now Senator Neufeld, ascended to the Red Chamber in Ottawa — said: "It couldn't get any better than this." I sat in a briefing with his deputy minister. We went over it. It took 2½ hours. I was satisfied that, my goodness, they've done an awful lot of work on this.

We'll take a little bit of time at committee stage. We'll look at the various clauses. We'll do some consultation of our own as an opposition, which is appropriate and happens in jurisdictions around the world. The Commonwealth is littered, as the minister knows, with legislatures where governments and opposition bring forward legislation. They debate it, clause by clause, to ensure that motives are pure, and no one's benefiting unnecessarily from a piece of legislation.

After the good work that was done by Senator Neufeld, I'm curious, again, why it is that we missed the need to change the surface rights board from the mediation and arbitration board. What happened?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You mentioned that both he and I are trying to gain a better understanding of one another. I thought we were well on our way until that exact question, Member. You threw me off.

The issue of changing the name was key to the people up there — rights. The name "rights" in this was a key issue for the landowners, the men and women and their
[ Page 3951 ]
families that live in rural British Columbia up there. So that's the reason.

But you refer to Bill 20. I do want to make sure. I know you've done your due diligence on Bill 20. You have looked at that. You have been thorough, but Bill 20 didn't deal with the mediation and arbitration board at that time. This is something that came after that bill was introduced. Yes, it's been talked about. It wasn't part of Bill 20, so to put it in this bill, I think, is the proper thing to do.

As the member, I'm sure, lives his life, I live mine trying to improve each and every day on what I've done the day before, and this is an improvement.

The Chair: I would caution the member for Juan de Fuca on the repetitive nature of this debate.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair, but again, the minister opens a rich vein of opportunity by responding as he did. I just want to pursue it to ensure that I am fulsome in my toil as a critic. I don't want to let down the people in the gallery. I want them to realize and appreciate that committee stage can also be enjoyable. There can be some good, positive work done by the back and forth, the toing and froing on important pieces of legislation.

Again, if the amendment was not contained in Bill 20, at what point over the past 24 months did it become important and imperative that it be changed and added to the Oil and Gas Activities Act now?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just for clarification, it's part of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act — just to be clear on this. It became important, and I think it probably always has been, certainly, in my discussions with the people I represent. I believe the former minister, you know, in working on that bill, put what he could in the bill.

This became evident in discussions I've had with landowners up there. I know the member opposite has, on occasion, the opportunity to speak with many landowners in the northeast. It truly reflects a request that they brought forward. I've talked many times with my friends, with people in the rural area, and the issue of rights is a key and fundamental issue that they wanted dealt with.

I think this bill, as we go into it section by section, will truly reflect much of what they have requested to try and improve the on-the-ground workings of what takes place in northeastern British Columbia. I think it's good. I think it's going to be better, even, after this act.

J. Horgan: Does the subsurface rights board, which is consequently amending the Agricultural Land Commission Act, have any other tools in terms of dispute resolution beyond mediation and arbitration?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is primarily mediation and arbitration, but they do have the broad authority to use other processes as they would see or choose. Again, I think it's going to be something that's a positive step forward.

[1455]

J. Horgan: Was there any opposition to this change by any of the stakeholders that participate in NEEMAC — landowners or industry?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, not that I'm aware of. Certainly, none has been brought forward to me. There was none that was brought forward at the NEEMAC table that I'm aware of as well.

J. Horgan: Can the minister advise: did NEEMAC have an opportunity to review a white paper or a draft piece of legislation with respect to the amendments that are being proposed in clause 1?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: They had an overview of the general provisions. I think the member knows that until the bill is tabled in Legislature…. That is when it becomes a document that is allowed or, I guess, a public document at that point — so no. They've had a review of the general provisions of this act, and that discussion and dialogue is what helped lead us to the changes, in many cases, and the new portions that we're bringing forward.

J. Horgan: I check my in-box daily, and I look in my mailbox. I may have missed it. Did the minister or the ministry provide any advance notice of this change to the opposition?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, we didn't. Actually, that information comes through the tabling of a piece of legislation, which I know the member has been diligently going through.

J. Horgan: I haven't begun to be diligent, hon. Chair. I haven't begun to be diligent. I'll be diligent on the beaches.

I'm sorry. Am I having fun? I didn't mean to do that, Minister. I apologize. I know that this isn't going to be fun for you over the next number of hours.

We had NEEMAC participate in an overview, a draft paper, some ideas — banging it around at a meeting. "I've got an idea. Let's change the name. Mediation and arbitration just describes what we do here. Let's change that to be something more vague, like surface rights board." Is that how the discussion went?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll try one more time. In the discussions I've had, in the discussions that NEEMAC had and with the landowners up there, it's very important. The rights is a key issue for our landowners. They
[ Page 3952 ]
wanted something that reflected the rights. We're dealing with an issue called surface rights.

I know that the member has many questions. I'm encouraged by the member's questions. Unfortunately, we're only on section 1, and I look forward to moving through each and every section of this bill with the enthusiasm that he's showing at section 1 today.

J. Horgan: Beyond NEEMAC, did the minister consult with any other bodies or any other individuals beyond landowners — any other entity or institution? Did he discuss it with the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Because we're changing the name, the reference in their act has to change to reflect this — so no. But I can tell you, if it isn't on a daily basis when I'm at home, virtually most chances…. When I'm speaking, particularly to the agricultural community — whether it be our ranchers or our grain producers up there or rural landowners — the issue of rights comes up, and we talk about that. That's what an MLA does — I'm sure the member does the same in his riding — and you bring that forward.

J. Horgan: So the only organized group that was consulted about the amendments that we're debating here in Bill 8, the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, was NEEMAC?

[1500]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm not sure if the member is aware, but NEEMAC is made up of a broad cross-section of groups from agriculture, from industry, from the communities in the rural areas. I can get the member a copy of the members of NEEMAC. But it's far broader. When we say NEEMAC — and that was a good question, Member — it really talks about a wide cross-section of people that are represented in organizations in the northeast.

J. Horgan: Did landowners lack rights before this name change?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, Member. They didn't lack rights, but the reason we're discussing this bill and bringing it to the Legislature is the ability to enhance the rights that do exist.

J. Horgan: So how are those rights enhanced by changing the name? What material change in landowner rights results from amending legislation, taking up the time of this place and members and staff. I know people are staying away from Oprah while we watch how we get through this clause, and I know people want to get back to their regularly scheduled programs.

What material change in the rights of landowners results from amending consequentially the Agricultural Land Commission Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The material change in the rights for landowners is what we're going to discuss once we get past section 1, Member. This really reflects the name change that has been talked about, as I've said numerous times previously in my answer, by NEEMAC, by individual landowners that have raised the issue.

Land rights are a big issue. Whether you're in the northeast part of the province or whether you're in the member's riding — or any member's here, I'm sure — we all look to the rights of the land on which we live. We want to ensure they're clearly defined, and if the ability is there to enhance those rights, that's what we do as legislators, and that's what this bill is going to do.

J. Horgan: What will the cost to government be to change the name of the mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There will be no cost. This is a name change. There may be issues in the reprinting of some bills, as the member noted, but there is no substantial cost whatsoever.

J. Horgan: If I understand the minister correctly, we have not added any rights to landowners as a result of this change. We are expending public moneys to change letterhead and business cards. We may have to put up a new sign on the office. There's been a public expenditure at a time when I'm advised by the Minister of Finance that we are in dire straits.

We haven't materially advanced the rights of individuals by changing the name of the mediation and arbitration board. No change. Activities remain the same, as best as I know in reading clause 1, yet we're going to expend public moneys to achieve, in my view, taking a name that makes a lot of sense to me. "What do you do here?" "I mediate and I arbitrate," to: "What do you do here?" "Subsurface rights board."

Again, to the minister, if we can't put a dollar figure on the changes, perhaps he could advise me — aside from the many hours we're going to be speaking about this section — how many staff hours went into producing this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to point out that we are in a modern age so today the issues that you're referring to that may cost, on letterhead or so on, are done electronically. But the issue, mediation and arbitration, is very broad. It doesn't define what the landowners in the northeast were after. They wanted something clearly that defined that the issue that they were dealing with was about surface rights.
[ Page 3953 ]

We listened. I'm proud of the ability — certainly the relationship I've developed with the people I represent and the people across the province — to listen to them and to take their ideas. When those ideas are workable and we're able to move forward on them, this is where we get to today. That's the changing of legislation that better reflects what takes place on the ground.

J. Horgan: I do appreciate that we live in an electronic age. That's the only way I was able to get a copy of Bill 20 so I could compare the amendments that we're looking at here — not, certainly, in clause 1, but as we go through the bill. Were it not for my trusty interwebs, I wouldn't have been able to get a copy of this because we chucked it all out. We assumed it was going to show up here in the statutes. Hadn't done that yet.

[1505]

Again, there was a cost to that. I'm of the view that just click "send" and everything goes peacefully, and no harm is done. The member for Kootenay East will give a different answer to pushing the "send" button, but electronic activity requires, usually, someone — most times a human — to push the buttons.

So what staff work went into preparing this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The staff worked on it through discussions, through the work that they have put into this entire piece of legislation.

I think I'll probably get a little heckling at home when I'm talking about the electronic age. I think most people look to myself as not being the most user-friendly when it comes to the electronic age. I do what I can, but as far as the ability to access Bill 20, it is on the Legislative Assembly webpage. But as well, Member, simply you could have asked. We would have gathered you a copy immediately to help you out.

J. Horgan: The minister will know well that I sent him a letter asking for a briefing, and I was anticipating at that time being given all this information. As I said at the start of my remarks on Bill 8, clause 1, I had every expectation that a mature and responsible government and a minister who has, over time, developed a personal relationship with his critic wouldn't allow 49 hours to pass between the tabling of a bill and the detailed discussion of the various clauses.

That's why we're here today, and that's why I'm probing deeply into the motivation, cost and efficacy of changing a name. There will be orders-in-council, I assume, that will be changed as a result of this. That will require legislative counsel, I believe, to draw up those documents. Government officials throughout the system will now be moving with great haste to update and modernize their information flow. I'm wondering: will order-in-council appointments be changed as a result of the name change?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There is a provision in the act that talks about the reference to the mediation and arbitration board that will now be recognized as the surface rights board. I do want to point out…. I will thank the member for his letter that I received at 1 p.m. today. It's now five after three, so the timing was a little difficult to get you in, to have a briefing, when I received your letter at 1 p.m. today or shortly before.

J. Horgan: I know we're telling tales out of school. The House Leaders with their voodoo and their secret ritualistic meetings won't want this exposed to the light of day, but we were advised that we were going to be debating Bill 5 and Bill 7 today. So the appropriate action by me to you, the day after we had finished second reading — the day after — to request a briefing in anticipation of a fulsome and useful discussion at committee stage, I don't believe was inappropriate.

I know that the minister is just looking for a fig leaf. I don't blame you for this, again, Member for Peace River South, Minister of the Crown. I don't blame you for the fact that we are standing here today, working on, in the first three-quarters of an hour of discussion, a name change in a piece of legislation that we have another 116 clauses to get through.

I'll take this opportunity, if I may…. I know that the member for Shuswap is interested in this. The minister referred to other jurisdictions that have different names for this activity. Could he articulate what jurisdictions use the words "surface rights board" and what, if any, jurisdictions still use something similar to or exactly the same as "mediation and arbitration board"?

B. Ralston: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Ralston: It's my honour to introduce 52 students from Bridgeview Elementary School in my riding. They're here and asking very lively questions of the guide that's been taking them around the buildings.

[1510]

They're also here with leaders — teachers and parents — Karen Harris, Mandeep Sondhi, Shainaz Ismail, Trinny Dang, Noreen Walker, Jeanne Atwal, Angela Poelzer, Norm Swistak, Brenda McDonald, Guy Sarazin. Could the House make all of these people welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The areas that you've asked about that have a surface rights board are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Yukon.
[ Page 3954 ]

J. Horgan: Are there jurisdictions in Canada or other places in the world that still use archaic terms like "mediation" and "arbitration" to describe mediation and arbitration?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We're not aware of any other board that deals with these issues that's called a mediation and arbitration board, no.

J. Horgan: Well, that's just inviting furious activity in the research department as they Google "mediation and arbitration," and I will await, anxiously, the response to that.

Again, on a more serious note — and I've been, of course, serious throughout — I want to zero in for the minister.

Again, I'm a simple country doctor. I see "mediation and arbitration," and I understand immediately what that means. Is the minister concerned that there will be residents, landowners, constituents who don't see the distinction between "mediation and arbitration" and "surface rights"? Is he concerned at all that there will be people who have not yet been invaded by the oil and gas industry that may not know where and what to do when that happens?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The mediation-arbitration is the process they use. Surface rights are the issues that they're dealing with. I don't envision concern in the northeast as a result of this name change. With the discussions I've had, people both pro and not so pro with the oil and gas industry have spoken to me about this. They thought this would better reflect the actual issue of what they dealt with.

I do want to maybe take this opportunity for the member. I talked about NEEMAC, and maybe I could name the members of that organization. We have the northern B.C. guides and outfitters, our agricultural associations, the cattlemen's associations. We have the Métis Nation, First Nations, local governments. We have SEPAC, the geophysical association, the Small Explorers Association and the Grain Producers Association. We have the tourism association, a landowner advocacy group and the Custodians of the Peace.

J. Horgan: Could the minister identify which First Nations participate in NEEMAC? Can he inventory which bands, which nations?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Although we are a little off, I guess, from section 1, we did go down the path of NEEMAC. The members that participated, from First Nations, were the Blueberry band, McLeod Lake and the Treaty 8 Tribal Association.

J. Horgan: One more question, currently, until the minister takes his feet again. We talked about the history of the mediation and arbitration board. I have a master's degree in history. I'm very big on dates, although I have said quite often that the only important dates to a student of history are 1066 and the date of the final exam. I got that on Hansard. That's to my son at home. He didn't think I could do it, but I did.

Can the minister tell me when the mediation and arbitration board was first founded?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Hon. Chair, 1953.

J. Horgan: Since 1953 does the minister or the staff have at their disposal any representations from the public over the course of that half-century to change the name of the institution?

[1515]

I'm certain that there have been overtures and appeals to protect and preserve the rights of landowners, and the minister knows full well that I absolutely support his drive and the drive of government — and in fact, the opposition — to ensure that the landowners are fully protected and left whole and damaged as little as possible as a result of oil and gas activity.

But during that half-century, can the minister point to any appeals, any large public meetings demanding a change to the name of the mediation and arbitration board?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This has been an issue that has been discussed numerous times. I'm not aware of large public meetings. As the MLA responsible for the region as well as being the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I don't wait for large public meetings for people to bring me issues. They walk into my office each and every day. They stop me in the grocery store. We talk. All of us are here to try and improve on what we have to make our province a better place.

I've had this discussion many times with many people in my region, and I believe the member would have had similar discussions with people in my region.

J. Horgan: Well, I have had discussions with people in the minister's constituency. Certainly not to the extent that he has, and that's as it should be. I've had numerous discussions about the importance of protecting and preserving landowner rights and significant concerns about the status quo.

Again, I'm wondering, and I want to be fulsome. Had we had an opportunity to have a detailed briefing, I'm sure that over the course of that discussion, the able staff of the minister, Ms. Thomson and Mr. Goodman, would have been able to answer many of these questions, and we wouldn't have taken up nearly an hour of the House's time on section 1.

Could the minister inventory for me who will be the last members of the mediation and arbitration board?
[ Page 3955 ]
In other words, there are members today that will retire their jerseys. We'll put them up in the rafters at the Oil and Gas Commission, or wherever they have their meetings. Who are they?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm struggling here. I've got the names of four. There are five of them. The chair is Cheryl Vickers. The vice-chair is Rob Fraser. We have Simmi Sandhu, Viggo Pedersen, and I will endeavour to immediately get the member the name of the fifth member of the board.

The board members will remain. They won't retire. Just the name is changing, not the board members.

J. Horgan: Yes, it's kind of like the Jets going to Phoenix, I guess. You had a hockey team in Winnipeg, and all of a sudden they're in the desert, but the players remain the same. I apologize, also, for putting the minister on the spot. Residents in his community, and he doesn't quite remember their names. I know there's so much that he's got to do, and that certainly wasn't what he expected this morning when he got up.

He probably thought that we were going to be debating Bill 5 and Bill 7, like the rest of us did. He didn't think we would be standing here with the only other piece of legislation available to the Government House Leader to call, Bill 8, 49 hours after it was initially tabled.

With that, I will allow section 1 to pass.

[1520]

M. Sather: The minister has spoken about the Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee and the important role that they've played with regard to a number of factors, I'm sure, but including the change of name from mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board.

I wanted to ask the minister: did the Peace Valley Environment Association express desire to be part of NEEMAC?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'm not sure right now whether they have. I can check and get the member that information.

M. Sather: If that group had made application…. I guess I'd refine that question. Is there any reason why a group would be turned down if they had applied to be a member?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think to be probably workable, you have to have a size of a committee that's actually a workable size. That's why there is a diversity of representation on that committee — Custodians of the Peace, our cattle producers, our grain producers. We have industry. We have community groups, First Nations, as I said earlier. So I think there's a very good cross-section representing the people of the northeast now.

M. Sather: I'm just wondering, then, if there is an environmental group or environmental interest to an environmental group represented there. The minister mentioned Custodians of the Peace. Perhaps he could tell me what their role is or their background. What do they bring to the table?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We have the provincial environmental forum that allows all of the environmental groups in the province to participate in the development or discussion and ideas. You asked who is on there. I talked about Custodians of the Peace very much.

You talk about environmental groups. I look at my cattle industry and the producers, the grain producers. I look at the men and women and the families. I believe everybody is an environmentalist. I think we all have to look after the footprint that we leave on this planet, and I think we all do a pretty good job.

M. Sather: I'm pleased that the minister feels that we're all environmentalists, and I hope that he's correct in that. However, I'm sure he's aware that groups that are dedicated to environmental issues bring a little extra something to the table with regard to that issue.

The member said that there was a process. I don't exactly recall the word that he used, but it sounded like there was a public meeting or something of that nature where PVEA could have participated, or did participate if they so chose.

If I'm understanding the minister right, then, he's not saying that the group did not apply. But if they had applied, as I understand what he said, they could have been excluded because of the fact that there was a desire to keep the group of a certain size.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Once again, I'm unaware if they applied to be members of the NEEMAC table. But we don't discourage anybody. I can tell you as the MLA for that region, and I'm sure I can speak for my colleague north of the river, our office has an open-door policy. If people have ideas, they write letters. They stop by. As I said, whether it's at our office, whether it's downtown at the grocery store, that's how it operates up there.

[1525]

Just before I do sit down, the member asked about the members of the mediation and arbitration board. Yeah, I will catch a little flak from a couple of them. Bill Oppen, a friend of mine, who I forgot, and Tracey Wolsey are the other two.

M. Sather: I certainly wasn't in any way suggesting that the minister's office wasn't open and inclusive to all members of his constituency and to the broader area there, but I was speaking particularly with regard to NEEMAC. Now, maybe he has more control over that organization than I thought.
[ Page 3956 ]

I wanted, though, to go back to the issue of the name change between the mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board. It seems to me that this is a significant change in name because surface rights, as the minister will know, is a lot of the concern that some residents have with regard to their surface rights — those being the landowners, those being the farmers and ranchers that have felt sometimes that their surface rights have been violated by the energy industry.

I'm just wondering, then: if this is the name change, it would appear to give more precedence to those that are on the surface. They have surface rights as opposed to those that have subsurface rights — i.e., the energy industry. So can the minister tell this House, then: is it the case that the upshot of this act will give much greater protection to landowners, their surface rights, and even in fact…? No, I'll just leave it at that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This bill, as we move forward…. In section 1 we're talking about the name, but it is really about access to the surface as well when we talk about surface rights. But the questions and the tools that we're talking about that will improve on the foundation we have today when it comes to the operation of the oil and gas industry and, I guess, the approach that they work with our landowners up there….

As we move in past section 1 and get into numerous other sections in the bill, much of what you've just mentioned today will be borne out to talk about what we have done, how we are improving it. I look forward to that discussion as well.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Horgan: Again, I'm reluctant to read the section here for those at home and those in the gallery. But perhaps I'll do it anyway, because what we're doing now is….

It appears that clause 2 is a consequential amendment to the Coal Act. It reads as follows: "Section 3 (3) of the Coal Act…2004…is amended by striking out 'Mediation and Arbitration Board' and substituting 'Surface Rights Board' and by striking out 'the relevant provisions of Part 3 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act apply' and substituting 'Parts 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act apply.'" End of section.

So my question is to the minister. Why is this consequential amendment necessary?

[1530]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Well, again, the member, as he indicated in part of this question…. This is about changing the name from mediation and arbitration to reflect that. Part 3 is being replaced with parts 16 and 17. Possibly — I'll throw this out for the member — sections 1 through 14 are inclusive of the name change from mediation and arbitration board to surface rights board. I guess we can go through each clause, and I'm sure the member may, but I think the answers that I'm going to give are going to reflect all 14 sections in the same manner.

J. Horgan: What will the effect be to the Coal Act of making these amendments?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just as we've talked about before, this really is a change. It allows the coal industry, when we're dealing with coal, to utilize the surface rights board to address any of the issues as that board would see fit.

J. Horgan: Previous to this amendment, what would the process have been for a landowner had a coal company come looking to exercise their subsurface rights? What would have happened under the Coal Act, and what effect will this change bring about?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: If an agreement couldn't be reached on surface access, previously they would have gone to the mediation arbitration board. Today, after the passing of this and implementation of it, if they cannot reach an agreement on surface access, they would go to the surface rights board.

J. Horgan: Within section 2, we also have parts 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act applying. When I look at the application for mediation and arbitration in that piece of legislation, sections 16 and 17…. Of course, it is a privilege and a pleasure to be able to use the statutes to make reference and to cross-reference the amendments we're making with respect to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Of course, I'm not able to do that with some sections of the Oil and Gas Activities Act when we get to those portions of the bill.

I think it's important, again, if I just take a moment for those who have just arrived and those who are watching at home to remind them that one of the challenges that we do have when we are amending legislation is that we need to have something to compare it to.

As we go through the second section of this 116-section bill, in this instance, with respect to section 2, I have easy access through the statutes which sit immediately to my right to cross-reference and ensure that due diligence is being done by the opposition and the minister and his able staff.

So again, I see that we are now discussing sections 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. What changes can we anticipate as a result of this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Parts 16 and 17 are the revised processes. Where part 3 is referred to earlier, parts
[ Page 3957 ]
16 and 17 will replace those. We are going to get into exactly what that will do as we go through the bill in the sections past section 2.

J. Horgan: Again, just to reiterate, we had some discussion on section 1, and I know the minister doesn't want to be repetitive, but I'm assuming that the administrative activity that will be required to amend the Coal Act and ensure that parts 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act apply in this instance is being done by his ministry in cooperation with legislative counsel.

Are there other ministries that will be involved in facilitating and ensuring that this change takes effect?

[1535]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, there won't be.

J. Horgan: Then I can assume it's only staff members of the minister's ministry that will be participating in this? They don't have any other interactions in terms of changing legislation that's the responsibility of other ministers. It's all done in-house. There's no consultation. There's no dialogue between the Ministry of Energy and Mines, for example, and the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is a consequential change to our statutes, so the employees within our ministry, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, will be doing that.

J. Horgan: How many staff will be involved in ensuring that this statute and the change will adequately be reflected on other statutes?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Well, this will take less than one FTE, or full-time employee. It is not a significant amount that the member is referring to that has to be done, so certainly, it will be done and done very professionally by the able staff within my ministry — but less than one FTE.

J. Horgan: How much time will this FTE devote to ensuring that this clause takes effect?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would expect no more time. It's already done. We're discussing it here today.

J. Horgan: How much time went into getting us to this point in history, this miraculous moment when we're able to stand in the Legislature and review these clauses one at a time?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would anticipate that the amount of time to deal with what we're talking about here on this specific question would be about 15 minutes.

J. Horgan: Less time than it will take to discuss it. It's interesting, because you have two staff right beside you that are devoting — I'm looking at — an hour and five minutes already, and we're only on clause 2. I'm wondering how you came up with the number "15 minutes," when I've got quantifiable evidence that you've had more than two FTEs spending more than 15 minutes on it already.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The member did ask about the development — what it would have taken to do that. "About 15 minutes," I said.

Certainly, I look forward, as we progress into the bill, to getting into some healthy discussion on many topics, but I won't take the bait, hon. Member. It was not a great deal of time to develop that.

The Chair: I would caution the member for Juan de Fuca on the relevancy of this line of questioning.

J. Horgan: The relevancy is that time is money — public money, in this instance — and we're spending it right now on section 2. If that's in keeping with the Chair's view on the matter, it's my understanding….

The Chair: Hon. Member, the relevancy is contained in section 2, and your line of questioning must pertain to section 2.

J. Horgan: Well, thank you, hon. Chair. I'll do my level best.

Then can the minister tell me in some detail how many staff went into…? Is the minister saying that 15 minutes of staff time went into developing section 2 of this bill?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is a consequential amendment, so they had to determine where the change had to take place in other statutes. They have done that, and I will note one of the comments the member has made, that time is money. I think it's interesting that I will point out again that sections 1 through 14 are dealing with a name change.

[1540]

M. Sather: In section 2 it says that the relevant provisions of part 3 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act are being struck out and substituting parts 16 and 17 of the same act. Now, I see in that act "the relevant portions of Part 3," but — I'm not sure — where is the substitution: "Parts 16 and 17 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act"?

I mean, it doesn't have that many parts. So those parts are being added — 16 and 17 — then, I take it, as a consequence of this bill. But I don't see where in that bill these parts are added or how that comes about.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we delve into this bill more and enter the discussions, we'll get to section 56 that
[ Page 3958 ]
deals with the sections 16 and 17 that you've just asked about.

M. Sather: The member is saying, then, that section 56 will be the part that adds that. Thanks very much for the information.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Horgan: Although I have been reminded by the minister that the first number of clauses are consequential and the answers to one are similar to the answers of others, I still will ask him, in the interests of due diligence, if he could tell me why the amendment in section 3 is necessary.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reason for this change is that the Coal Act presently refers to the mediation and arbitration. The question you've just asked under section 3 is amending and striking out "mediation and arbitration" and substituting "surface rights board."

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister could, for the record, advise this place what the purpose is of section 4.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We are striking this out because, as we go further into the bill, you will see that the Expropriation Act will be utilized under OGAA at that point. I know we'll have some discussion when we get to that point in the bill.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

J. Horgan: I note that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is being amended by Bill 8. I'm wondering if the minister could advise what the purpose of this amendment is.

[1545]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This strictly addresses the issue of the name change from the mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. Horgan: Every clause, Minister. Can the minister advise me what the effect of this change to the Geothermal Resources Act will be?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As it reads, it's sections 6 to 31 in part 3. Part 3 is being repealed, so those will, I guess, disappear. They will be replaced by parts 16 and 17.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

J. Horgan: Could the minister provide for this House the wording of the language that's being repealed in the Geothermal Resources Act?

I notice some discomfort. Perhaps that could be sent to me in writing.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

J. Horgan: We're now discussing consequential amendments to the Industrial Roads Act. This is of particular interest. Industrial roads are everywhere in British Columbia, not just in areas that are affected by energy, mines and petroleum resources.

I'm wondering if the minister could advise the House why and what the effect and purpose of amendments in section 8 will be to the Industrial Roads Act.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This was part of part 3. It's been repealed. It will now be replaced under parts 16 and 17.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

J. Horgan: Now we're discussing consequential amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act, section 16(3)(c) of that act, 1996. I'm wondering if the minister could advise if there were any discussions with the mining association on the impact of this change.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, there wasn't. This is a name change, and as you noted, it's consequential to the Mineral Tenure Act.

J. Horgan: In your discussions with other organizations about the name change…. We canvassed this fairly thoroughly in section 1, but I'm wondering if, in preparing the name change, the minister advised or discussed any of this with the mining association.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, we didn't.
[ Page 3959 ]

J. Horgan: Well, we've had the Coal Act, and now we're on the Mineral Tenure Act. We're about to go to the Mining Right of Way Act. In the 49 hours that the mining association has had to review this legislation, although they won't have had access to the debates at second reading because they're still in draft stage and have not been published and certified correct by the Speaker, I'm wondering if there have been any calls from the mining association. And if there have been no calls to his office, has he suggested that his staff call the mining association?

[1550]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, we've had no calls from the mining association on this. This is truly just a name change. I don't think there is an impact, but as the member, I know, is always busy, I haven't had the chance to sit at my desk very long today. I've been in here discussing this bill for a good portion of it and look forward to many more hours of good debate.

J. Horgan: I'm delighted to know that, thankfully, we're on a Wednesday. We'll be able to go all the way to seven o'clock on this bill. But again, although it is only a name change, and we canvassed thoroughly in section 1…. I don't want to belabour the point, but there are consequential amendments to acts that have an impact on other industries beyond oil and gas and on other areas beyond the northeast.

I'm wondering, with respect to the Mineral Tenure Act, if the minister could advise if the mediation and arbitration board has had much activity outside of the Peace in areas that are affected by mineral exploration and development.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: On average they receive less than one application a year from outside of that. This is dealing with surface access, though, as well, and that truly reflects the name that we talked about throughout our discussion here this afternoon.

J. Horgan: Less than one a year is zero — isn't it?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Average.

J. Horgan: Average. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the average.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

M. Sather: Section 10 is, again, striking out "Mediation and Arbitration Board" and substituting "Surface Rights Board" and striking out "the relevant provisions of Part 3 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act…."

That act refers to mediation and arbitration. Under that act, I believe…. I'm trying to get my head around: why is it mediation and arbitration under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act? If it's under that act, and we're in fact talking about the Mineral Tenure Act, why does that apply? Why is there discussion about mediation and arbitration under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act when the section that we're on is the Mineral Tenure Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member's question, the board is created under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act but has application to many other acts as far as surface access goes.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

J. Horgan: Again, I don't have the Mineral Tenure Act at my fingertips, although, as I've pointed out a couple of times in the past hour and a half, the statutes when they're completed are just to my right here — right over there. But since we only have a few consequential amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act, they didn't want to heft the big document and drop it down on my colleague's table.

Could the minister advise? Section 11 and the amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act — what will the effect be on that act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This section simply changes the name from mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board under that act.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

[1555]

J. Horgan: We're now amending the Mining Right of Way Act in section 12. Could the minister advise what the necessity of this amendment is?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This, again, is another consequential amendment, this time to the Mining Right of Way Act, which changes the name from the mediation and arbitration board to the surface rights board.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

J. Horgan: Hon. Chair, I appreciate your attentiveness to my enthusiasm for the debate.

In section 13 we have an additional amendment to the Mining Right of Way Act, and I'm wondering if the
[ Page 3960 ]
minister can confirm that the rationale for that is similar to section 12.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, it is.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

J. Horgan: We're getting to the end of the consequential amendments, and I think we'll end up bogging down, so I don't want to spend too much time on section 14.

Now we're into the Motor Vehicle Act. I don't have it at my fingertips, although as I've advised the minister and he's now well aware, the statutes, when they are in force, unlike Bill 20, are right to my right here. We're amending the Motor Vehicle Act, and if the Chair will indulge me, I'll read it for those who are watching here and at home.

Section 14 reads: "Section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318, is amended in the definition of 'industrial road' by striking out 'section 8 (1)' and substituting 'section 139 (1).'"

I'm wondering, since we're not talking in this clause about a name change in terms of explicitly in the explanatory note or in the clause, why we're making this amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is the same as section 8 that we discussed previously under the petroleum development road, or Industrial Roads Act. Part 3 is going to be no more. It will be repealed, and this will now be covered under part 16.

J. Horgan: Well, as I read this clause, I don't see any reference to part 16. Perhaps the minister could explain to me…. We've done so well in getting through the first 13 clauses of this bill in terms of the consequential amendments, yet I don't see explicitly beyond the definition in the body of the act where and why that's happening.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: When you read this and go through it — and I apologize if I wasn't clear — section 8(1) is being taken out, or struck out, and being replaced with section 139(1) of part 16. That's the reference there.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister could repeat that answer, because I don't see part 16 in the body of the document. I'm wondering if perhaps we need an amendment to this consequential amendment to clarify this for people who are looking at statutes. Although it is clear in the explanatory note, it's not clear in the clause.

[1600]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know that the member is eager to discuss the bill. He will find, as we go through this bill, that on page 15, section 56 introduces a new section, 139, and we'll have the opportunity to see it there.

J. Horgan: Again, I'll take the minister's word for it that when we get further down the bill, we'll be able to clarify this issue. I know I can't reserve my right to return, so when we do get to the page and the clause that the minister suggests, perhaps we'll spend a more extended period of time on that clause.

M. Sather: I'm a little confused by this section too. Section 8(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act is on licences for farm tractors, if I read it right. Now, what does that have to do with this act? I don't understand why licences for farm tractors…. I don't see anything relevant to this act. I'm missing something, obviously, but if the minister could enlighten me on that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reference that he's talking about, section 8(1), is not the Motor Vehicle Act. It is referring to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, section 8(1).

M. Sather: Well, shouldn't it then say Petroleum and Natural Gas Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It says that, exactly, in the act itself. So just for the member, to clarify, in referring to section 14 that we're discussing, it talks about amending "in the definition of 'industrial road' by striking out 'section 8 (1)' and substituting 'section 139 (1).'" So 8(1) of the act is what you will find in the PNG act.

I shortened the version — the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. I think the member is thinking it's section 8(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. That's not the case. The way legislation is written, this is a cross-reference to the PNG act.

M. Sather: I admit that I am a relative rookie in the House in terms of interpreting the minutiae of acts. But I don't recall that before — having seen an amendment naming section 8(1) with absolutely no reference to the act to which that refers. Again, should it not be included in there at least for clarity?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know you're looking at that. If you follow it, it is defined in the definition of the Motor Vehicle Act. But if you were to include the whole act of the Motor Vehicle Act when we're reading this, you would see following what is here, section 139, in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, at the end of that.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

M. Sather: With regard to section 139(1), the minister previously said that is covered under section 56 of
[ Page 3961 ]
this act. There again, I don't see any reference to section 139(1) under section 56.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we go through the bill, it is in section 56. It is the second article under that, if you will look at section 56 in the bill, but I know we'll be discussing it later this afternoon as well.

M. Sather: The minister said the second article under section 56…. This is a big bill, I must admit. Finding one's way through it is a bit difficult.

[1605]

The second article under that section — can the minister explain just what wording that is when he refers to the second article?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Hon. Chair, I think we would be better positioned to do that when we get to that section of this bill under the discussion.

J. Horgan: I'm as confused as my colleague on this. Again, as I read the clause, I'm assuming that section 139 of the Motor Vehicle Act refers to development roads or resource roads. I go to page 15 and clause 56, and I see "development roads" at 139(1). I'm wondering: are we changing the name "industrial roads" to "development roads"? Is that what we're doing here?

We're clearly off the surface rights board, and I think that everyone is grateful for that. But what's the purpose? What are we doing here?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will do my best one more time. In the Motor Vehicle Act, under definitions, "industrial road" talks about…. We are going to strike out section 8(1) in the Motor Vehicle Act definitions. It is going to be replaced. Instead of referring to section 8(1), it will now refer to section 139(1), which is referring to what the previous member had asked about. We will get to that under section 56, which talks about development roads.

J. Horgan: Well, I have it handy, as the member knows, to my right — the Statutes of the province of British Columbia, save and except the Oil and Gas Activities Act which, of course, has not been brought into force, though we're amending it today nonetheless.

It's a weighty tome, and without assistance I'm looking at section 8(1). It's talking about licences for farm tractors. When I look at the bill, section 14, I'm advised that if I go to the Motor Vehicle Act, which I have right here at my fingertips…. I'm looking at section 8(1), and it's talking about licences for farm tractors.

Then I go, as the minister advises, to page 15, section 56, and we're talking about development roads. I may well not be reading this correctly, but "Licences for farm tractors" is not beyond my capacity of literacy. Perhaps the minister could explain.

Again, we don't want to belabour the point. But this legislation should be precise and, I would think, in the 21st century, easy to follow.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think this may do it. I will start at the beginning of section 14. Member, with all due respect, you're looking at section 8(1). It is actually: "Section 1 of the Motor Vehicle Act" — 1996 — "is amended in the definition of 'industrial road' by striking out 'section 8 (1).'" I think that will probably clear it up. I think you were going to 8(1) rather than "Definitions."

J. Horgan: Well, it appears that we no longer have industrial roads; we will have development roads. Is that where we're going?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It has always been called a development road under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act — hence, the reference.

J. Horgan: I don't doubt that, but we have "industrial road" in the section the minister referred to, and we have "development road" replacing it in section 56. Again, I'm curious. If that's what we're doing, I don't have a problem with that. Development road, industrial road — we could debate another hour on that, I'm sure, but I don't think anyone wants to do that.

I know that my colleague from False Creek doesn't want to do that, based on her facial expression.

[1610]

Is that the objective of this amendment — to change the Motor Vehicle Act definitions from "industrial road" to "development road"?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Presently as you read this, it says the reference or "definition of 'industrial road' by striking out 'section 8(1).'" When you talk about section 8(1), that's the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. The roads are development roads in that bill, so not a big deal. I think this has been the same possibly since the time the previous member served in government.

J. Horgan: Then what's the point? The issue, I think, that my colleague from Maple Ridge and I have is that we're amending…. It's a consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act. I have it in front of me. The minister has ably directed me to the definition of industrial road, and now that's being struck out and replaced. I'm wondering why we're doing that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We're changing it because section 8(1) is referred to in the Motor Vehicle Act, and it's referring to a section of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act that will no longer exist. It will then be referred to in section 139(1) of section 56.
[ Page 3962 ]

I know there are a lot of numbers going around, but the issue is that section 8(1) will no longer exist, so we had to make the consequential amendment in this act for the cross-reference. If somebody was reading that, they would go to the right section. Once we get through this act and it is implemented as well, these consequential amendments then come into force.

J. Horgan: I've already admitted to being Irish, and I'll admit to being obtuse, as well, on this. As I see this, it's a consequential amendment to the Motor Vehicle Act, which I have draped over my left arm here. And we are substituting in this act — the Motor Vehicle Act — language from section 139(1). We're striking out section 8, and we're replacing it with section 139.

I think the confusion on this side from my colleague and myself is that it doesn't say either in the definition or in the act what the substituting clause or provision is. From what act are we substituting? From which act to what act? I guess that's the challenge. The minister sounds like he's got it nailed, and his staff is there. They've got it nailed. But we on this side of the House are having some difficulty with it.

Perhaps if we'd had an opportunity for a briefing prior to committee stage, we wouldn't have to belabour this point. I'm sure the capable staff would have been able to draw and highlight these issues without the intervention of the Chair.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I now also have that large book of statutes over my arm. I will read it out, and we'll try and get this because I think it's an important question. We all want to understand.

Under definitions, "'industrial road' means industrial road as defined in the Industrial Roads Act, and includes a forest service road as defined in the Forest Act and" — this is the part — "land designated as a development road under section 8 (1) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act."

We are removing section 8(1) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, so this will now read, following this introduction, that instead of under section 8(1), it will be under section 139(1) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

[1615]

M. Sather: One last question, I think. There's no section 131 now, as I read it, in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, so this adds a new section to that act.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Under Bill 8 that we're discussing today, yes, that will add a new section 139(1).

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

J. Horgan: Now we're entering into the meat of the legislation, the definitions. What are we doing here? I wanted to seek from the minister an explanation as to why he's brought forward section 15 in Bill 8.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 15, which we're discussing now, deals with changes to the definitions of the OGAA, Oil and Gas Activities Act. That's what we're seeing before us here in section 15.

J. Horgan: Under section 15(c), "environmental measure," we're adding the following definition that says: "means an action a person must take or refrain from taking for the protection or effective management of the environment." I'm wondering if the minister could advise what the intent of that definition is.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section (c) that you're talking about, regarding environmental measures. They are measures that are created by different ministries — the Minister of Environment, for example, the Minister of Forests and Range, the Minister of Agriculture — and they are captured in section 104 of the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

J. Horgan: Of course, section 104 is not yet brought into force. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: That is correct.

J. Horgan: Again, I know that members will be interested to know we are amending definitions that are not yet brought into force. The government's environmental objectives are also listed, and it goes as follows: "means the prescribed objectives of the government respecting the protection and effective management of the environment."

[1620]

Can the minister advise what the government's environmental objectives are?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The environmental objectives are objectives put together by government, and those objectives must be taken into consideration by the Oil and Gas Commission when they are issuing the permits that they deal with in this industry.

J. Horgan: Are the government's environmental objectives published, readily available to citizens of British Columbia?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: They will be available upon the implementation of this act once we conclude our discussion here today and possibly in the future. Once it becomes law, then yes.
[ Page 3963 ]

J. Horgan: So can I determine from that, then, that should this bill not pass, the government will be without any environmental objectives?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, we actually have, I think, a tremendous set of environmental objectives. This will be in addition to and build upon those, but we have environmental standards, as I'm sure the member is well aware, that have been developed over decades in this province that we can all be proud of.

We're going to move to enhance those under this, under the environmental objectives that will be publicly available upon the completion of this act.

J. Horgan: Are the objectives publicly available now — those that are not being added to by Bill 8?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Presently this industry operates under environmental regulations from the Forest Practices Code. What we're doing here is bringing environmental objectives in line with the oil and gas industry, so we're building upon that. The existing regs are available under the Forest Practices Code today, but what we're doing is bringing these environmental objectives into line, under Bill 8, with the oil and gas industry.

[1625]

J. Horgan: So the prescribed environmental objectives that are referred to in this definition currently exist in other pieces of legislation. This definition section will point citizens, interested parties, stakeholders to those definitions, those objectives in other pieces of legislation?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Presently if somebody was to look for the environmental objectives and regulations that govern the oil and gas industry, they would go to the Forest Practices Code. That's how they've operated. They've used those standards.

What we're talking about here is bringing those standards over to Bill 8, which we're discussing here today. If somebody wanted to, upon completion of this bill, look to the environmental regulations, they would find it in this bill once Bill 8 is passed.

J. Horgan: So we're not adding to those environmental objectives with this definition. We're transferring them from another location. The government has already prescribed what those objectives are. They exist in another place. This definition is merely directing interested parties.

Those that review the statutes when they come into force, rather than reading Dickens, will be able to find those prescribed environmental objectives within the body of the amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yeah, once we deal with Bill 8, they will be in the regulations attached to Bill 8. They will be specific to the oil and gas industry. We will build on the existing environmental regulations that they operate under — this industry. We are going to utilize those that are applicable as well as build upon those and enhance them.

J. Horgan: So we have a body of objectives that can be found in the Forest Act and other places, and the intent with the passage and coming into force of the amendments to the Oil and Gas Activities Act will be an addition specifically referencing activity in the oil and gas sector. Is that it?

There are going to be new additional environmental objectives contained in regulation as a result of the passage of this section.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We will build upon the environmental regulations that currently govern the oil and gas industry, as I pointed out earlier, but we will also…. We're talking on the environmental objectives that the Oil and Gas Commission will have to take into account, and these environmental objectives are being developed. They will be part of this bill, as we go through it and upon completion.

Now, those objectives are what the Oil and Gas Commission must take into account when they issue their permits.

J. Horgan: Who is developing these objectives within government? Is it being done within the Ministry of Energy and Mines? Is it the Minister of Environment? Is it a cross-government initiative? Is there one location where I could seek more guidance on what these objectives will ultimately look like?

While I'm on my feet, perhaps the minister could advise what the time frame is for developing these objectives.

[1630]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The Ministry of Environment is the lead on this. They are in consultation with us at the Ministry of Energy as well as the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Agriculture, but the Ministry of Environment is the lead.

If I could just clear up…. I know the member asked a further question on the time frame: when would they come in? They will come into force at the same time the bill comes into force — at that time.

J. Horgan: I can't resist, because it's been 24 months and the bill hasn't come into force. We're already amending it, and it hasn't come into force. I know that none of us has a crystal ball save and except the Government House Leader, and it's foggy on most days. But perhaps
[ Page 3964 ]
the minister will speculate on when he anticipates this bill, with its amendments, finally coming into force.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is my intent, as the minister responsible — and not only the minister responsible but the MLA that lives very close to the affected region — that we will do our due diligence within the ministry. We will implement this as quickly as we can. But to ensure peace of mind for the member, we are going to do the work on the front end, ensure that it's right, make sure we get everything done properly, and then we're going to bring this in, I would hope, as quickly as we can. We will do that.

I know that the member would concur. I know he's a supporter of doing things right the first time, and we're going to do that here.

V. Huntington: I must say I find it fascinating to be discussing something so seriously when it doesn't exist. I haven't quite grasped this concept yet.

Just to follow up on the development of your prescribed environmental objectives. Given the importance of these objectives to the minister's riding, will you be allowing public scrutiny of them before they are finalized and attached to the act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: That discussion is ongoing presently through the Northeast Energy and Mines Advisory Committee, through the regional district in the area and provincewide through the provincial forum of ENGOs, so it is being well versed, I think, and discussed across in the development of these.

V. Huntington: That's quite interesting. Could I just go back to the definition of environmental measures? Is that definition unique to this act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I believe it is unique to this act, Bill 8, that we're discussing here this afternoon.

V. Huntington: If unique, then, how do you determine effective management of the environment? Is it done through an environmental assessment process? Is it a mitigation that comes out of an assessment process? Is it something picked out of the air by some board or by the minister or his staff? How is an effective management tool defined and developed?

[1635]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The question that she asked on how they will be managed…. They will be managed through the Ministry of Environment through inspections and audits, as well as the Oil and Gas Commission on the ground. This is an enhancement. We're moving forward.

As I said earlier in the discussion, going back probably a couple of hours now, this is about building on a foundation that we have in place. This is about moving forward. I think the direction that we've got here gives additional strength to the environment itself in how this industry operates in collaboration with our province.

D. Donaldson: This is still dealing with section 15, which deals with some amendments to definitions in the Oil and Gas Activities Act. Section (d) is redefining what a flow line is. In the act, flow line means "a pipeline connecting a well with a facility or another pipeline." There are some substantial substitutions. Could the minister advise what these substitutions concern and why this remedy is being put forward?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We are expanding and, I guess, reconfirming the definition of flow line, what it means here — on your question. Before, we felt we had limited the powers of the mediation and arbitration board in dealing with issues when it came to a flow line. We captured that. We have redefined flow line to capture its true meaning. There are differences between flow line and pipeline. Many people may refer to it as a gathering line in the industry itself.

This actually captures the definition more precisely and allows the mediation and arbitration board, which will soon become the surface rights board, to deal with it in a more effective manner.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. You talked about expansion but being more precise or clarifying further. The original definition was simple. When you add specifics to a definition, it does make it more precise, but oftentimes it limits the applicability.

[1640]

Can the minister advise whether, by making this definition more precise, it will be excluding some applications of this definition that currently take place or that take place with the older definition?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What took place is in the original change in the definition. I think the scope of that definition was narrowed too greatly. We recognized that, and in this act we are expanding that definition of flow line to go back closer to what it did reflect originally.

It actually enhances the definition, not only from the original definition…. I know that this is difficult to follow because a flow line is a definitive, but under the Pipeline Act, it was defined. We brought it in under the original Oil and Gas Activities Act. We had changed the definition. We caught that we had made that definition too narrow, so here we are expanding it again back to what the true meaning should be.

Hopefully, that helps the member.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer, to the minister. Yes, what I understand from what he said there
[ Page 3965 ]
is that the definition has expanded and will cover the circumstances that are necessary and doesn't exclude anything that should not be excluded from this definition. That's what I understand he said.

The next question I have is on section 15(e). This amendment is to strike out some wording and substitute further wording around the definition of "land owner." In this, the definition of "unoccupied Crown land" comes into play, as referred to in section 1.

To the minister: I couldn't find the definition of "unoccupied Crown land" in section 1 that this substitution is referring to. Could he point me to it or advise about it?

[1645]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As in some of the previous discussions we've had, section 6(3) is being removed — part 3, I believe. We are just moving the definition of "land owner" over into the new section of the bill that we're discussing. We'll get to that farther on. So nothing changes other than the reflection of where it will be referred to in the act.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for that answer. Just to clarify: the wording being substituted refers to the definition of "unoccupied Crown land" in section 1. I gather that's section 1 of the existing Oil and Gas Activities Act, yet I can't find the definition of what unoccupied Crown land actually is in section 1 of the act. I might be reading that wrong, but perhaps the minister can clarify.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We'll try and walk through this, because all of these cross-references are sometimes difficult to follow.

What we're going to do is strike out section 6(3) in the PNG, Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. We're going to substitute, under "land owner," definitions so that the reference will be "paragraph (b) of the definition of 'unoccupied Crown land' in section 1" of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. It's probably still a challenge, but in the cross-references, in its simplest form, section 6(3) will not be referred to.

We will then go to the definitions. So "paragraph (b) of the definition of 'unoccupied Crown land' in section 1" is where that cross-reference will be in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

J. Horgan: I'd like to take us back to definitions within the existing, yet not in force, Oil and Gas Activities Act. In the previous bill, which was, as the member will know and others who have joined us recently, passed by closure in one minute at committee stage, unlike the fulsome and comprehensive debate we're having today….

Under the definition of "flow line," that bill read as follows: "…means a pipeline connecting a well with a facility or another pipeline." Flow line was described as such in the previous bill not yet in force.

Now we're moving to the definition contained in Bill 8: "'flow line' means a pipeline that connects a well head with a scrubbing, processing or storage facility and that precedes the transfer of the conveyed substance to or from a transmission, distribution or transportation line."

[1650]

That's a more fulsome definition, to be sure, and I'm confident that the minister and his able staff will be able to explain to this House why it is that the bill that was so perfectly crafted that it didn't require debate at third reading needs an amendment of that significance on something as simple as the definition of a flow line.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As I referred to in a previous question, I think the definition under the previous act that the member refers to that hasn't been brought into force took the flow line definition and made it too narrow. We noticed that. We brought it back in. We are putting forward a fuller, I think, more robust definition of flow line to more closely reflect, obviously, what a flow line does and what a flow line is.

J. Horgan: Who noticed that specifically? Was it ministry staff? Was it the Oil and Gas Commission? Was it landowners who were concerned about their rights? Was it the oil and gas industry? Who determined that that was too narrow and brought that to the attention of the minister?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think it was recognized by a broad range, from the consultations we've had with people, from members of the staff as well. So there was definitely something that people had noticed and said: "You know, we think that definition is just a little too narrow. We think we have to re-evaluate that through those discussions." The new definition was brought in, which really does reflect, I think, what a flow line is, or as I said to the previous member, many people would refer to those as gathering lines in many cases.

J. Horgan: Under section 15: "(f) in subsection (2) by repealing the definition of 'oil and gas activity' and substituting the following…." And we have "'oil and gas activity' means," then (a) through (g).

In the previous act passed by closure, not yet in force, we had an (a) through (h). Rather than doing that great grade 2 game of "Why is one not like the other?" perhaps the minister can just tell me which from (a) through (h) is no longer there and why.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The member asked which ones have been changed or deleted, and (a) from the old act is changed because this was caught by the term "exploration." As well, if you look at (e), (f) and (g), you will notice that "maintenance" is removed in those definitions.
[ Page 3966 ]
Maintenance is caught through a regulation. That is not part of the permit that goes out when we deal with oil and gas. That is more of a regulatory matter.

[1655]

J. Horgan: Again, I have to go back to the fact that Bill 20, the bill that we're amending today, although it had not yet come into force, was passed with one minute of debate at this section — in fact, the entire 207 sections.

Why, then, would we have made such an egregious error in terms of putting a regulation in legislation previously, and who identified this? Was it industry? Was it the Oil and Gas Commission? Was it ministry staff?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As the regulations were being developed, we actually recognized that — we're dealing with the word "maintenance" here — it didn't properly fit in this. It was really a better fit for regulation. So as you deal with the regulation development, that's when it was noticed. I won't point the finger at anybody saying that somebody made a mistake. I will say today that this is an improvement, and that's what we're trying to do here today.

J. Horgan: Regrettably, I'm not able to take credit for identifying that for you, because we didn't have the opportunity when this first bill was first passed for me to point that out at committee stage.

I'd like to move to what is now (c) and used to be (d) in the previous bill: "the production, gathering, processing, storage or disposal of petroleum, natural gas or both." "Disposal" is an addition. I'm wondering if the minister could explain the purpose of adding disposal to this section of the bill.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The question in referring to disposal deals with, for example, reinjection. Carbon capture and storage would fall under that, or it could. Waters that are extracted from the frac could be looked at — a number of things. That captures a better definition of what the industry actually does, how they operate on a day-to-day basis.

J. Horgan: Then when Bill 20 was crafted in its perfection, not requiring detailed discussion, the ministry, leg. counsel, omitted something as vital to shale gas plays as fracking material and the disposal thereof as an activity. Is that what I'm to glean from the minister's response?

When the bill, Bill 20, came down from — just before arriving at the Senate — Mr. Neufeld, not requiring any oversight by members on this side of the House, it had omitted the disposal of materials that are active and, in fact, integral to the oil and gas sector. Is that what I'm to understand?

[1700]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: "Disposal" was used elsewhere in the act as well. It wasn't clearly defined, and it is clearly an activity. I know the member knows the oil and gas industry well. We felt that it brought certainly more clarity by adding it here and making sure people understood that it was an activity, and as such, we added it here.

J. Horgan: I'd also like to move to sub-subsection 15(f)(g), "activities prescribed by regulation." Ministry officials, industry stakeholders have had, since the previous bill was passed with closure with one minute of debate, to develop those regulations. Can the minister give us an indication how close we are to conclusion on the development of those regulations?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Well, I answered earlier, with another similar question. I think we're reasonably close. There's a great deal of consultation that has taken place in the development of these regulations. We're working on those.

But it's my hope, as I said earlier, that as we conclude this debate, as this bill seeks its approval — and I'm sure and I'm hoping, as we go through this debate, that we can gain the support of all members of this Legislature — we will do our best to bring this in as quickly as we can and enact it. But there is still some ongoing discussion with the groups that we spoke about earlier, and I think it's healthy to be able to listen and learn from the people directly affected — industry, the landowners, NEEMAC and so on.

A time frame. I can't give you a definitive date per se, but I can give you a commitment as the minister responsible that we're going to do everything we can to do this in a timely manner. I would hope that the member would accept that for the words that I'm giving him today.

J. Horgan: I do accept the minister's commitment — certainly today, anyway. But I do want to press just a little bit further on this because, after all, it's been coming on two years since Bill 20 was passed using closure, with one minute of debate. I'm wondering if in that two-year period the minister…. He has not been the minister that whole time, but certainly for the past 12 months, or very close to it, he has been.

Has he had regular meetings with stakeholders, with NEEMAC, that he could provide some documentation or evidence that progress has been made on developing these regulations that would fulfil the commitment that was made by the former minister two years ago — that that would come shortly after the passage in one minute, by closure, of Bill 20?

[1705]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You can actually access this on the ministry's website. We have taken all of the information
[ Page 3967 ]
we have gathered in these discussions. We have catalogued them and put those on the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources website, so I encourage the member to look at those.

Individual names, of course, are not there due to privacy issues. If he has further questions once he's looked at that, whether it's today or in the future…. Member, just get a hold of me, and we can discuss anything you see on that webpage as well.

J. Horgan: Section 15(g) goes as follows: "in subsection (2) by repealing the definition of 'pipeline' and substituting the following." It lists off: "'pipeline' means, except in section 9, piping through which any of the following is conveyed." Again, there is (a) to (h) in the new bill, and there was only (a) to (g) in the old one. Perhaps the minister and his staff can identify for me what we gained in the 20 months since this bill was passed in one minute using closure.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The addition that we have is (e), which is "other prescribed substances." I'll give you an example to bring that into context. It would now capture the jet fuel line going to YVR, for example, under this definition, where previously it wasn't.

J. Horgan: Would condensate be a substance that would be prescribed that's not identified in this section?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, (e) wouldn't deal with that; (a) would. Condensate is captured under the definition of petroleum or natural gas.

J. Horgan: I'm getting slower, hon. Chair, as the afternoon progresses, but quicker and nimbler on definitions.

We have section (h), and it reads as follows. "In subsection (2) in the definition of 'specified provision' by repealing paragraph (b) and substituting the following: (b) section 47.4 [licence to cut for persons occupying land or for oil and gas purposes] of the Forest Act, but only in relation to a master licence to cut, and section 117 [road use permits for industrial use] of that Act."

I am deeply moved by that phraseology. I'm absolutely confident that the minister and his staff will be able to give me a reasonable rationale as to why anyone laboured over those words, put them in a section and led them to this Legislature for debate today.

[1710]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 117 was to be part of the Resource Road Act. That did not carry on, so all this is doing is bringing back section 117 under OGAA, the Oil and Gas Activities Act.

J. Horgan: Well, I remember my in-box rattling — it was filling up so quickly from representatives from mineral exploration organizations and others — when there was discussion of amending the Resource Road Act. So I'm hopeful that this is not some move by stealth to further fill my in-box with mail because I didn't adequately probe the minister on the importance and rationale for this amendment.

Could he maybe perhaps elaborate on why it is that we're seeing it here today? Does that mean that we're not going to see any amendments to the Resource Road Act? Is this the extent of it? I know, again, the crystal ball is foggy and only held by the member from Abbotsford. Does that mean that this is the extent of our review of the Resource Road Act?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to assure you that there is nothing stealthy about this. This is really a continuation of existing authority under the Oil and Gas Commission Act already. We are now bringing it under the Oil and Gas Activities Act. So this was an existing authority. Now, because the Resource Road Act, the reference that I talked about earlier, did not finalize, we have now brought it back under this act. So it's an existing authority — nothing stealthy, nothing new, no change.

M. Sather: Going back to 15(c) on environmental measures, it means "an action a person must take or refrain from taking for the protection or effective management of the environment." The minister referred to various government officials with regard to "a person." Does this mean, then, that this, an environmental measure, only refers to the actions of a government official?

The Chair: The minister has taken note of the question, and the committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:14 p.m. to 5:18 p.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The member asked about "a person." It refers to everybody covered by the act so that it is not individualized. It really is broad. The people that are governed by this — that's what the word "person" covers here in section 15.

M. Sather: Then a member of the public is not refrained from taking…. That means an action that a member of the public "must take or refrain from taking for the protection or effective management of the environment." In other words, this is not about a responsibility of how the public must act but only how government officials must act, then.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, this "person" refers to someone who is permitted under the Oil and Gas Commission to take activity on.
[ Page 3968 ]

M. Sather: Well, when I read this bill, the one part of it that excited me the most was section 15(c) "government's environmental objectives," because I must confess, I've had some questions myself about just what they are, so I was looking forward to learning, through the minister, just what the government's environmental objectives are. At times they seem a bit contrary to some of the other actions that are not particularly oriented towards the environment that the government takes.

Now I learn, if I understood the minister right, that we will not learn anything through this act in and of itself as to what the government's environmental objectives are but only that they will be prescribed by regulation at some time in the future.

[1720]

Again, it's that old problem, from our point of view, with regulations. We have no opportunity to scrutinize them in this House. I'm disappointed in that, I just want to say. I can only hope that these regulations will be fulsome and will protect the interests of the environment at the same time as we try to level the playing field or — whatever phrase you want to use — to enable the energy sector to do their business more ably.

I don't know if the minister wants to comment on that or not, but that is the last point I have on this section.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I'll thank the member for the question. Certainly, I think we all share, as I said earlier in my discussion, the government's environmental objectives that we are working on developing right now, which will be utilized by the Oil and Gas Commission. I think they'll be objectives shared by British Columbians from both sides of this House, both government and opposition.

Primarily, as I said earlier, right or wrong, I think we're all environmentalists. I think we all have a responsibility to look after the environment in which we live, to work hand in hand with industry to ensure, as we extract resources, that we do it in a sustainable manner and a responsible manner. I believe industry does that. I believe they accept that as well.

When we can work together to enhance that responsibility as British Columbians, as landowners, as industry, that's a good thing. We're going to work on these objectives. They'll be brought into force when we bring this bill into force, and I'm going to do, as I indicated to my critic earlier, what I can to ensure that we can bring this into force as soon as all of our due diligence is done, as quickly as possible.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

J. Horgan: We're into a new area here. Section 16 is amending "…by striking out 'or provide the prescribed notices,' and substituting 'or provide the prescribed notices, or both.'" What's the "both"? Provide…. I don't see a "both" there. Perhaps the minister could explain what he's meaning by that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This is an enhancement, as you read section 16. It's amended by "striking out 'or provide the prescribed notices,' and substituting 'or provide the prescribed notices, or both.'" So you could actually have either consultation or prescribed notice before. We're saying that now, with this change, you can actually have both as a landowner. If you receive a notice and you want consultation as well, that's what this does. It's an enhancement.

J. Horgan: One of the concerns — and the minister knows this full well — about oil and gas agents or contractors accessing private lands is if you're in an arbitration process or in a mediation process. Quite often, once that process runs its course, regardless, the subsurface rights holder enters the private land and conducts his activity, awaiting a determination or a ruling. Is there any correlation between that scenario that I've just suggested and the amendment that we see here?

[1725]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The way this works…. I'll just go through a bit of a scenario. Previously if a company had acquired the rights to the land that they would like to drill on, they would go and apply for a permit to the Oil and Gas Commission. The commission would recommend that they go out and notify or consult with the landowner. There was no full requirement. This is now bringing that requirement in.

This is one of the things we talked about earlier, Member: how do we bring that balance back? So they're now required to go out and consult, notify or both.

J. Horgan: Again, going back to Bill 20. We are now on the Oil and Gas Activities Act — not yet brought into force — and we're amending it.

I know that the minister is genuine, that these are his neighbours. The balance has been missing, and I hear that repeatedly as a critic. He hears that repeatedly as a neighbour and as a member for that region.

This addition — was this a result of consultation with NEEMAC, consultation with landowners' rights organizations? How did it come about that the perfect document tabled by Senator Neufeld, requiring no debate, missed out on something as important as this?

I genuinely would appreciate a fulsome answer from the minister. For those in the region that are listening, I know this is a very, very important issue, and he knows it very well. For the interests of all members, I think they'd like to hear an explanation as to why we missed it 24 months ago.
[ Page 3969 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This became, I guess, quite evident to us when we were in discussions in the development of the regulations and through the discussions we had with NEEMAC, with landowners in the area — that we wanted to ensure and enshrine this in the legislation. As you said, this is a key and important issue for landowners. Also, we talk about landowners, and I think that we're talking about finding that balance.

I do want to point out that this is something, actually, that brings some certainty to the industry as well. I mean, I support the industry. I support the landowners. These are friends of mine as well as people that work in the industry. This entire bill is about trying to find some harmony between the two and find ways that each and every day we can improve on how we've done things in the past.

[1730]

The development of the regulations led us to the consultation and notification section that we're talking about. We felt it was important enough, with what we'd heard, that certainly we needed to enshrine it here.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

J. Horgan: We're amending subparagraph (i) by striking out "owner of the land" and substituting "land owner or the Crown." That's in section (a). Then in section (b) — again, we're further focusing on Crown lands — in subparagraph (ii) by striking out "owner of the land, other than Crown land," and substituting "land owner."

So I'm wondering…. I think the intent here is to capture Crown land in section (a), and I think the intent is to obscure Crown land in section (b). Again, the able staff may well have a good answer for that, but I'm curious. Again, I'm constantly curious as I go through these sections.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The difference here in (a) and (b)…. I'll explain this again. We'll go through it. On (i), when we talk about (i), that is about providing…. It's for preliminary planning, access on to maybe survey a pipeline, for example — accessing land you would need to for either private land or Crown land to provide security. That would work for a private land owner or the Crown.

Then when we look at (ii), the difference is that in order…. When we talk about an agreement, that is only for private land owners, because they do have to, on Crown land, provide security, regardless. So that's why there's a difference there. It clearly…. At least I say clearly. I know that we're talking about a very technical document, and I'm sure there are many people at home scratching their heads, as sometimes we do here.

The difference is that they can provide security or reach an agreement on private land. On Crown land, they provide security only. The agreement is with the Crown, through security.

J. Horgan: As I read the preliminary plan, section 23 — which we're amending in the bill that was delivered to us perfectly in 2008 and passed with closure with one minute's debate — I'm wondering, again. I know that most of the good work that we're uncovering in Bill 8 is a result of a consultation that may well have been better done prior to the tabling of this initial bill, and I don't expect anyone to concede that point.

But, I think, that as the afternoon's progressed, it's appeared fairly evident and obvious to anyone who's been following with rapt attention that we have a lot of work here. We're on section 17. We've got about a hundred-odd plus to go.

[1735]

This is on a bill, as I said earlier, if people have missed it…. I know that the member from Quilchena will want to pay heed to this. This is a bill that we passed, with one minute of debate, using closure.

I heard the minister. I'm not certain that I understood, after reading the sections in the existing legislation not yet brought into force, why we're making this distinction. I understand that security is required for Crown land. There is a two-part process on private land. Am I correct? Are there two options on private land and only one option on Crown land?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, you do have it. That is exactly how it is — as you said: one option for Crown land, two options for private land.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

J. Horgan: This will lead to our discussion on orphan wells and how we address potential long-term liability. We've had an off-line discussion about the Auditor General's report. The minister has a point of view, the Auditor General has another point of view, and I, of course, ride happily through the middle between the two.

But when we get to….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Easy, Port Moody.

When we get to striking out "prescribed fees and", we're removing what the explanatory note says is "a redundant reference to fees." I'm wondering why this reference is now redundant. Do we pick it up somewhere else in the bill? If so, perhaps a staff member could direct me to it.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, it is redundant. It is captured under section 112(1)(c) of the Oil and Gas Activities
[ Page 3970 ]
Act. We are amending that. I know this is going to get somewhat complicated. We are amending it under section 47(b) of Bill 8 today, and that is farther in the bill we're talking about, which will allow generic authority for the Oil and Gas Commission to impose fees.

[1740]

It really is dealing with it so that instead of being in numerous areas, we're actually focusing it and giving the broader authority that they need.

J. Horgan: Boy, oh boy, the senator must be just laughing at us today.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, most days, but particularly today. The entertainment value of this must be immense for him.

If I understood the minister correctly, we're trying to take the perfect bill that was delivered to us a year and a half ago and make it a little bit better by eliminating redundant references to fees but not eliminating requirements for fees. The fee requirements remain the same. They're only identified in fewer places.

Are they only identified in one place? Thank you, Ms. Thomson, I appreciate that.

We will get to that, and I'm certain if I've lost my way, members on the government side will be quick to point out that they are still collecting fees for this activity, and if not

On section 19. the members of the government, I'm sure the capable staff of the minister will.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

J. Horgan: Again, I'm anxious. Although the gallery is empty, I'm sure there are still some people awaiting the next Andy Griffith Show to start at six o'clock, and they're still watching us here today.

Section 19 reads as follows: "19 Section 25 (1)" — of the perfect legislation not yet brought into force — "is repealed and the following substituted: (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), on application by a person under section 24 and after considering (a) written submissions made under section 22 (5), if any, and (b)…." Before we get to the section (b), again, the language here….

When I was in government, we had Leg. counsel staff working on common English and modern language and developing legislation that laypeople could pick up, easily identify what the objective was. I have to tell you, hon. Minister, 25-odd years involved with government and legislation, and I find that if only the perfection that we found in Bill 20, passed by closure in one minute, had been as thoughtful as this, perhaps we wouldn't be here today. I have no idea what this means, and I'm hopeful that the minister will explain it to all of us.

[1745]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we work to improve the perfect bill and make it even better, this section will take previously — and I'll use that maybe in context so that the public who are watching and those who aren't familiar….

Prior to a permit being issued before, the Oil and Gas Commission would have to take stakeholders' submissions and utilize those in their determination as well. We are broadening that out. They now have to not only take those submissions; they have to also bring into account the government's environmental objectives and other directions that the government may put in place, such as maybe a no-drilling zone, for example. They would have to accept that as well.

Again, as we work through this bill — and I know we'll have a great deal of discussion, and it's very technical — most of what we're talking about here are enhancements to an existing function to address many of the things we've all learned, both industry and landowners, over the years that the oil and gas industry has operated in northeast B.C.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the language the minister used. It was useful.

I see another member wanting to have the floor. So perhaps I'll take my seat.

Hon. I. Black: May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Black: It's not often — in fact, this is the first time — in this House that I find my entire family in the gallery. I just thought I should ask the House to join me in making them feel welcome. They survived the B.C. ferry trip from the Lower Mainland, and they're here for a couple of days. I ask the House to join me to make them all feel most welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's response, and he was able to put in layman's terms an issue that's complicated and easy to understand.

But when I look at the amendment, we are repealing the previous section 25(1), which had after the "if any, and" that "the commission may issue a permit to the person if the person meets the requirements prescribed for the purposes of this section." So we're deleting the
[ Page 3971 ]
sentence that I just read, and I'll read it again: "the commission may issue a permit to the person if the person meets the requirements prescribed for the purposes of this section."

Why are we deleting that language?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we go through this and discuss it, if the member notices after the part that we're talking about, it's at the bottom. It captures that sentence. So although it's repealed, it's actually in the writing, and the sentence he's referring to is captured at the bottom of that.

J. Horgan: That's the challenge of not turning the page. To move it from where it was to another place in the same section seems odd. But then we have in this section an additional (1.1). "The Lieutenant Governor in Council, by regulation, may issue a direction to the commission with respect to the exercise of the commission's power under subsection (1), and the commission must comply with the direction despite any other provision of this Act, the regulations or an order made under this Act."

It strikes me that that's giving L-G-in-C regulation power and then transferring that to the commission. Why did we add that? As I read further down in the existing legislation not yet brought into force, section 4 may cover that. But again, one of the challenges….

For those who are wondering what the heck the minister and I are talking about, we're amending a piece of legislation. We have to look at the amendments and slide them into existing documents. So sometimes language is moved around, and there's a good reason for it. Our objective here is to find out why.

What's the good reason for adding (1.1)?

[1750]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think maybe for clarity, what this section does is…. As we as a government put regulation in, this section actually says — and I think you may have just misread it — that they must comply with it. What it does is say that as we develop a regulation they don't have the option. They must comply with that.

J. Horgan: I'm just wondering. I know the minister can't read the mind of the senator, but why wouldn't the senator have put that in when he had authority to do so?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I don't think there was…. Not so much a question, but I also just want to clarify something. I think I probably said something that wasn't the way it should have come out. This was not a regulation that we would…. It's a direction by regulation. I know the member probably caught that. I'm clearing it up for Hansard, though. Again, this just enhances, as the member notes, a perfect bill and makes it just a little better.

M. Sather: Just so I understand the drafting procedure, so that it makes sense to me, on section 19, reading the part that says…. Before that it gives the requirements that must be obtained. Then it says that: "the commission may issue a permit to the person if the person meets the requirements prescribed for the purposes of this section."

Now, the phrase that starts with "if the person" — isn't that redundant? Is that needed, or does that refer to some other prescribed requirements? It seems to me…. I don't understand why that phrase is in there. Seems like you've already said that if you do this stuff, you get the permit. Then it says if you meet the requirements. Why is that in there?

[1755]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will walk through this one. It's definitely somewhat technical as well.

The commission can grant…. When we talk about a person, we're talking about a company who has applied, for example, to do the work in the oil and gas. So as they go through the evaluation, they will have looked at the written submissions received maybe from the affected landowner, or groups can put in submissions. The Oil and Gas Commission would take those into consideration.

They would also take the environmental objectives that we've talked about earlier. If those are met as well as other requirements as prescribed for the purposes of this section, only then can they actually issue the permit. Hopefully, I'm making some clarity on that. It's an issue that not only do they have to meet (a) and (b), but the other requirements prescribed for the purposes of this section, as well, have to be met prior to any permit being issued.

V. Huntington: On subsection (1.1), where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may issue a regulation, under what circumstances would the minister anticipate that power being used? Would it ever be used, in his opinion, to override either an environmental objective or a regulation that would apply to a specific permit holder or on behalf of a specific permit holder?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's very difficult to speculate, but the intent of this would be if the commission had looked at the environmental objectives, for example, had gone through everything that they had to do and if there may still be something, an issue that may have been — I don't know — overlooked or wasn't covered, some circumstance that you and I can't think of today as we improve on this piece of legislation, that would allow this section to come in.
[ Page 3972 ]

This would not be to the lowest common denominator. This would be moving something to the highest common denominator, but it's very hard to speculate on what that might be. But on occasion there may be issues under the permitting, under an event or action that we haven't thought about here today, even through this dialogue that's ongoing in this debate that's taking place.

I think section (1.1) will give the flexibility for that. But the intent of this, I can tell you as the minister responsible, and I'll speak to it here today, is not to override an environmental objective by any means. It would be if there was something we need to do to enhance something, we would look at using this.

V. Huntington: I thank the minister for that. If that is, you feel, the objective, could there be any consideration of refining that discretionary power so that it does indeed require the cabinet to look at the highest common denominator rather than a discretionary one to a specific permit holder or over an objective that is in the way, shall we say?

[1800]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: An example for this section may be…. Again, we're speculating because we're looking at something that is really an unknown. All of the objectives that we've talked about have been met. The environmental objectives, the requirements by the permit applicant have been met, but for some reason, we find out that maybe that is a breeding area for an endangered species.

We want the ability to be able to say no. Another direction would come from the government to say: "No, you actually can't issue that permit." Reasons beyond what I think they were considering before may have become relevant to this discussion today. So that's where this clause could be activated and utilized. That's the reason for it.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

J. Horgan: In the explanatory notes we have the direction that we are removing references to the Community Charter, the Local Government Act and the Transportation Act. I'm wondering why we're doing that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 20 is dealing with the Community Charter, as you've said. What this does is leave the ultimate authority — for example, a pipeline crossing a road — in a community. This section now enables that ultimate authority to determine if that pipeline is going to cross that municipal road. It leaves that determination to the community itself. They have autonomy.

We talk about local government. That's what this section does. It gives them the right to determine that crossing. There may be an alteration that's required based on what the community is asking, and this section allows that to happen, and they maintain that right.

J. Horgan: Section 28 of the perfect bill that we're amending now for the 21st section, not yet brought into force, is headed "Permitted activity under pipeline permits," and it says "'applicable Act.'" We are now removing, as the minister suggests, Community Charter, Local Government Act and the Transportation Act.

That's a roadway. It's the responsibility of the Crown in some instances; it's the responsibility of a local government in other instances. I'm concerned that taking out….

If I heard the minister correctly, I don't disagree with his desire to put decisions like this back in the hands of communities, but I don't know how you do that by removing reference to the Local Government Act.

[1805]

I don't understand. What community are we talking about — a group of people who live down the road, or the municipality or regional district where the road resides, where the permit will be issued?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This section actually…. As you go through this, the applicable act they're referring…. It overruled those acts. So what we did was take out the Community Charter. The communities we're talking about are, you know, communities like — I'll use the northeast — Dawson Creek, for example, which has jurisdictions on those roads. Rather than have that act overridden, we actually removed the Community Charter from here, which gives the power back to the community to have the ultimate say in that pipeline crossing.

J. Horgan: Well, I can well imagine now why the current senator, former minister, wouldn't want to have debated this section in the Legislature in 2008 when it was passed by closure in one minute, and I know the minister, a former municipal representative, would not want to see a diminishment of authority at a municipal level.

In fact, I recall when the government introduced a bill called Bill 30 to remove the ability of municipal governments to make decisions around things like independent power projects, the minister, then backbencher, courageously voted against it.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I'm delighted to see that, upon reflection as a minister, he's seen an opportunity to take the senator's good work of taking away the rights and obligations of municipal
[ Page 3973 ]
governments, and now he's returning it to the people that he used to represent. That's a good thing, and I applaud him for again saying to the senator, "You're wrong," as he did with Bill 30.

Also an applicable act here is the Railway Safety Act. I'm wondering why we would want the Oil and Gas Commission to issue permits, particularly with respect to pipelines, and be able to overrule the Railway Safety Act. Isn't that — I don't know — dangerous?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The Railway Safety Act cannot veto, for example, a pipeline crossing, but what they can do under that is define how it can be done safely. They can do that. So this override, as you've talked about, really is saying that the Railway Safety Act cannot say, "No, that can't cross," but as it crosses, they have the ability to actually set the standards in how that crossing must take place.

J. Horgan: So prior to the passing by closure with one minute of debate of Bill 20, the perfect piece of legislation, the Railway Safety Act overrode the commission, and the Railway Safety Act could be used to prohibit a pipeline from crossing a railway — is that correct? — and Bill 20, by adding the Railway Safety Act into those acts that were overridden, basically said that the commission knows better and the commission will no longer require to be cognizant of the safety procedures and protocols that are laid out in that piece of legislation.

[1810]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This actually, I think, is a clarification. The Pipeline Act was unclear before on this. Previously a pipeline would go, and it was unclear whether it could or couldn't go, for example. I mean, obviously, pipelines have crossed, I imagine.

So what this does is actually enable the ability not to say that you can't cross the rail but that if you're going to, here are the parameters that you have to meet. Here are the safety requirements on that crossing that have to be met.

I guess in its simplest form to explain, it doesn't allow a veto to say that no, you can't cross the rail line — and when we say "cross," obviously buried. It says that if you're crossing, here are the safety parameters that must be met in order to meet the objectives of safety.

J. Horgan: I'm assuming that those requirements would be laid out in regulation. Is that where…? If I read this section…. Again, this may help other members who were following intently. I know Comox Valley is riveted to this. It says in section (2):

"(a) the commission, in a pipeline permit, may give permission to the pipeline permit holder to construct or operate a pipeline across, along, over or under any highway, road, public place" — disconcerting, I would think — "railway, underground communication or power line or another pipeline, and (b) the pipeline permit holder may carry out the activities referred to in paragraph (a) in accordance with the pipeline permit and this Act."

So the intention of Bill 20, the perfect act that we're only now delving into and have made multiple amendments to — approved 19 sections out of the hundred-odd we've got to go…. Goodness knows what other treasures await us as we flip through the pages.

I know the minister puts the safety of his constituents at the top of his list. I'm absolutely certain of that. I've got to tell you, though, hon. Chair, I kind of like the notion, the sound of the Railway Safety Act. That gives me some comfort that if you're putting explosive substances in pipes and running them along, under or over a railway line, you would take into account the Railway Safety Act.

I'm wondering…. The regulations that I assume will follow from the passage of Bill 8, the completion of the good works of the minister, the senator, from Peace River North, those regulations will give me more comfort. But as it is today, I'd rather rely on the act that was put in place to protect us many, many years ago. Not having gone yet to my stash of statutes to check it out, I'm just thinking I've got a gut feeling that I like the sound of the Railway Safety Act.

Would it be possible to hold this section in abeyance until such time as we have a clear understanding of what the regulations would be to protect public safety when we're issuing permits for pipelines to go across, under or around railway lines?

[1815]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As he indicated, safety is a priority, I think, for all of us in every industry, in everything we do. What this does is…. The change that we're talking about here is saying that the Railway Safety Act cannot stop a pipeline crossing, which was unclear before, and I think we're trying to do something.

The issue is not on the safety side. What they can't do is say: "No, you can't cross." What they say is, "If you're going to cross, here are the standards that you have to meet" — just as you've laid out and that you've said you're comfortable with. They have that full authority.

Not only that, though; as we develop the regulations — and I can assure the member this — those regulations will also include that we will be following all of the CSA standards set for pipelines as well, which are at least equal to what the member has referred to in the Railway Safety Act and, in some cases, even greater.

J. Horgan: Well, one of the four acts that we were doing away with when we passed Bill 20, in one minute, with closure, was the Pipeline Act. I'm fairly certain that although I can't find the sections of Bill 20 in the statutes — I'm sorry, Member — I know that I can't now turn and find the Pipeline Act, because it doesn't exist anymore.
[ Page 3974 ]

Again, these regulations are pretty important. I just want the House and the record to show that certainly we on this side of the House and the independent member would express, I believe, the same reservations. We're quite concerned that when a clause deliberately removes an act that has "Safety" in the title, you'd like to think that the regulations were already in hand, ready to go.

Again, I have absolute confidence that the minister will put the safety of his constituents above all else. That's not the issue. I think, though…. When we're looking at an act that is now not yet in force and going on to 20 clauses of amendments to it, then I think that perhaps a pause on this section might be in order.

I'm wondering if the minister may want to contemplate removing this section from the bill until such time as he can give assurance to this House that there will be equal and equivalent regulation in place to protect public safety.

[1820]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: I will stand here and give you this assurance. As the Oil and Gas Activities Act comes into force and, as you said, the Pipeline Act goes away…. The Pipeline Act utilizes CSA standards today. Those standards will be part of the regulations that are part of the Oil and Gas Activities Act. The assurance I'm giving you today is that those safety standards will be maintained. They will go over.

Not only will those CSA standards be there and applicable to the instance that we're talking about today, a pipeline crossing of a railway, but also the Railway Safety Act, although they can't veto a crossing, has full authority to set the method and how and the safety that must be met and the requirements for that pipeline to cross that rail.

As you said, and with all due respect, I appreciate that safety is an issue. I mean not just for my constituents but, I know, the member's as well. As we move to enhance, whether it be legislation or whatever we do, I'm certainly not going to jeopardize the safety of anybody, and I know the member opposite wouldn't either.

My commitment is that those regulations will be put over into OGAA — the CSA standards — and I think it will even be under the Railway Safety Act. The opportunity is there for them to set additional requirements as well.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

J. Horgan: I'm just confirming what I've already been told, but I want to ensure that every clause is fully discussed. We are now, again, removing a redundant reference to fees. We're not removing fees; we're just removing the reference. There are, I understand, a number of references throughout the bill. Ultimately, the fees will remain. Hopefully, they will be increased to address issues that we will get to later on. This section is designed to just remove the redundant reference, not remove the fee.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

J. Horgan: Again, we're on the verge of removing redundant fees, but we're also clarifying some regulations. I'm wondering. I look at section 22(d). It says as follows: "(8) An amendment made under subsection (7) is effective on and after the day it is made, unless the amendment changes the effect of the permit on the land of the land owner referred to in subsection…."

I'm wondering, since we were so concerned about surface rights in a title, why we wouldn't want to amend this section and perhaps, instead of "land owner" put "surface rights holder."

Hon. B. Lekstrom: That actually is put forward in the definitions. As you look at that, the landowner is the surface rights holder.

J. Horgan: I guess that's stating the obvious — isn't it? That's why we spent so much time on the name change. I think the obvious would be "mediation and arbitration board." I would rather know: what am I going into? If the landowner has surface rights, why in the world would we need to put it in the name as we did in earlier sections?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I note that you said that we spent a considerable amount of time just on a name change. I thought we could have done it much quicker, but you did have a number of questions. A landowner is defined as the surface rights holder in the definitions, so I think that covers it.

J. Horgan: I think the minister has just made my point: why we spent so much time on the name change. If the landowner has surface rights, then why do we need to put it in the name of a board that's designed to mediate and arbitrate differences between surface rights holders and subsurface rights holders?

[1825]

It seems to me that if we wanted to have consistency through the legislation, we would want to state the obvious over and over again, as we have done in changing the name of the board that is in place to mediate and arbitrate disputes between the two parties that are ultimately involved in this act, the surface rights holder and the subsurface rights holder.
[ Page 3975 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Mediation and arbitration is the process that the surface rights board will use. This is about access to the surface rights that we're talking about, not access to the landowner, Member.

I'm going back to section 1 even. This was through dialogue with the people in the northeast, with different groups. The surface rights board, I think, is the proper name. It more closely reflects what we're talking about. The process they'll use is mediation and arbitration, and at the end of the day, we're talking about access to surface rights.

The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister, I will accept a motion to rise and report progress.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would move that the committee rise, report progress on Bill 8 and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:27 p.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.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the Administrator is in the precinct, so if you would remain in your seats until the Administrator gets here.

[1830-1835]

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk Assistant:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2010

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2010

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth assent to these acts.

Supply Act (No. 1), 2010

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this act.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

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

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:37 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TOURISM, CULTURE AND THE ARTS

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

On Vote 44: ministry operations, $113,617,000 (continued).

The Chair: Good afternoon everybody, and welcome to the Douglas Fir Room. We are doing the budget estimates on the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts.

Hon. K. Krueger: Welcome to my critic across the way. The people who are with me were with me yesterday, so he is aware of their names and functions.

Mr. Chair, the critic asked for some information yesterday which we had committed to try to get. I have some of that with me. I also have some supplemental information, because in combing through the records last night we learned some things that I want to put on the record.

In recognition of the province's contributions to the games, in late November VANOC offered the government advertising space free of charge — we had believed that it was yesterday — in various locations of the Lower Mainland, which included billboards, transit shelters, exterior bus and platform posters, Waterfront station, videos on SkyTrain and Canada Line platforms at Canada Place and B.C. Place and venue posters at B.C. Place, GM Place and Pacific Coliseum.

The creative production and printing for these were paid out of the "You gotta be here" campaign budget. VANOC did the installations with their resources. In early 2010 a decision was made to run radio ads with the "You gotta be here" tag line during the Olympics and Paralympics, encouraging visits to Robson Square and the B.C. Pavilion. Those ads ran February 12 and 13 and
[ Page 3976 ]
then, briefly, during the Paralympics. I was unaware of that until after our discussions yesterday.

Finally, after final costs and invoices are submitted, we will release a detailed listing of information on campaign expenditures with the public accounts.

The member had asked for some further detail with regard to staff who served during the Olympics. There was a program where people could volunteer their vacation time and so on, and we did some matching. We had four employees who recorded volunteer time. They could match volunteer hours with vacation up to a total of 15 days.

The total salary and benefit costs of volunteer code hours approximate $6,600. Those folks took responsibility for their own accommodation and travel costs. Secondees and volunteers at Robson Square…. There were four people who have recorded time in the volunteer pay code, for a total approximate cost of $5,400, plus another two who volunteered for evening shifts but did so in addition to keeping up with their regular work, and an aboriginal intern who also volunteered.

Travel and accommodation was generally the responsibility of the individual personally, but I understand a couple of nights of accommodation were covered for a couple of people due to the work-related nature of that trip, with the volunteer work being considered incidental.

The number of hours I gave to the critic yesterday, but he wanted a breakdown by area of employment. We had an employee from archaeology, one from B.C. Film Commission and two from the recreation sites and trails unit. Between those four people, it was 169 hours. That's one of the numbers that we covered yesterday.

Secondments at Robson Square. We had four employees involved, and they put in 144 hours. So the total cost of salaries and benefits for all of the people that I've just discussed is $12,018.53.

We also, considering the records of our involvement, wanted to put on the record that we had staff who participated in the successful delivery of the torch relay, and the salaries for the staff that were involved totalled $397,336.

S. Herbert: Just while I've got the minister providing the information that he said he would provide yesterday relating to those Olympic costs…. We'll get to the "You gotta be here" stuff shortly.

[1440]

I'm just curious. I had also requested a breakdown line by line of the tourism development budget and the consumer marketing budget, as the minister was starting to provide yesterday but didn't have all the resources there. So I'm just wondering if that's going to be provided to the critic now or at the end of this session today.

Hon. K. Krueger: I can do that. The sum of $397,000 that I just gave included some expenses, and the rest was salary.

Also, as the critic knows, Tourism B.C. was melded into the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. It still exists as an entity today, but the legislation prescribed that the amalgamation be complete as of April 1. I have learned that there are some Tourism B.C. staff whose numbers weren't included in ministry numbers, and we're going to try to have that for the critic tomorrow.

I think we agreed that we're going to arts and culture today. Okay.

Looking at the information that the member requests, total tourism development budget, which is what you're asking for the coming year — $9.239 million. B.C. Arts Council….

S. Herbert: Yes, I can read the budget. My question was the same question I asked yesterday. That breakdown, when we get into tourism development…. I know that the minister started to go into a list of "this was the amount paid for recreation trails," and then the amount for each of those programs within. And as was requested yesterday, if I could get that list, the budget broken down by division — not just the general number but how it's spent within the division — that would be very helpful.

Now, if the minister doesn't have that information here, I know that the commitment was to have it to me by end of day. I understand that we'll get into tourism estimates further on the tourism side tomorrow morning. I just needed those numbers by end of day today so that I could ask those questions in the morning with that backdrop to hang the questions on — if you can hang a question on a backdrop.

Hon. K. Krueger: I was just getting started. We do have the breakdown, but it's true that it would probably be more efficient to just give the document to the critic, and then he can work with it tomorrow. So I will respectfully pass it through the Chair. We'll look forward to further discussion tomorrow.

S. Herbert: Thanks to the minister for getting me that list and going through those numbers on the Olympic expenses, the costs for the Olympics that the ministry bore.

But getting down to what is a surprising admission, I think, from the minister…. I appreciate that the minister went back with his staff and actually looked through the "You gotta be here" questions that I asked yesterday. But I say "surprising" because yesterday, had I not continued to press, I'm not sure I would have got the answer I got today. Maybe I would have, but I was dismissed pretty quickly — that there weren't any expenses on the "You gotta be here" campaign within B.C.

I asked specifically about the costs of production of the ads and the billboards, the costs of the ads on television, the costs of the ads on radio, the costs of the
[ Page 3977 ]
ads on bus shelters and so on. And I was told — let me just quote here: "I account for this ministry's budget. I just told the member that those ads were not from our budget. In any event, they were marketing British Columbia to the world. It's sad that the member apparently missed that."

I was also told again that the "You gotta be here" campaign "was for marketing British Columbia to the world, not to British Columbians, and that's what it did." Again, when I asked further, the minister said: "They weren't paid for by this ministry — the ads that the member is talking about." Then I was also told: "All of these things that he's describing were not paid for by this ministry."

[1445]

I continued to ask these questions because it was pretty obvious to me that they were paid for by this ministry, and I don't understand how we get to the place where the minister and his staff were not aware that these were paid for by the ministry. It just kind of boggles the mind that a major campaign within B.C. wouldn't be known to the minister, wouldn't be known to the staff around him and only came to awareness after all these questions were asked.

I was told again and again that I was wrong, that they were not paid for. Now, I appreciate that the minister has come clean and said, "Oh yes, actually, they were paid for," but yet again won't release a number of what they were. That'll come, I guess, in July.

It's important to understand that number, because if we're talking about where we're going to go in this year ahead, given the challenges the tourism industry faces, we need to know whether or not the budget's been spent effectively. We need to know…. "Okay, we'll look at how this was spent here, so we can understand where the ministry is going in this upcoming year."

I was told that we weren't spending money on these ads. That's what I was told in October last year. That's what I was told yesterday again and again by the minister, but in fact, that wasn't the real fact. The minister has now stated here on the record that, yes, they did spend money on producing the ads for the billboards, transit shelters, exterior buses, platform posters, Waterfront station, videos on SkyTrain, Canada Line platforms, Canada Place, B.C. Place, in-venue posters, all the creative and printing, radio ads.

The list is quite extensive, so I'm not sure how it got missed — that the minister didn't know it was happening and then told me again and again that it wasn't happening. That just doesn't bear up to scrutiny, as far as I'm concerned. The minister said very clearly that he accounted for the budget of the Ministry of Tourism yet missed a very major expense.

Maybe the minister can explain to me how this expense was missed when it is such a considerable expense and if he can give me a ballpark figure for what it costs. I understand that he was able to give me direct figures around a couple of staffers, which is great. This was a much bigger expense, so it should be even easier to clarify what that expense was in B.C.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'll remind the member — and I had given him a letter before we came to the Douglas Fir Room today, when I learned the matters that I just read into the record — that the space was provided free of charge by VANOC. What we paid for was the images, the creative. I said on the record yesterday, too, that there was a lot of sharing of images, video, still photography, stories and so on.

This was a very major event, the largest British Columbia has ever conducted, and there were a number of people involved. I had no idea until today that the campaign had paid for radio ads. I never heard the radio ads, but then I wasn't listening to the radio. I didn't know that, so I put it on the record as soon as I found out.

I believe it's going to be a fairly small expense. Apparently, it was a couple of days' advertising of, as I said, Robson place and the B.C. Showcase and then some advertising during the Paralympics. We are going to report those numbers, and I believe I said that in my letter to the member as well. When we have those numbers — and I don't have them — they'll be reported.

There was a cost for the images. I thought they might have been images…. We had a huge data bank of images. We were feeding them to NBC; we were feeding them to CTV. I thought that they were probably part of our overall bank, but there has been an expense for that, and that's why I wish to correct the record at my first opportunity.

Same thing with the radio ads — I just didn't know that we had done any.

It was a very successful event. There were lots of people involved in making sure that it was successful, doing their best, sometimes making decisions on the fly. Somebody made decisions about radio ads, and I guess I really didn't need to know. I'm glad they did what they did, because it all turned out so well.

The record is now accurate, to the best of my knowledge, in a fulsome way. It was accurate yesterday, but I didn't have these details.

[1450]

S. Herbert: I don't know that the record was accurate yesterday. It was accurate, I guess, in the minister's mind, but in terms of what the reality was for the budget, it wasn't accurate. And I think the minister can recognize that the record was not accurate in the reality of what the ministry actually spent.

The ministry spent money on the creation of ads for billboards, the creation of ads for bus shelters. The list goes on and on and on. I understand that the minister says he didn't know about it. But the minister, in the end,
[ Page 3978 ]
is the one accountable, as I know the minister knows, having served in a couple of ministries.

It just really boggles the mind that we would have this level of expenses without the minister knowing about it yesterday and telling me again and again that it didn't happen. I saw the minister consult with his staff again and again. Again, I was stonewalled and told that I was wrong and that it didn't happen.

I asked the question again: why, last year when I asked this question…? I wanted to know: were we going to be spending money marketing the Olympics to British Columbians? I was told no — flat out no — that we would not be doing this, besides a small, small amount on social media.

It turns out that wasn't true. It turns out that what I was told yesterday wasn't true. I appreciate the letter, but in the end we're still not being given the facts about what could be a very big cost. Billboards don't come cheap.

Now, I understand that the space was provided free, but paying to create the materials — that costs a lot of money. And they were everywhere. They were in the Downtown Eastside. They were on the east side. They were all over the place.

The question that I got asked again and again was: well, if we're marketing to tourists, why are we doing it on this back-alley billboard that nobody's going to see? Why are we doing it in places that tourists are not going to actually go to? And they are already here. "You gotta be here"? We are here.

They asked me again and again: why are we doing this on the radio? The tourists generally don't listen to the radio, and if they do, they already know about the B.C. Pavilion, because that's why they came here. They came to see the Olympics. This was one of the key showpieces of the Olympics. They already knew about that.

So it was again and again: why are we spending this money which first we were told wouldn't be spent? Then yesterday I was told it wasn't spent, and then finally, today: "Oh, it was spent, but we won't tell you the real cost."

It's important to know, because the tourism industry wants to know. They had a $6 million budget cut this year. They want to know, given what happened last year: is this being effectively spent? Given what I'm hearing, it doesn't sound like it, because the ministry and the minister didn't even know it was spent.

So can the minister tell me. With that spending, how is that spending on those locations, which the minister himself said wouldn't be spent, good use of taxpayers' money to promote tourism — saying, "You gotta be here," when people are already here?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member said our estimates were in October. I think the date was November 2, because I've checked the record on that as well. What he was told was what we believed at the time. There hadn't been any discussion of radio ads, for example.

What I said yesterday, again, is on the record, and that is that we had at least a quarter-million people from outside British Columbia here. We continued to market to them throughout the Olympics. I am told that most of the imaging on the billboards was not from the Lower Mainland — not from Vancouver, not from Whistler, not from Richmond — but from the six tourism regions of the province.

We have a marketing plan that is constantly being fine-tuned. We work with the regional destination marketing organizations, and we and they work with the community destination marketing organizations. Our website has been created to facilitate tourists going to their websites.

[1455]

We seek always to become more and more seamless in order that we press out the tourism activity to every corner of the province. It was always our plan and our commitment that we would press the post-Olympic tourism opportunities out to every region of the province as well.

The billboards, all of this out-of-home advertising, I believe the industry calls it, was intended to continue to fulfil that mandate, to make sure that we share the opportunity and the prosperity that we believe is going to flow from having hosted the Olympics with the entire province — the small communities, the rural areas and the larger cities throughout the Island and the Interior.

The plan was to promote the regions, and it was certainly very much a part of our post-Olympic strategy. That's what the "You gotta be here" campaign was designed for. Those ads ran all around North America. They had been focus group–tested as to which British Columbian celebrities would be recognized around the U.S.A. That's how the people were chosen.

The whole thrust was to build the interest and the awareness in British Columbia and facilitate building the kind of relationships where we would be able to get contracts with people who visited our websites, bring them here, provide them with an excellent experience and keep them coming back.

S. Herbert: Just a point of clarification. The minister said that all creative production and printing, including those in transit shelters, was paid for out of the "You gotta be here" campaign budget. I'm just curious. Was the yougottabehere.ca website that the bus shelter ads pointed to also paid out of the "You gotta be here" campaign budget?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, it was.
[ Page 3979 ]

S. Herbert: Well, that's very interesting. I'm curious how having a page that promoted the Premier on the yougottabehere.ca website was beneficial for tourists.

Hon. K. Krueger: Nobody works harder to promote British Columbia than the Premier. He's done that for many years. He is personally acquainted with leaders around the world, the Governor of California for one. California is our second-largest market in the U.S.A.

The members smirk and catcall about that, but the Governor of California is a friend of British Columbia.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: The member from Powell River is presuming to get in on the debate without standing up, but I think that the people in the Sechelt, the people of Powell River, the beautiful bed-and-breakfast industry up and down the Sunshine Coast wouldn't want their member lampooning the Governor of the second-largest market….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, order. Order. Will you please allow the member that has the floor to make his statements. Everybody will have their opportunity.

Minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: I don't think that the people of the Sunshine Coast, the people in the businesses there that hope to attract tourists would appreciate that their member is sitting here making fun of the Governor of California, who represents the people of the second-largest market that we have in the U.S.A. Washington, our next-door neighbour, is first, and California is second. We're really delighted that we have a good relationship with California, and we continue to build on that.

The Premier is the Premier of the province of British Columbia. The members don't like that, but he's been elected for his third term as Premier. He'll be elected for another one, I expect, in 2013. He's got relationships all over the world with world leaders, and we're delighted that we have a leader who takes such an active part in helping us successfully deliver on our goals.

S. Herbert: It doesn't make any sense to me, and I don't think that the tourism industry would be saying that, yes, the Premier will somehow magically welcome all the world and that he will be the chief marketer for British Columbia. No. British Columbia, the landscape, the people, the places — that's what should be our key asset, not the Premier walking down the street shaking somebody's hand, not the Premier grandstanding at event after event after event. That doesn't make any sense in terms of marketing tourism. The minister well knows that.

[1500]

Yougottabehere.ca was again and again and again used, basically, as propaganda to help the Premier in a time when his government is doing very poorly in the polls. I'm curious. Maybe the minister will tell me this. Why in a document that I have, produced by Tourism B.C., does it say that marketing to British Columbians, to voting-age British Columbians, is one of the key aspects of this campaign?

Hon. K. Krueger: One of the frequently repeated compliments to British Columbia about the Olympic and Paralympic Games was the friendliness of our population — how well prepared people were to help guests, to give directions, to constantly befriend guests from around the world, to be hosting the 14,000 foreign journalists.

We trained 40,000 people through the WorldHost program, which this ministry conducts. We've been approached by other jurisdictions asking if we could train their people in order that they might hope to provide the same level of welcome that we did.

The Premier led us in all of that. The Premier took part in the bid that won the Olympics. The bid team said that he worked as hard as anyone, and I would venture that he probably worked harder than everyone, because that's been my experience with him over many years.

He was very much a part of winning and staging the Olympics throughout. He led, obviously, a tremendously successful Olympic bid, and he certainly went far out of his way throughout the Olympics to make sure that people caught the Olympic spirit and that it was the successful event that it turned out to be.

The Chair: If I could remind the member to draw all his questions back to Vote 44.

S. Herbert: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I guess I'm curious about the expenditures in this current fiscal year compared to what they will be in this upcoming fiscal year, 2010-2011, because it doesn't make any sense to me that we would be determining, as part of this campaign, that voting-age British Columbians would be some of the ones that should be marketed to amongst others, amongst the international audience.

Can the minister tell me why his ministry, or maybe it was PAB in cooperation with his ministry, would decide that voting-age British Columbians — not British Columbians, but voting-age British Columbians — should be marketed to in this way?

Hon. K. Krueger: Just to make sure that the member doesn't misunderstand. My understanding is that
[ Page 3980 ]
he is now talking about the tourism industry in general, rather than Olympic marketing. His question is: why would we target British Columbians of a certain age?

No one should think little of the contribution to the tourism economy that is made by British Columbians themselves. About 50 percent of the tourists moving around British Columbia last year were British Columbians; the other 50 percent were from Canada, the U.S.A. and around the world.

[1505]

So half the volume is British Columbians. A lot of people refer to that traffic as staycations in the industry, and the British Columbians who acted as tourists within British Columbia's borders in 2009 contributed about 28 percent of the overall revenue. So it's no small matter.

It's also, we think, really good for the spirit of British Columbia that people get around and get to know their own province. So certainly, it only makes sense that we would make sure that our website was attractive to British Columbians as well as to other Canadians and international visitors.

S. Herbert: The "You gotta be here" campaign — yougottabehere.ca, with the Premier's page prominently placed right there on the front page — really didn't seem to me to be marketing to the international world, to be marketing to travel the rest of the way around B.C. That's not what the yougottabehere.ca website was.

That was targeted at voting-age British Columbians, according to the document that the ministry produced — Tourism B.C., through the ministry, through PavCo produced. So it really doesn't make much sense to me that that would be an effective use of taxpayers' money, to fill bus shelter after bus shelter with advertising directing them to the Premier's page through the yougottabehere.ca website with the assumption that that would be targeting voting-age British Columbians.

That really seems like a real stretch, that that would be the terminology used by this ministry to target British Columbians to get them to tour around the province somehow. I don't know about you, Minister, through the Chair, but the Premier's smiling face wouldn't make me want to travel to Kamloops, wouldn't make me want me to travel to Prince George — well, maybe. Maybe it would make some British Columbians want to get out of Vancouver if the Premier was there, but I don't think that was the point of that.

So, again, I'll return to that — yougottabehere.ca, paid for by the Tourism Ministry and targeted at voting-age British Columbians. How does that make any sense for promotion of tourism and getting people to visit other regions in British Columbia, and why would they use the terminology "voting-age British Columbians"?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member repeatedly says that things don't make sense to him. Perhaps the explanation of that lies in the fact that he doesn't have very much experience with these matters. He has said publicly when people call him to account on his party's record…. I don't remember the exact quote, but to the effect that he was in grade school when his party had a government record.

But what I can tell him is that people of voting age probably have driver's licences. They're more likely to be autonomous with regard to what vacations they plan than people who aren't of voting age. They're probably more likely to have an income where they can plan a holiday than people who aren't of voting age, and I think that the tourism industry would agree that that's a prime audience for advertising to be targeting.

The advertising, the websites, include the Super, Natural B.C. logo. It refers to B.C. as the host province. It does a call to action, hoping that people will choose to book vacations through hellobc.com, and it's been fabulously successful.

I mentioned yesterday that we believed that we would have close to a billion impressions with the "You gotta be here" advertising. We believe that we exceeded 960 million. Additionally, over 220 million impressions were delivered digitally. The television and video spots have been viewed over 500,000 times on line.

[1510]

There are 5,000 fans on the "You gotta be here" Facebook page and over 3,000 photos posted on the "You gotta be here" Flickr website. From January 18 to March 7 hellobc.com received 2.7 million visitors. Of those, about 785,000 were from direct sources — that is, consumers typing in hellobc.com themselves — and from referring sources — for example, those where ads or links could be found, such as Vancouver2010.com, ctvolympics.com.

Direct and referrals were up over 850 percent — 850 percent — compared to the same period in 2009, so whether the member thinks that the right people were on the images or not, a lot of consumers were obviously interested. From January 18 through February 28, 2010 over a hundred thousand people clicked on "You gotta be here" branded on-line ads, and 280,000 visited the contest page. Of those, 79,000 entered the contest, which means that we have their address. And 49 percent of those gave us permission for future contact.

"You gotta be here" video views of B.C. government and Tourism B.C. channels were at 665,649. The total on-line ad click-throughs were 439,244. There was a U.S. survey in March, right after the games, and 41 percent of Americans reported seeing travel promotion or advertising about B.C. Some 27 percent recalled advertising featuring celebrities, and 13 percent correctly named at least one celebrity.

As a result of the Olympic campaign, the number of Americans in our target demographic — which is
[ Page 3981 ]
a $75,000-a-year income or more in the household — considering a leisure trip to British Columbia has nearly doubled. This increase represents nearly nine million more potential U.S. visitors.

We know that the opposition didn't want the Olympics to be a success. They made that very clear leading right up to the Olympics — voted against everything; voted against the budgets; constantly barraged us with criticism; didn't show up, that I could see, during the Olympics; and are probably sad that they were so successful. But they were.

They were fabulously successful. About 3½ billion people watched. The biggest Canadian audiences in history watched the opening ceremonies and the men's hockey game. They were a great success. We're working hard to make sure that we capitalize on the post-Olympic opportunities.

The opposition can go on with their grinding negativity, but in spite of that, the Olympics were a success. There's going to be a tremendously positive outcome for British Columbia across the board and certainly in the tourism industry as a result of those successful Olympics and all of our actions through them and following them.

S. Herbert: The minister may think it's good politics and fabulous to create a belief, or to try to create a belief, that somehow everybody except for the NDP loved the Olympics. Well, it was the NDP that first applied for that and started getting it going, and it was the NDP that continued doing that work.

The minister may try and change the channel. He may throw out a whole bunch of numbers so that it doesn't come back to the fact that it was the Premier of the B.C. Liberals who decided to have his own mug put very prominently on the yougottabehere.ca website to help himself out with his partisan interests, not helping the tourism interests.

The minister refused to answer the question about how having the Premier there would help with tourism, how using radio ads, how using bus shelter ads to direct people to this website promoting the Premier — how that was anywhere useful for tourism. Because he can't.

The minister cannot answer that question, because it isn't helpful for tourism. It wasn't useful for tourism to have a Premier's page promoting the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party in a time when his poll ratings were taking a nosedive. It doesn't make any sense.

So the minister may try and direct it into a different line of questioning and go back to rhetoric, as he consistently does when he realizes he's in hot water. He tries to change the channel yet again, rather than answering the direct questions. It doesn't make any sense for him to decide not to answer a question like this, a direct question.

[1515]

Maybe the minister will be able to answer this question: how many views of the You Gotta Be Here website from within B.C. — yougottabehere.ca?

Hon. K. Krueger: If there's more of that kind of puling, partisan silliness, I won't be rising to answer the bogus questions. We don't have a breakdown of that answer. We don't have that number.

In any event, the member had agreed that we were going to be canvassing tourism tomorrow. I have people with us who are here to deal with his questions on other matters. I think he's wasting these people's time with his partisan attacks on a Premier that he ought to respect and he ought to appreciate. I would suggest that we move on with the business as agreed.

The Chair: Can I remind all members to direct their questions through the Chair, and if you could please direct your questions back to Vote 44.

S. Herbert: I guess the minister, just as what happened yesterday — when he worked very hard to book it out the door once the ministry staff and the minister realized that, oh, the opposition actually caught them in something here with what happened, with where they said there wasn't any expense on this…. But actually, there was a large expense to this.

Maybe we'll find tomorrow…. I'll get a letter which explains: "Oh, actually, uh, the Premier, ah, maybe, ah, oh — we don't know. Oh, actually we don't want to talk about that issue" — the fact that they used taxpayers' money to promote the Premier on this website.

They have the numbers for a bunch of things they want to talk about, but the stuff they don't want to talk about somehow — "oh, actually, oops, we don't have those numbers…." Well, that's very interesting, and it's very telling. Maybe those numbers will be ready and available tomorrow since the critic has asked for those numbers from within B.C.

Maybe the other question that I'd like to get on the record so I can get that answer tomorrow is: how many times was the Premier's page clicked on, on the yougottabehere.ca website? That would be of interest to me too. And maybe: how many times did the Premier's picture appear on that webpage? Oh, let's see. Or maybe on the Facebook page too. How many times was the Premier promoted through Facebook?

Those are kind of interesting questions because they show, I think, a waste of taxpayers' money for tourism promotion. It is exactly the thing that the tourism industry was concerned about when the B.C. Liberals got rid of the industry-led Tourism B.C. They said that this taxpayer funding is going to be used to promote partisan interests, and look at it. It was only a few months later. In fact, that is what we're seeing happening here.
[ Page 3982 ]

That's not good for the tourism industry, and that's not good for taxpayers in B.C. But the minister doesn't want to talk about this issue anymore, and I understand.

I have a lot of questions about arts and culture and the cuts to arts and culture, which is probably something that the minister would rather not talk about either, given how devastating these cuts are to B.C. We're going to resume on these questions, this line of questioning, around tourism tomorrow morning.

So the first question is a general one. I think it will help us understand how the minister views arts and culture. Which jurisdiction anywhere in the world outside of B.C. has a successful arts and culture sector that provides inspiration for the minister?

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm here to answer questions about the estimates for the 2010-2011 budget year, and I'll entertain such questions.

S. Herbert: Well, I guess that's telling in itself, that there isn't one that the minister could name off the top of his head.

The minister was quoted by Cam Fortems of the Kamloops Daily News as saying in reference to the alliance for arts and culture and ProArt Victoria's concern about B.C. Liberal budget cuts to the B.C. Arts Council and gaming…. He criticized them and said that their concern was a very lame thing to say. He then proceeded to say that people in the arts want to continue in the same mode as the past when things are changing constantly.

[1520]

Would the minister acknowledge that a 50 percent cut to the B.C. Arts Council and a roughly 50 percent cut to B.C. gaming funds for arts is putting extreme pressure on arts and culture organizations, forcing them to lay off staff, shut their doors or stop programs that provide much value for our communities?

The Chair: Can I remind all people in the Douglas Fir Room to turn off the audio portion of any of their electronic devices. Thank you.

Hon. K. Krueger: I would like to introduce two specialists who have joined us for the arts and culture portion of the estimates debate. Nearest to the critic, Liz Lilly is seated. Liz is the director of cultural services. Beside Liz is Gillian Wood, the executive director of the B.C. Arts Council.

It's a big subject. We'll start with some global numbers. Provincial funding is available for adult art groups through the B.C. Arts Council. Since 2001 the province has provided over $134 million to artists and arts organizations across B.C. That is in nine years. In the last five years of the NDP government the average was less than $13 million per year to the B.C. Arts Council.

Since 2001 this government has created two new endowment funds for the arts — the $150 million BC150 cultural fund and the $20 million arts legacy fund. Each year earnings on these investments are distributed to arts and culture organizations throughout B.C.

Additionally, we created the $25 million renaissance fund and encouraged arts organizations to establish their own foundations. Those foundations could have matching money to the donations that they raised, so that $25 million grew into well over double. That was with 62 new foundations created, I believe, and also contributions to existing foundations.

We've announced in this year's budget the new $60 million 2010 sports and arts legacy funding over three years. Sports is half of it; arts is the other half. So it will be $10 million per year for three years available through this ministry. The province is providing over $30 million in that new fund alone to arts and art organizations across B.C.

There is also $7.931 million in grants budgeted through the B.C. Arts Council, $1.5 million in earnings from the B.C. arts and culture endowment fund and $11.5 million in gaming grants to arts and culture groups for youth, fairs, festivals, museums and groups with three-year gaming grant commitments throughout B.C.

That's a total in this budget year of $30 million in funding to arts and art organizations. That is more than double the average annual funding that the NDP government provided. So I do think that people who are the recipients of that sort of generosity, the amounts that I talked about….

The BC150 endowment fund alone was more than double the total funding that the NDP provided to the B.C. Arts Council in five years — $150 million at one go when we were running our surpluses in 2008. We decided that was a fitting way to commemorate the 150th birthday of the province from when it was founded as a colony. So we've done a lot for the arts.

In the round tables that I've had with arts groups, including the group that the member just named, they have said flat out that they didn't do nearly as well with the NDP government.

[1525]

They don't expect they ever would in the future, either. So while they may have been unhappy with the hit that our revenues took during the worldwide recession, overall they're very happy with the way that we have funded arts in our time in office.

S. Herbert: Well again, when the minister wants to get out of a tough question he decides to list a whole bunch of numbers, talk about rhetoric, about what happened here, what happened here.

Interjection.
[ Page 3983 ]

S. Herbert: Oh, the minister says he didn't hear anything tough. That's interesting.

The Chair: Please. All members are to direct their comments through the Chair, and the only person speaking is the person who has the floor. At the present time that's the member for Vancouver–West End.

Please continue, Member.

S. Herbert: The minister said he didn't hear a tough question. I think that what this government has done to arts and culture with this budget is a very tough thing to do. They need to know. The government needs to understand that what they're doing is forcing organizations to close their doors, to lay off staff, to cut much-needed programs in our community.

That's what this budget does. That's the question the minister refused to answer. That's what…. The minister instead chose to deride the Alliance for Arts and Culture, ProArt Alliance of Victoria, by saying that their concern was a very lame thing to say. Those were the minister's words.

Then the minister in his answer decided to talk about generosity and how generous his government was. Well, I think I need to remind the minister that it's not a government being generous and giving money back to British Columbians. It's British Columbians' money. It's their tax dollars that government decides to allocate. So it's not being generous. That's making a strategic decision to support arts and culture, something that this minister and this government decided to take an axe to in this budget.

They decided — the B.C. Arts Council — to cut their budget 50 percent, something that the minister doesn't acknowledge. They decided to cut B.C. Gaming 50 percent. Again, something that the minister refuses to acknowledge.

I'll give the minister one more chance. What does he say to those organizations that are having to make tough choices by laying off staff, shutting down or closing and shutting off programs that are vital for the communities that they live in?

Hon. K. Krueger: What I say to the organizations when I meet with them, as I frequently do, is that we have experienced a $3 billion hit in revenues — and generally they already know that — and that we've had to make very difficult decisions in order to fund core programs in health care, education and social services. We have doubled the health care budget. We've doubled the number of doctors in training. We've doubled the number of nurses in training. We've opened new universities around the province. We're at the highest level of per-capita funding ever in the K-to-12 system, and we added to it again this year.

We have to do those things, and I think that many people in the arts and culture communities think that we're doing surprisingly well, given those challenges. We're certainly, and they know it, far more generous than the NDP government was with them.

S. Herbert: Well, the way I remember this is that before the election the minister of the day said that artists need not worry, that that funding would be secure. Then after the election we saw the huge hit on gaming. Then in the budget proceeding that we saw the hit on gaming, and then a hit to the B.C. Arts Council. That's the record. That's the current record.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Now, the minister may want to talk about what happened under a different minister who had some sway at the cabinet table, and that's his decision. But if he wants to talk about those numbers…. It seems interesting that earlier he refused to talk about those numbers in terms of what happened in the past, saying: "Oh no, no, no. It's just this budget."

Maybe I need to remind the minister that we're talking about this budget. In this budget, as well as in the budget that preceded this, there were massive cuts to arts and culture investment in the province, something that the B.C. Liberals used to put on the government website. They used to say that, actually, arts and culture investment was a good thing. It would grow the economy. For every dollar invested, they got up to $1.36 back in taxes.

[1530]

Maybe the minister can clarify to me what study has been funded or is being funded to show that that's not true. Because every other jurisdiction that I know of, that I've looked to…. Their studies show that, actually, it is true. Arts and culture grows the economy and provides enough money so you can actually fund health care and those other things that the minister mentioned.

Hon. K. Krueger: Madame Chair, welcome to our debate. Before I answer that question, which was a silly question…. Nobody is funding any studies to try and disprove an economic contribution by the arts and culture communities. I'm sure they'll find that question insulting.

I would like to put the totals on for the various years. This is funding through the Arts and Culture Ministry to those communities. In '95-96, funding for all sources within the ministry totalled $14.264 million; '96-97, $14.784 million.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

Minister, proceed.
[ Page 3984 ]

Hon. K. Krueger: In '97-98, $11.830 million. The member, again, for Powell River–Sunshine Coast says that his colleague was in grade school at this time. They keep putting that on the record. In '98-99, $11.811 million; '99-2000, $16.126 million; 2000-2001, about $24.312 million; 2001-02, $20.493 million; '02-03, $16.506 million; '03-04, $16.991 million; '04-05, $42.268 million; '05-06, $22.529 million; '06-07, $17.860 million; '07-08, $237.305 million; '08-09, $27.082 million.

So we've been through some tough times in this last year and a little bit. We think we're emerging from it. We think that the very successful event that we staged with the Olympics and all the work that we're doing flowing from that is going to help bring British Columbia out of a worldwide recession quicker than perhaps any other jurisdiction, quicker than most. We will continue this proud record of demonstrating very tangibly that we very much value, respect and support the arts and culture communities.

So back to the silly question about the study. Who would ever do a study trying to disprove that arts and culture make a contribution to the economy? The member knows full well that the government knows that, appreciates it, respects it and says so frequently.

The arts and culture communities are tremendous contributors to the economy. There is a multiplier effect. I've got no doubt about that at all. My friend, who sadly died not long ago — David Ross, the artistic director of the Western Canada Theatre company — told me that the ratio, he believed, was eight-to-one, the multiplier factor.

[1535]

The member has raised this issue with me before — of how quickly the money returns. There are probably many studies about that. But we appreciate so much the contributions that these communities make to the fabric of British Columbian society, to its economy.

Indeed, in my arts round tables, the people of the communities make a very convincing case that the arts and culture communities help us deliver health care — in that people have happier, more fulfilled lives. They're happier in their homes longer. They don't age as quickly. They stay well longer because of their enjoyment of what the arts and culture communities provide, and they're very often a part of it.

They make a compelling case that these communities help in the delivery of education across all levels in British Columbia, and I believe that. I think it's obvious.

They also make a case that the arts and culture communities are very effective in helping us deliver social services. I've met people who the community took off the streets and acquainted with the talents that God gave them and very much became a part of the economy through arts and culture.

The member has probably visited the renovated theatre across from the police station on Main Street in Vancouver. It was done by a young movie director who sadly died in his 40s, I believe, of cancer, and his sister operates the legacy that he left behind. They train young people, who they often take off the streets, in many different aspects of moviemaking. One just recently won a post-secondary scholarship after he had been trained by them.

So I believe, our government believes, and our Premier believes that these are vital communities — the arts and culture communities in British Columbia. They contribute in all those ways and many more. So certainly, we would never commission such a study. We have no such study underway, and nobody is looking to disprove those contributions.

S. Herbert: Well, I appreciate that the minister has put on the record that he believes that arts investment from government actually creates more economic activity, that there's actually a spinoff effect, and that it grows the economy. That's the one side. But on the other side, the minister also seems to believe that you can't invest in arts and culture in an economic downturn because that takes money away from the economy.

It just doesn't seem to square with me how, on one side, it grows the economy, is good for jobs, is good for the economy in all those effects. It's good for health care. It's good for our communities. Yet on the other side, take the B.C. Arts Council budget and cut it by 50 percent — take it to levels lower than the 1990s, take it to the '80s, take the level way back there. Take gaming money, cut it by 50 percent this year, and cut it by 50 percent last year.

That is actually doing the opposite of what the minister seems to claim he believes in. So if the arts actually grow the economy, why isn't the minister putting more money into arts and culture rather than taking the axe to it, as the B.C. Liberals have done?

Hon. K. Krueger: I always wonder what the member thinks he's saying about himself and his own party's history in office when we've just worked through numbers that clearly demonstrate who, by far, has made the larger contribution to the arts and culture communities over very recent history.

The member says it isn't his history, but he is certainly representing the same party and many of the same people. Our record outshines the NDP's by a factor of many times.

I don't understand why he would want to persist in comparing records or why anyone would fail to understand that the cutting that has gone on has been a cutting in revenues. I mean, that is a fact that's known around the world. It's affected jurisdictions everywhere, some much more drastically than ours. When you have the largest province of Canada by population running a $25 billion deficit in one year….

[1540]
[ Page 3985 ]

You know, the children of the elected people of today and probably their children and possibly generations after that are going to have to devote a substantial portion of their annual budget servicing those accumulating debts with years of deficits, and people who are in grade school now may well be paying for those deficits.

It's not the fault of any Canadian government, provincial or federal, or most governments around the world that this recession befell the global economy, but it did. Different jurisdictions are responding in different ways. The B.C. Liberal government abhors a deficit, abhors public debt because it is a tax on the future. The member may well find himself one day sitting across the room from a member half his age who says: "How could you have thought that the NDP record was anything to be proud of?"

We experienced a tremendous cut in revenues. We have to fund certain things. If a loved one of the member's was hurt in a car accident today or diagnosed with cancer, heaven forbid, or had a heart attack, the member would absolutely expect that that loved one would get the best of care in our health care system, and they would.

We get compliments all the time about the service that people get, the care that they get in our health care system. We have poured the resources into health care because it's necessary. That doesn't take away at all from how the government values arts and culture, but health care needs are very pressing needs.

We've always considered education one of the two top responsibilities of the provincial government. If people don't get an education in our day and age, they very often end up in poverty. People in poverty have more health care challenges and many other challenges than people who have a decent income.

So we work to make sure that people have good incomes, and the average wage of a British Columbian today is $23 an hour plus. The average wage of a young British Columbian, a youth, is $13 an hour plus.

We have to choose priorities. We have to decide what we're going to fund, and when we've budgeted for health care, when we've budgeted for education, when we've budgeted for social services in a time of recession, then we are left with not as much money as we had in the past with which to be generous, but we will again.

We said that if we became government in 2001, we would cut British Columbians' personal income taxes to the lowest in Canada for the bottom two income tax brackets, and we did it. The NDP said our fiscal plan wouldn't work, but it did. We began running large surpluses, and we gave very substantial portions of those surpluses to arts and cultural groups.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Members.

Minister, I'd like to remind you that we are discussing the estimates of the ministry.

Hon. K. Krueger: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The point is that we are funding arts and culture generously, considering the challenges that we face. We have every intention of continuing to do so and doing even better in future when we are able to bring this province back out of deficit and begin generating larger revenues again.

S. Herbert: Well again, as we've seen consistently in this estimates, where there's a question the minister doesn't want to answer because he doesn't have an answer, he goes into rhetoric. He goes into making stuff up, and he goes into talking about anything but the question.

He talks about Ontario and what a big deficit they have. Maybe it would interest the minister — although I've told him about it many times, although the arts community has told him about it many times — that they actually increased their budget for arts and culture. I think it's nearly $130 million that they're putting into arts and culture in an increase, even despite the fact that they've got a recession, because they know it grows the economy, which the minister, just the question before, seemed to believe.

He seemed to believe it was good for the economy to invest in arts and culture. It was good for spinoff effects. It was good for jobs. He believed all those things until it came to being asked the question: "Then why are you cutting the funding?" And then he went back to: "Oh, actually no, it's not good. Oh no, we have to make tough choices and priorities, and well, arts aren't the priority any longer."

[1545]

The minister then goes back to denigrating me because of my age, trying to talk about grade school. Yes, I was in grade school in the 1990s, and I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not ashamed that I'm younger than the minister.

I'm curious. Maybe the minister will take those comments back and think it's funny to degrade somebody because of their age, or maybe he doesn't. Maybe he decides, as he did earlier in the tourism discussion, to try to suggest that because I'm younger than him, I don't know much, I'm not an expert, and I don't know how to talk to the community and bring the expertise of the community to bear here.

But that's what we're doing. We're talking about these estimates for this year in relation to last year. We're talking about this minister's record, which is record cuts to arts and culture — record cuts. The minister may find that funny, but it's true.

We're seeing 50 percent cuts to the B.C. Arts Council, the largest cuts to the B.C. Arts Council in history. We're
[ Page 3986 ]
seeing massive cuts to gaming funding to arts and culture. Again, the largest cuts to arts and culture through gaming in history. Yet the minister wants to talk about anything but.

The minister won't answer the question of how it's good for the economy to invest in the arts yet bad for the economy when the minister is pressed on the issue because, in fact, his ministry cut funding for arts and culture drastically.

Every other jurisdiction in Canada, some who are facing much bigger deficits, has actually increased or maintained funding, but not B.C., not under this minister and this B.C. Liberal government after the election.

I've got a question from the Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria. They write: "With the huge cut to the regular streams of arts funding, why devote $10 million to something new, untried, untested, with no clear set of guidelines, responsibility or accountability? Why not the B.C. Arts Council, making their budget whole?" This is from the Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria.

Hon. K. Krueger: It seems the critic and I are both finally ready to talk about the 2010-2011 budget. As the member knows, to build on the momentum created by the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and the Cultural Olympiad, the province has a new $60 million 2010 sports and art legacy — $10 million per year apportioned to arts over the next three budget years. I think that the member has some detail.

That legacy is available to enhance opportunities for British Columbians in the arts, including participation in music, theatre, visual arts, dance and digital media. We have plans formulating to administer the funds, with an announcement planned for April 2010. We've asked the B.C. Arts Council and others to write suggestions to us, and the B.C. Arts Council has delivered an excellent proposal. We really prize our relationship with the B.C. Arts Council.

The B.C. Arts Council, as I think the member knows, is an independent agency of the province of British Columbia and one of the key organizations supporting arts and culture in the province. It has an excellent system of deciding, through independent juries, which of the many applications are going to be funded and to what extent, and it has an exemplary record of satisfaction on the part of the groups that apply.

The government certainly recognizes arts and culture as core values in our society. I wonder if the member has just chosen to disregard the $10 million of additional funding in this exciting new program. I would say to the community group that posed the question that I think it's going to be tremendously good news for Victoria, for Vancouver Island, for people in the arts and culture communities throughout the province.

[1550]

I think it's going to bring refreshing new aspects to the communities. It's going to encourage people who perhaps have only recently graduated from post-secondary education in the arts, and it's going to give rise to new businesses in the communities. It's going to give rise to new organizations and associations. It's going to be a very refreshing thing.

Also, $10 million is nothing to sneeze at. You look at the $7.931 million dollars that is the direct appropriation. This $10 million and other funds that I've described total $30 million, and it's a lot of money. It's not as much as we would give if we had more, but it's a lot of money.

I met with the minister from Ontario while we were both in Vancouver for the Olympics. They're going through a tremendously tough time there. Their manufacturing economy has taken a terrible hit, and they're trying to create new aspects of their economy. That is a scary thing for them, and it would be for any government running a deficit of that size, and our hearts go out to them. We aren't in trouble like that, but we are running a deficit.

The member knows, and so does pretty much every other British Columbian, that we don't believe in running deficits, and we're determined that we'll get back in the black and grow the economy as soon as possible. We think that's going to be fairly soon.

S. Herbert: I like the last point, "don't believe in running deficits," when it was this minister's government, the B.C. Liberals, who ran — I think it was — the three biggest deficits in B.C. history. That's just an interesting point to note.

Anyway, I guess the question that I tried to get in is: why no clear guidelines? Why just a list of things that could be, but no actual understanding of where they're going to go?

Marcus Youssef, a fellow who I believe has written the minister a number of times, put this question:

"A new $10 million program with no details at the same time as a 50 percent cut to B.C. Arts Council and a 50 percent cut to gaming investment. No details at all, no inkling of it to anyone, no consultation with anybody in the sector. What have we all been doing for the last eight months but trying to make ourselves available to help figure this out? What is going on?

"Then another layer of bureaucracy — more money on administration and figuring out systems, more political control. I've always thought that government wants to reduce red tape and political interference.

"This is what you should do. Invest the money in the B.C. Arts Council, and make their budget whole again rather than the record cut that this minister has delivered."

How does the minister respond to Mr. Youssef's question?

Hon. K. Krueger: Sadly, the member doesn't appear to have heard what I just told him, which is that the B.C. Arts Council has made a proposal to us. We're welcoming input from any source that cares to provide it to us.
[ Page 3987 ]
This is a really exciting opportunity, and a lot of people think so.

I'm really pleased that in spite of the $1.7 billion deficit that we're having to shoulder this year, the Finance Minister and the Premier were able to commit this kind of money to something new.

The constituents that the member is quoting, people who are contacting him, are absolutely welcome to contact me or the B.C. Arts Council or any of the employees of this ministry and make their suggestions. We're doing exactly what the people are asking, and that is consulting. We're welcoming input.

The B.C. Arts Council proposal includes a lot of suggestions about worthwhile initiatives such as nurturing emerging artists; supporting the excellence, creativity, and innovation of B.C. artists; fostering inventive ways to expand artistic experiences throughout B.C.; linking together B.C.'s complex, diverse and multifaceted arts and cultural community both locally and regionally.

I was pleased to see a heavy emphasis on First Nations people, aboriginal arts and culture. We've been working very closely with Aboriginal Tourism B.C. The aboriginal people have forever, as I see it, included arts and culture very much as a part of their economy in everything that they do. Aboriginal Tourism B.C. does that both consciously and unconsciously. It's just very much a part of everything they do, and we're embracing aboriginal people's art and culture very much as a part of tourism in British Columbia.

We're moving forward together, and I would absolutely welcome the input of the people that the member is quoting — through him or direct to us.

[1555]

S. Herbert: The point that Mr. Youssef made was that there has been a large group of people consulting with the minister for the last eight months. They have all been making the argument that the B.C. Arts Council is the place to put the funding, that the B.C. Arts Council needs to be made whole, as does gaming funding. That's what their argument has been.

The minister and the B.C. Liberals completely ignored that. Instead, a 50 percent cut to the B.C. Arts Council, a 50 percent cut to B.C. Gaming.

The minister sent me a letter. This was last year. I'd asked a question about $7 million, which made the B.C. Arts Council budget whole after they cut the funding. They managed to make it whole for that period, which I said was the right thing to do. I asked: "Well, what would be the job creation benefits of that $7 million?" The minister sent me a letter saying that about 2,800 jobs would be created because of that $7 million in funding to the Arts Council.

The minister, in a subsequent press release, was speaking about B.C. Place, which we'll get to soon enough. He said that for the cost of $563 million that 3,000 jobs would be created out of that B.C. Place roof project.

We saw that $7 million would create 2,800 jobs, so just shy of 3,000 jobs for $7 million. And then 3,000 jobs for $563 million for B.C. Place. I'm just curious if the minister is concerned about the fact that there's a small amount of money, and it's created that amount of jobs, but because of the cuts that the B.C. Liberals have made to the B.C. Arts Council, we're going to see that number in losses of jobs, which are very efficient, as it looks like, looking at those numbers. Maybe the minister can comment on that.

Hon. K. Krueger: Staff just did me the favour of delivering a hard copy of an e-mail from my office. It turns out that Marcus Youssef, who the member was quoting, e-mailed me today, and I hadn't seen it yet. He says thanks to me personally. He says: "I appreciate that you are seeking a proposal for the B.C. Arts Council. That, as I noted, is very much the course of action, and I know many others in the sector support it. I urge you to heed the advice they offer. Thanks again for this. Best, Marcus."

We've got our own information networks too and, obviously, the same people in them. We're glad to hear from Marcus and from many others, as we do.

The member asks about the number of jobs created by the $7 million apportionment. We just got done talking about a brand-new fund of $10 million. Presumably, it'll create even more jobs than $7 million did. There'll be more to follow, as we generate further revenues.

I don't think that the member does anyone a service by setting up issues like the cost of keeping B.C. Place Stadium shipshape and modern and contributing substantially to the economy — that those costs are somehow in competition with arts and culture. Far from it. The Cultural Olympiad that carried….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: Madam Chair, I don't know if you'd like to suggest to the mouth-off member there that he stand up and take his place.

The Chair: Minister, I would ask you to withdraw that.

Hon. K. Krueger: Okay, I'll withdraw that. I would just appreciate your support in allowing me to debate with the member who is asking me a question.

This is not a competition between B.C. Place and its needs and the people of the arts and cultural communities. It's important that assets are maintained. If the member's house had a roof that needed replacing, he'd replace it. There are probably lots of things that he
[ Page 3988 ]
would like to do with the money, but sometimes we have these responsibilities.

[1600]

B.C. Place Stadium is a billion-dollar property. The member's own party, two days before the election — April 10, 2009 — put out a document saying that they were committed to doing the retractable roof on B.C. Place, and even used the number that we had as an estimate and referred to it as an estimate. We ended up, in the RFP and in all the negotiations that followed, having a larger amount that we had to commit to than that, but I think both parties agreed that it was important to maintain that infrastructure.

It's not a competition. B.C. Place helps generate a robust economy in British Columbia which enables us to deliver social programs and to provide grants to the organizations that apply for them.

It's necessary to maintain infrastructure. We had another very positive announcement just recently about partners developing alongside B.C. Place. All of that is part of having a robust economy.

The direct answer to the member's question is if $7 million creates 2,800 jobs, and he can do the math, then $10 million, hopefully, will create more. We're hoping for some new and innovative approaches, and we're encouraged by the suggestions we're getting from the B.C. Arts Council and others.

S. Herbert: The minister is correct that if a roof is caving in, you have to do something about it. What a lot of arts and culture organizations are wondering is that it's their organizations that are caving in. It's their ability to do their jobs that is caving in. It may even be their theatres' roofs that are caving in or their art galleries' floors.

The range of needs is very high, as the minister should know, since his ministry did a study of what the capital needs were in arts and culture organizations all across the province. It showed that the need was vast and that many of the facilities were at the end of their life span.

But we don't see an actual capital grant program for arts and culture organizations, as I've argued is necessary, which is another matter that I'll take up with the minister as time goes forward. We need something that they can be able to apply for, to show their business cases why this is necessary and to be able to get those funds.

I just laid out the numbers comparing the $563 million for 3,000 jobs at B.C. Place compared to the $7 million budget, a 50 percent cut, of the B.C. Arts Council, to show that we would lose about 3,000 jobs in the arts because of that cut, using the minister's own numbers.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I'm curious, although I'm not sure I'll get an answer, aside from "times are tough, and arts are good for the economy," yet they're not good for the economy when we want to cut them.

I had questions from the Community Arts Council of Richmond and from the Summerland Arts Council. Both organizations are wondering what they're supposed to do given the huge number of cuts they've taken, and how they can keep their doors open, provide music, visual arts, dance and theatre programs for children, for diverse communities, for the disabled without any administrators. The cuts that have been made have made it so that many organizations, arts councils all across the province, have had to lay off all of their staff.

Maybe the minister will have an answer for them, aside from "times are tough" and "too bad."

Hon. K. Krueger: Hon. Chair, welcome to our debate. You get to cycle through more frequently than the critic and I do.

[1605]

The two organizations that the member just named received as much funding in the past year, each of them, as in the previous two years, I'm briefed. They're welcome to write me if they disagree with that and to write the Arts Council as well.

I'd submit to the member that we have a very good history of helping with the capital expenses as well as the operating expenses of arts organizations — again, as we can afford.

I think the member was present with me at the festivities when the Cultch reopened. I don't know if the Cultch is in his neighbourhood or constituency, but it's not far, I think. It's a proud old building, over a hundred years old, I believe. It was built as a church initially, and it's of great benefit to the arts and cultural community in Vancouver. It was beautifully restored, and it was with $9 million from this government that that was done. That was a generous contribution to the capital needs of the arts and culture community in Vancouver, and we were acknowledged for it.

The architect who had overseen the renovations said that when he went to get started and he crawled underneath to look at the foundations he thought: "It's a good thing that a church built this building in the first place, on a foundation of faith, because that's all that's holding it up."

It wasn't any previous government — it certainly wasn't the NDP government — that took care of that. It was this government. I'd just ask the member to think about that in the barrage of his many criticisms, which are constant. We put our money where our mouth is. We need some money in order to do that.

Even in a time of not having very much money, of having to reluctantly run a deficit, we're talking about $30 million in government funding to the arts and
[ Page 3989 ]
culture community this year. When we were running surpluses…. I've talked about a number of funds we created. We gave a $50 million allowance to the Vancouver Art Gallery.

The member waves his hands, Madam Chair, and says, "We've heard this before," and yet he never makes allowance for it or mention of it when he's criticizing. He knows why we are more limited in this budget year than we have been in previous years.

We stand on our record, and it's a very good record. It's a lot better than his party created as a legacy or as a record when they were in power in the sad decade of the 1990s, which was the best decade in North America's history — a continental boom. They just didn't deliver for arts and culture.

S. Herbert: Well, I guess if you look at Statistics Canada — which isn't quite so convenient for what the minister likes to claim and the picture he likes to paint — the actual growth rate was better in the '90s than under the B.C. Liberals. And the deficits, which the minister says that he abhors, were actually lower than the largest deficits that this minister, this government, has brought in — the three biggest deficits in B.C. history. I guess that's not a convenient use of the facts, but anyways, Statistics Canada, I think, is a useful place to read, rather than rhetoric.

The question was about a direct program for infrastructure, not who could lobby to get the money. I'm very glad that that funding for the Cultch came through previously, before the election, in that sense.

Since this minister has been the minister, since this government has got elected last year, it has been a brutal time for arts and culture in this province, and that's the record that this minister needs to reference and understand. They're basically throwing away the investments that were put in place by both this government, the government of the previous term, and the governments that were before it.

Again, I just find it ridiculous that the minister would say that this government was generous, that they gave $9 million. That's the taxpayers' money, so it was British Columbians who invested in arts and culture.

K. Krueger: You didn't.

S. Herbert: I invested in arts and culture, and the minister as a taxpayer invested in arts and culture. All of British Columbia invested in arts and culture.

I think that's a good thing, but it's not something that is partisanly owned — that the B.C. Liberals reached into their own pocket and did it. No. It was British Columbians' money that did that, and they urged government to do that — of all political stripes — and continue to do so.

I think that the Finance Committee, which the minister disregarded, argued for a reinvestment in arts and culture. The bipartisan Finance Committee, which heard from British Columbians and which also made that argument, was ignored — and that was British Columbians from all over the province.

[1610]

The final question on arts and culture — since so far all we get is bluster and rhetoric — is: how much money does the minister see British Columbia as having lost from the federal government, given the cuts to the B.C. Arts Council and through gaming?

Often the federal government, through the Canada Council or Canadian Heritage, will match money with B.C. As we've had a 50 percent cut in B.C. Arts Council and a 50 percent cut in B.C. gaming, how much money are we giving up to other provinces that actually invest in arts and culture?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member, for at least a second time, alleged things about the largest deficits in history. A group of independent financial experts went through British Columbia's books in 2001, and their report to our government was that the previous government had signed on for a $3.8-billion-per-year deficit — that the revenues were going to be outstripped by the expenditures that had been committed to by that government, by $3.8 billion a year.

We had a sound fiscal plan. We climbed out of that. British Columbians prospered, and it took a worldwide recession to take us back into deficit. We won't be there for long.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: I wonder if the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan actually has any questions to ask or if he's just here to interrupt the discourse between the critic and me.

In response to the critic's question, there is no history of the federal government matching provincial funding through the B.C. Arts Council. Obviously, I neither speak for them nor for other ministries, but no one here knows why he asked that question. There is no history of that.

I will say that I think this federal government has worked very hard to help overcome the effects of a worldwide recession, and they've partnered with the province in many ways, and I'm sure they'll continue to do that.

S. Herbert: Well, as somebody who came to this House from the arts and culture field, somebody who wrote grant applications, who managed companies that did that kind of work, I know that if I could say to the Canada Council, "I've got $15,000 committed to me from the B.C. Arts Council" — to my company or to the company that I'm managing — "and will you match
[ Page 3990 ]
that money and give us $15,000 so that we can grow the production and tour it across British Columbia, for example, or take it across Canada?" I was much more likely to get the $15,000 than if I went to them and said: "Well, my province isn't giving me anything."

Then, because I don't have another level of investment, I can't get funding from the city. Because of that, I also don't have my gaming investments either. I've got some private money, but I don't have the B.C. Arts Council support. I don't have gaming support because they don't have any money. Then I would go to Canada Council, and they would say: "No, sorry. We're going to give to an artist in a different province that has a bigger investment in their project, which believes in that work."

There is a history. You can talk to artists all over the province. It has worked like that for years, and it may not be an official, "Yes, we will match 100 percent of whatever the B.C. Arts Council does," because they're independent peer juries of Canada Council as well.

But if you talk to the juries, you talk to the program officers or you talk to the people at Canada Council, it is often what happens. It may not be 100 percent. It may be slightly more because they want to fund the work a little bit more, and it may be slightly less, but that is what happens.

By throwing away investment in arts and culture in this budget year and the one that preceded it, we're throwing away investment from the federal government into our province — tax dollars from British Columbians going to the federal government, coming back into British Columbia. Instead they end up going to provinces like Quebec or Ontario, which are actually increasing their investments in arts and culture. That's what I was referring to in the discussion of matching.

I'm just curious if there's been any look at the impact, from the government's decision to cut the B.C. Arts Council and gaming, on what will come to the province through the Canada Council and other federal programs.

[1615]

Hon. K. Krueger: I respect the member's knowledge of how things work. I've long marvelled at the ability of arts and cultural groups to expertly apply leverage to what are often initially small amounts of money. And of course, there's a tremendous amount of contribution in kind, volunteer labour and just the loving effort that people in these organizations put in, and more power to them if they're able to find matching funds.

There's really no way for us to quantify how well they did in the past year. It would all be anecdotal, and I don't know many of the anecdotes. They don't tend to come to me and say, "We received this amount from these funding sources, and we're hoping that you can match that," because we have this independent system through the B.C. Arts Council. But the Arts Council itself has no way of quantifying that. I'm happy for them if they can do it.

We have been as generous as we've been able to be. At the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year, when it was obvious that what had looked like it might be a $3 billion surplus had been vanishing as the revenues dropped, we eked out a very small surplus compared to what we had expected. We nevertheless contributed another $7 million in 2009 to the B.C. Arts Council for distribution to grants.

The member just got done talking to me about the 2,800 jobs that that is believed to have created. So we do the best we can, and there are no strings attached as far as the groups having to find a way to lever that money. But the member knows they do it, and I know they do it, and I think we're both pleased that they have that capacity.

[1620]

S. Herbert: Just back to the language that we've talked about. I would say that it's strategic to invest in arts and culture, not generous. That's how I would characterize it, because I don't see arts as a frill. I know that the minister, in his earlier comments, was talking about how good it was for the economy, for health care, etc., so I would hope that rather than referring to it as a generous contribution, that it's a strategic decision to grow the economy in that way.

I think that it wouldn't be that difficult to look at the impacts, and maybe I'll do that — looking at Canada Council investment by province, because it's easily broken down, to see. For years B.C. has received a lower portion than you would expect to get for a province of our size in comparison to other provinces that really do tend to value their arts and culture industries.

I'd like to move on to film, if we're able to — unless it would be helpful to cover some heritage questions. I was hoping to be able to do that at the end of the day or tomorrow — heritage and archaeology, as we had earlier discussed. I'm hoping that we can move on to film. If you need to do any shuffling or anything I can take a moment.

Hon. K. Krueger: We just wanted to make sure that the member is finished with arts and culture before the people that are with me take their leave of the buildings.

S. Herbert: Yes, and if I find that I have a few more questions, I will let the minister know at the end of the day for tomorrow, but I don't believe that will be necessary. As estimates are going to continue on tomorrow, I will be able to let the minister know at end of day if we're going to do that. Thank you to the staff for being here to answer those questions.

Hon. K. Krueger: I don't know if the members opposite noticed, but when I went to shake hands with the
[ Page 3991 ]
two ladies from arts and culture, they both had broken hands. That has absolutely nothing to do with their work environment, as I understand it. They were joking with me about arm wrestling. I was kind of horrified to see those injuries, and I hope they get over them quickly, of course.

Again, most of the people who are with me the member knows, having been previously introduced. Karen Lamare has joined us, and Karen is the manager of strategic planning and stakeholder relations with the B.C. Film Commission.

S. Herbert: Thanks to the staff for being here to help us through these questions. I don't have a huge number on film. I know that we had the announcement of the film numbers last week, but I don't want to talk about, or I don't have questions about, the foreign productions, because I've read through those numbers and I've spoken to the industry.

Where I'm curious, and the minister can hopefully help me on this, is the domestic industry, the B.C.-based industry. In last year's estimates I raised concerns around the tax credit issue both for the domestic industry and the foreign services industry. As the minister knows, I put forward a series of suggestions on what the government could do. Some of those were adopted. Unfortunately, I believe the ones relating to the domestic industry were not.

[1625]

Last year I know that the minister said the domestic industry was his priority. He talked about how if he had to make a priority it would be about, let's see here….

He said, in speaking about the foreign producers, that one of the things that comes…. I think he was speaking kind of not literally, but: "'I arrive with a suitcase full of money, and I go back with a suitcase full of film. If you don't match Ontario, you can say goodbye to me.' That group of people who have that attitude are nowhere near the priority, in my mind, of the people who have invested here, the people who really want to stay, people who are trained here, people who employ a lot of others."

I took that to mean the domestic industry. I was glad to hear it, since what we've seen is that the domestic industry's expenditure amounts have steadily plummeted from $407 million in 2007 to this year's $217 million — almost half.

The reason that that raises concerns, because I know…. Otherwise, if you looked at the macro picture, things have stayed about the same, but in terms of the domestic industry I believe that the B.C.-based producers provide a bit of stability so that we're not prone to the ups and downs. When the dollar gets really high, productions then go to the States, so then we see the industry suffer. The domestics provide a key role in terms of the tax credit challenges because if we can grow the domestic industry, we won't be as prone to having to fight with other jurisdictions that raise their tax credits.

My question is, if the minister can explain to me: through this budget, what's being done to grow the domestic industry, when it's seen about a 50 percent loss or nearly $200 million in business in the last two years?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member is right that as the Canadian dollar rises, that imposes challenges on the domestic industry for the reasons that he outlined. A lot of the domestic producers are also smaller than foreign producers that we work with. They don't have the access to funding that the large companies have, so they raise a lot of their money privately, and it's tougher in a recessionary environment.

Broadcasters are also struggling for a number of reasons, and broadcasters are very large customers of the domestic industry. They're struggling because of the recessionary economy worldwide. Also, they're enjoying smaller revenues than they would have expected from commercials. They also have competition from the Internet, which is hurting them.

[1630]

Those are very difficult questions. We are very concerned for them. Our tax credit of 35 percent on labour is better than Ontario's 25 percent. Ontario does do all-spend, but we have focused on labour, and we continue to, and that's what our recent announcement outlined as well.

I have met with the industry ever since last July. By and large, the industry is very pleased with the tax credit changes. Recently a delegation of about 30 from British Columbia, mainly industry but some of our people as well, went down to Los Angeles. They were very warmly received there — really, really positive comments coming back, nothing negative.

We are trying to help the domestic industry, and as the member probably knows, in addition to the changes to tax credit percentages, we increased the cap on B.C. labour expenditures from 48 percent to 60 percent.

We also embraced the video gaming industry, which increasingly is integrated in movie production, a marvellous and growing part of our industry in B.C. The member has probably toured a number of their production facilities. I have.

They tell me the average age of their employees is 37. A lot of them have children who are being raised in the public school system. They work in downtown Vancouver, often in converted old buildings, and they've done marvellous things adapting them so that it's a very accessible work environment for their employees, who come from all over. It's like a United Nations in some of these operations. They bring skills from all around the world. That is certainly becoming a large domestic industry.

We are concerned about this very important part of our industry. In my most recent meeting with them,
[ Page 3992 ]
they actually told me they felt that we had done all that could be reasonably expected of us. We have another meeting scheduled. I think some people have had some ideas since then.

The member and his sources are welcome to feed me any ideas at all, because we certainly want to help.

S. Herbert: Well, I guess I would differ with the suggestion that the industry feels that the B.C. Liberals have done everything they can to help the domestics. In fact, the Canadian film and television producers….

I know that a number of the film unions as well as a number of the other industry associations have said that in fact through the tax credit changes that the B.C. Liberals made, after urging by the NDP, the industry, etc…. By ignoring Film Incentive B.C., by keeping it at the same level, they've taken away the competitive advantage that B.C. companies had, which provided them with that capital.

It wasn't a lot, but it was enough that they were competing with the big guys. Now that that competitive advantage is gone, in fact, they tell me that they either might have to just become service companies and just run through the foreign services, the production services, or move to Ontario, as in fact some of them have done. I'm curious if that is being considered.

Another suggestion that I've offered is an intellectual property development fund. I raise that as well as the increase in the Film Incentive B.C.

That's the question, but just before I get the minister's answer, I did want to say that I was glad to see the digital tax credits. That was an issue that I raised, I believe, with the minister in last year's estimates and, also, the Minister of Economic Development at the time, who is here today, so I was really glad that it has come through.

I'll see if there's an answer to that question.

[1635]

Hon. K. Krueger: With regard to the proposal for an intellectual property development fund, that's something that the domestic industry and I have been talking about. They know that we don't have any money to put into such a fund right now, but I think it's an intriguing idea. I'd like to see it happen, but we're not in a position to make any commitments presently on that.

We think the increase of the cap that I just discussed will be helpful to the industry. When the member says he doesn't agree, I want to remind him that that's what I was told by the domestic producers. I think they've had some ideas since, and I'll be happy to hear those. We are anxious to help them. We work with the MPPIA and the CFTPA, and they never get turned down for a meeting with me.

Again, the member is welcome to provide his and his network's ideas to me, because we want to help. We know they're struggling, and the numbers obviously show that. I was actually surprised and very pleased that we did a hundred million better in 2009 than 2008. I hadn't expected that because of the challenges that Ontario posed before us with their sudden increase in credits and the alarm that it spread through our industry.

It was interesting. Quebec made its move first, and the industry wasn't rocked by that at all. In fact, they said to us, "We don't think that's going to hurt us," but when Ontario followed, people were quite frightened. The bottom line turned out well, but that doesn't mean everybody is doing well. I share the member's concern, and the ministry does and the film commission does, for domestic producers, so we'll keep working on that.

S. Herbert: I guess the final question is about the film commission and the about 23 percent cut in the film commission's budget. I'm just wondering what services won't be provided because of that cut, given that there was a cut in the budget before as well.

[1640]

Hon. K. Krueger: We're proud of the work that the B.C. Film Commission delivers. They feel certain that they can continue to provide excellence in their core services, which are location and production services to both the domestic and foreign industry. These are very challenging times, and we're confident that together we'll still be able to provide excellent service to the industry. That's a commitment we made to one another.

S. Herbert: I'm sure the staff of the film commission will continue to work hard to provide the excellent service that they always do, and I wasn't concerned about that. I guess I was just concerned that with a 23 percent cut, there might be fewer staff or fewer resources that enable them to do that excellent job. So I'm sure they themselves, the ones that are there, if there aren't any laid off…. And there may be some laid off indeed. We'll see about that.

I'm concerned that there's going to be more work put onto fewer people with fewer resources. So that was just a concern, and I was hoping to get some answer around what programs wouldn't be given. But maybe the minister needs to reflect on that a bit and maybe can provide an answer in a letter of what that 23 percent cut actually means in terms of how the film commission operates. Maybe that's a breakdown of their budget around what that actually looks like. Is that possible?

Hon. K. Krueger: As we work through the process with the film commission, I will advise the member in writing of any specific layoffs. We're hoping and expecting, actually, to avoid that. We value our people, and they're performing a really good service. But I'll let him know. If I need a nudge from time to time, I'm confident you'll give it to me.
[ Page 3993 ]

S. Herbert: I'd like to thank the folks at B.C. Film, the film commission, for sharing that information today and for the minister and the staff there.

I'd like to move on to the next area, which is the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, PavCo. I have lots of questions to get into that side of things. We're working our way bit by bit through the ministry, and hopefully, we're illuminating some areas of good news and some areas of concern so that we can better understand how government is spending taxpayers' money.

I see some of the folks from PavCo here today, and I'll just wait for them to come in.

Hon. K. Krueger: A number of people are expressing that this would be a good opportunity for a biological break. So could we do that for about five minutes?

The Chair: We can recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:45 p.m. to 4:55 p.m.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

S. Herbert: Just on the way out during the break, I saw, from the Provincial Capital Commission, Ray Parks. He joked that he never gets to be on the record, congratulated for the good work that the capital commission does, so I just wanted to put that on the record to thank him for that.

Anyway, we're not quite at PavCo yet, though I'm sure the viewers at home are sitting there with bated breath before we get there. With the Royal B.C. Museum I had a few questions, and I think I was excited that we're able to do those so that Ms. Rafferty can get back to the museum and the archives and do the great work that they do there.

I was concerned to read through the service plan for the Royal B.C. Museum and see the large deficit. I was very concerned about what that means for the operations for the Royal B.C. Museum. I guess the question that I have is: given that there was a cut of, I think, about $600,000 from the B.C. government to the Royal B.C. Museum and the deficit was somewhere in the similar range, if those two were related…. Was the B.C. government really cutting $600,000, and that just ending up as a deficit for the Royal B.C. Museum?

Hon. K. Krueger: The member referred to Ms. Rafferty. I'll just introduce her to the other members present. Pauline Rafferty is the chief executive officer of the Royal B.C. Museum and an absolute pleasure to work with.

The member asks about the deficit. Certainly when we aren't, as government, able to provide the same level of funding as we did the previous year, it's a challenge. The Royal B.C. Museum has risen to that challenge. From Ms. Rafferty's point of view and the museum's point of view, a larger challenge has been the recessionary times.

We had a wonderful exhibit, the Treasures exhibit, which I think a member and I attended the opening of together. We loved it. I did, and I think he did too. It was an amazing exhibition, but the public did not turn out for it the way we had anticipated they would.

It cost $3 million to prepare for that exhibition. When it costs that much to bring on an exhibition, then the price of entry tends to reflect that, and there was price resistance from the public. The attendance wasn't what we expected, partly for that reason, partly because of the recession.

The museum is completely confident that they will overcome the existing deficit by sometime in 2011.

S. Herbert: I've had the opportunity to do a behind-the-scenes tour of the Royal B.C. Museum, as well, and meet with the staff there. I think they just do a fabulous job, looking at cultures from around the world but also within B.C., working hard to preserve our heritage and our history in all its many forms.

I raised the question because the size of the deficit looked very similar to the size of the cut to the operating funds for the Royal B.C. Museum, and that's why I was concerned. I don't have further questions for the Royal B.C. Museum, because I think it has operated very efficiently. I've read through the service plan. It's pretty self-explanatory.

[1700]

I just wanted to get that on the record and say that I'm concerned about the challenges faced by the Royal B.C. Museum, as is the opposition, because we know what a crucial role it plays in the region's tourism industry and also in the heritage of our province. So thank you to everybody at the Royal B.C. Museum, and I'm quite happy to move on to PavCo now.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm joined by three notable gentlemen from Pavilion Corporation. Immediately to my right is Mr. John Harding, who is the chief financial officer and corporate secretary for PavCo. To his right and behind him is Mr. Ken Cretney, who is the general manager of the Vancouver Convention Centre. To Ken's left is Howard Crosley, the general manager of B.C. Place Stadium. We welcome the member's questions.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

S. Herbert: I'm going to start with the topic du jour, the topic of the day, which seems to be at least the topic of the week for the last couple of weeks, which has been the discussion around B.C. Place and the casino project, the gambling project, that the minister was involved in announcing.
[ Page 3994 ]

This question is one that I've been asked by a number of people, and I'm sure the minister may have been asked as well. So I'm just curious at the results, because it is such a change.

The minister stated in 1997 in a debate in the Legislature: "Women in British Columbia will die because of gambling expansion. That's the prediction of our experts at UBC. Some 37 percent of the spouses of pathological gamblers abuse their children. So children may die as a result of gambling expansion, and their blood will be on the heads of the government that expanded gambling and of the MLAs who voted for it."

Those were the words of the minister who is responsible for this casino project. The B.C. Liberals, as the minister knows, have expanded gambling in B.C. — both Internet gambling and otherwise — and this year cut funds for an organization that helped those struggling with gambling addiction.

I don't know if the minister wants to go back on those words or what. Does he believe that blood will now be on his head, or was that a rhetorical overreach at the time?

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Chair, welcome to the chair and to our debate.

I thank the member for raising that issue. I was first elected in 1996. We were opposition. I was appointed by the then Leader of the Opposition — who is the Premier now, happily, and has been for nine years — as gaming critic. I didn't know very much about gaming. I always bought raffle tickets from charities — still do — and occasional lottery tickets — still do.

I didn't know a lot, so I did a lot of research with my colleagues. I knew that the Leader of the Opposition had a strong bias against gambling expansion. I talked with him about why, and then I went out looking for what other people said. I met with people at UBC who were experts on the issue of addiction. I did a great deal of Internet research, and I learned a lot of things that shocked me about what gambling addiction does to people who develop it.

Gambling addicts have a much worse record of suicide than people who become addicts from other sources. The wives of male pathological gamblers have eight times the frequency of a whole range of really serious health ailments. Gambling addiction can bankrupt an addict and his family in one roll of the dice or in one night. In other addictions, usually survival is likely to carry on a lot longer when an addiction is taking people down.

All of these things I put on the record as gaming critic. One of the reasons was that the NDP government of the day — and it was that government of the 1990s that we talked about earlier; the member said how young he was then, so I know that he didn't have any personal experience with these things — had decided to expand gambling in British Columbia.

[1705]

A new NDP minister was appointed and that very day said he'd like to see Monaco-style casinos in British Columbia and made it clear that we would be going into machinery that wasn't allowed in British Columbia up until then — specifically slot machines.

I read a lot of alarming things about how some of these machines are crafted to fuel addictions, so in the estimates debates of those days I asked every minister whose portfolio I thought should have some bearing on those concerns what that minister and that ministry of the day had done in preparing for this dramatic move that they were going to make — because it was a dramatic move.

The research shows that when you add new gaming venues, things like Monaco-style or Las Vegas–style casinos or slot machines or video lottery terminals, that tends to expand gambling addiction in the jurisdiction, and the research demonstrates that there are components of the population that are particularly vulnerable.

We put all those things on the record and asked every minister what he or she had done to prepare for those risks, and the answer across the board was "nothing." No research had been done. That really was a government desperate for revenues and a government that decided to expand gambling without preparing for any of the predictable consequences. British Columbia was one of the last jurisdictions on the continent to go into that level of gambling expansion and, hon. Chair, I say through you to the member that that was the expansion.

The research also shows that once an expansion has occurred, it is not likely that a population will tolerate returning to pre-expansion conditions, so once the NDP had introduced slot machines to British Columbia, they were here to stay. Once they'd introduced the Monaco-style casino — that they called it — that expansion was here to stay as well.

Now, they didn't initially see the industry respond with any particularly large developments. In fact, they had more casinos while they were government than we do presently. I think it was 20 when they left power; it's 17 now. But the public has accepted this form of entertainment as something that a lot of people are interested in, and it continues to grow — that is, the number of people who attend the facilities and the amount of money they spend and the amount of revenues that flow from it.

Now, Joy MacPhail was a very respected minister in the NDP government of the day when I was in opposition. I certainly respected her. I often wondered why the NDP didn't embrace her as their leader, because she is a highly effective person. She was the one person in that cabinet that listened to me. She said, on the record, on May 25, 1997, that it was because of my research — specifically said that; he can read it for himself — that her government had implemented and funded gambling addiction programs.

Our government has continued to fund those and build on them. I'm told that nobody has ever been
[ Page 3995 ]
turned away. We budget what we've spent the previous year for gambling addiction, but if there are ever occasions when the need exceeds what we budgeted, money will be found and has been found to service the people who need it.

So those things I put on the record were things I drew from research. There's no exaggeration there. Those are the things that have happened in jurisdictions that plunged ahead with gambling expansion. I was really alarmed, and a lot of people were. I remember delivering a petition of — I think it was — over 60,000 names from Vancouver churches. A lot of people were tremendously concerned.

I think that the programs that Joy MacPhail got started helped. I'm confident that the funding in the programs that our Solicitors General have brought on since then have also helped.

I hear of tragic circumstances. The Kamloops Blazers, an association that we're tremendously proud of in Kamloops, went through financial turmoil because the woman who kept the books developed a gambling addiction and spent their money. That all came out in criminal proceedings, and she was convicted. These things happen.

The type of deep personal tragedy that the member referred to…. There have been women who have died as a result of their spouse's gambling addiction. I don't think that's happened in British Columbia, and, of course, we all are glad that it hasn't. It's a phenomenon in our society that we have to be concerned about.

[1710]

But once the expansion had occurred, we felt that our role when we became government was to make sure that the industry was very professionally managed and that we had a very close watch out for the type of problems that have been seen in other jurisdictions, where addicts will abandon their children in parking lots sometimes, and addicts won't even leave the slot machine that they're at, and they deprive their families and all sorts of issues like that.

We have very aggressive programs making sure that people know that the addiction services are available, and the B.C. Lottery Corporation has the professionals to run the industry, regulate the industry, along with the other organizations that the Solicitor General employs. The member might want to pursue details of that in the Housing and Social Development Ministry where the minister has continued this approach of using professionals at the Lottery Corporation to run the industry.

I am happy to say that it seems as though those issues are under control. But I do want it on record, and the member can check for himself, that it was the New Democratic Party that expanded gambling in British Columbia.

Now we have a situation where investors have chosen to put $450 million into a development adjacent to B.C. Place Stadium. We're delighted with that investment. I know that the NDP were on record that they too would replace the retractable roof, and I haven't heard much criticism from the leader. I've heard criticisms from some of the member's colleagues and a bit from himself about the expenditure of the roof, but you have to replace a roof when it needs replacing.

The pillow roof was beyond the normal life expectancy of a roof like that, and the experts who run Pavilion Corporation had a very convincing case that not only would we be successful with the Whitecaps MLS franchise; we would also enjoy a lot more days of economic activity at the stadium when we didn't have the airlocks to contend with. So we went ahead with that decision, as the member knows, and now this investor has responded to a request for proposals.

It's the same investor that already operates the Edgewater Casino, which everyone knew needed to move. So they are moving to this location. It's part of the development of the lands adjacent to B.C. Place, and it really couldn't go ahead until the roof question was solved, so these things are moving one after another.

But yes, it's going to be a relocation of that casino. It will be a larger casino, but it's not an expansion of the gambling venues that are…. As far as the gambling opportunities that are offered in British Columbia, in fact, the Internet has kind of outflanked us on that question because people can gamble from their homes pretty much anywhere in the world.

So the answer is: I'm still very concerned about gambling addiction. I think that there have been really good programs here in B.C. to deal with it, and I'm happy with the results of those.

We also delighted that investors would bring $450 million of private money to bear, contributing to the B.C. economy. So between that investment and the roof, we've got about a billion dollars of capital investment going in right there in downtown Vancouver, in or near the member's constituency. The private sector project is going to generate 8,500 jobs between the construction jobs and the subsequent ongoing jobs at the facility, which will number about 3,300 between the actual, direct employment and the spinoff employment that comes from it.

S. Herbert: I guess I'll have to ask one-word questions, and maybe the answer will be a little shorter.

I appreciate the answer, because I was reading from Hansard what the minister had said to the government of the day. I think that there have been cuts to programs for problem gamblers. I know that the B.C. Medical Association says that there are about 33,000 people who have severe gambling addictions and another 128,000 people in B.C. who have moderate problems.

So it is an issue that I take concern with, and I appreciate that the minister took concern with it at the day.
[ Page 3996 ]
But with the cuts to the programs that help those with gambling addiction, and the expansion of gambling in B.C. under this government, I thought that it was appropriate to ask this question.

[1715]

We've seen that Internet gambling through the B.C. Lottery Corporation has gone from $200 to $10,000 that somebody can do in a week. I guess the slot machines that the minister referred to are going to increase a fair deal from what was at Edgewater. So it won't be the same as what was at Edgewater, but more so.

The question that I've got is: I'm very interested in knowing whether or not PavCo was aware that Rick Turner, a B.C. Liberal donor, formerly head of the B.C. Lottery Corporation and now chair of ICBC, was involved with Paragon Gaming, the company that PavCo is cooperating with.

Hon. K. Krueger: The answer is yes.

S. Herbert: I'm curious if at any point Rick Turner had any interaction with PavCo, the minister or the B.C. Liberals during the period that this proposal was coming about.

Hon. K. Krueger: The gentlemen with me advise that Mr. Turner did not have any direct interaction with them. They became aware that he was involved with Paragon when they became aware of Paragon, who were the successful respondent to the request for proposals, brought forward the best proposal. But none of these gentlemen have had any interactions with Mr. Turner themselves.

I have had contact with him in his roles both with ICBC and with the B.C. Lottery Corporation. He telephoned me one day to tell me that he had an involvement with Paragon, to tell me where the company came from and about their family history in the industry. I think that was the first and last conversation we ever had about Paragon.

S. Herbert: I'm curious about when Mr. Turner had that conversation regarding Paragon and the minister.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm thinking back. I was appointed in June, and I was driving at the time that I got the call. I recall that the roads were good, so it was before winter, but some time a few months into the appointment.

S. Herbert: So during the period when the discussion around the roof and what would happen with the site next to it, because I remember that discussion was ongoing at the time…. It would have fallen in that period. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: I had absolutely no involvement with the request for proposals or the selection of the successful proponent. So I can't pin down the exact time of that one conversation, but it had nothing to do with the selection of the proponent.

PavCo had briefed me that the retractable roof was very important insofar as the bid from Paragon being higher than it would have been without a retractable roof because of the additional clientele that would be attracted to B.C. Place and the modernization of the facility.

[1720]

S. Herbert: So I guess, in just understanding the processes…. Did the minister have any communication with the board or staff of PavCo related to the RFP process or the successful bidder? Were there communications about who bid or when that process would finish, what was entailed, that kind of thing?

Hon. K. Krueger: The selection of Paragon had already occurred before that conversation. The conversation was about the things that I mentioned: the credibility of Paragon, the fact that the roof was actually essential to the bid, and they wouldn't proceed with the bid at the level they had if there wasn't a retractable roof.

Warren Buckley is the CEO of PavCo. He was not able to attend today because he's injured his back. Apparently he's e-mailed us, while lying on his floor and watching this debate, to advise that Mr. Turner did help arrange meetings between Paragon and PavCo but did not attend them.

S. Herbert: I'm just trying to understand the timeline here, because the minister said it happened — the conversation with Mr. Turner — when the weather was good. Yet I remember when we got into estimates — I guess it would be November last year, as the minister mentioned earlier — when the weather wasn't so good that the discussion around the final bidders, RFPs, that kind of stuff, was still very much up in the air. I remember that that fall there was still a discussion of whether or not the retractable roof would go ahead.

So it's confusing to me that Paragon would have already been selected before the minister got a phone call during good weather — which I'm assuming was probably July, August, September, something like that — if the government was still deciding whether it was going to proceed with the retractable roof. I was told that the RFPs for the roof and for the other project were still there, were still out, and that nothing had been decided.

Yet now I'm being told that something was decided, so maybe the minister and the staff can clarify that timeline for me, because it's different than what I believe I was being told at the time.

[1725]
[ Page 3997 ]

Hon. K. Krueger: The initial decision about proceeding with a retractable roof was made by cabinet in October 2008, I believe. We revisited that decision when we learned that it was going to cost more than we had initially estimated, and we've covered those issues before, I think.

The request for proposals for development of the west lands was made, I believe, in May 2009. The gentleman with me just advised me that by June 2009 it was obvious that Paragon's was the most attractive proposal, but then a lot of negotiations ensued between PavCo and Paragon, ultimately resulting only recently in a contract. By the fall it looked pretty clear to people that we'd like to make a deal with them, that a deal could be made, but it was conditional upon a retractable roof.

S. Herbert: I guess just to confirm for my mind, Rick Turner communicated with the minister about Paragon Gaming, what it was and what it does, and also communicated with PavCo staff, setting up meetings between Paragon and PavCo. Were there ever any meetings with the minister and Paragon or the minister and PavCo and Paragon?

Hon. K. Krueger: No, I've never met with Paragon. I had the one telephone conversation when I was in my car, and I'm not sure where Mr. Turner was. Mr. Buckley has checked in further with his chief financial officer to advise that Mr. Turner at no time attended any meetings and did not participate in the negotiations at all and had no influence in the content of the lease whatsoever.

S. Herbert: What steps were taken to insulate Rick Turner from the discussions with PavCo or with Paragon? I understand that he was involved in setting up those meetings, but were there any steps to ensure about conflict of interest, those kinds of questions?

Hon. K. Krueger: As we've just answered, Mr. Turner insulated himself from having any inappropriate contact. He called me to make sure I knew that the retractable roof was, if not a deal-killer…. At least Paragon wouldn't be able to make the same proposal that it had made to PavCo, and that was our only conversation. We never met, and he didn't meet with PavCo representatives either.

S. Herbert: Just a question for the minister. I'm surprised by some of the results of questions I'm getting. I'm curious to what extent PavCo knows or the minister knows Rick Turner will be involved in future management decisions or future, I guess, direction, as a director on this project in specific, as it is a large project for Paragon.

[1730]

Hon. K. Krueger: Mr. Turner is on Paragon's board of trustees. He wouldn't have any more role or influence than other directors on the board, we expect.

S. Herbert: I heard the words "special advisor" from that side. Is that a role that Mr. Turner plays in any way?

Hon. K. Krueger: Paragon is a private company, a company that made the best proposal in response to an RFP. They're now investing $450 million in British Columbia. They'll decide internally, and we won't have any knowledge of what those discussions are.

We've got a contract with them. It's a contract that'll be very good for B.C. Place, for PavCo — for British Columbia, we believe. We aren't really privy to the discussions that go on internally at Paragon.

S. Herbert: I'm curious. Those meetings that were organized between Paragon, PavCo, by Mr. Turner, who is also the chair of ICBC and a big donor to the Liberal party — what was discussed at those meetings? Who was there? You know, what was that content? What were they about?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. K. Krueger: None of the gentlemen who are here representing PavCo were involved in those meetings. Mr. Buckley is the person who will be able to provide that detail, and PavCo has advised me that they will provide the information to the critic, so he can expect a meeting, if he wants one, or a letter in that regard.

S. Herbert: I know that Mr. Buckley is lying there on his back, tapping away. I know how that goes, myself, having done similar things when I've had back injuries or those kinds of things. You just somehow can't leave these jobs. You've got to stay on top of them.

I guess if Mr. Buckley, watching at home, is able to send just a short note about what the topics were that were discussed, some of the ideas of who was there — I know we've got till 6:15 this evening before the Lieutenant-Governor shows up and we have to shut down the estimates for tonight — that would be very helpful, and if so, before the end of tonight.

[1735]

I'm curious — while maybe Mr. Buckley is doing that, and thank you — whether or not the minister might be able to scour his memory, although it was some time ago, to be able to go into some of those details about what was discussed in his own conversation.

I know that he's mentioned that without a retractable roof, Paragon, through Mr. Turner, told the minister that it wasn't going to happen. They weren't going to invest. But what other kinds of topics were discussed, aside from Paragon giving that kind of ultimatum?
[ Page 3998 ]

Hon. K. Krueger: That's not actually what I said. What I said was that B.C. Place wouldn't be as attractive a site without a retractable roof. They might not be interested, and if they were, it would not be for the kind of financial considerations that they had put on the table. It was very common knowledge. The critic knew about it — a lot of people did — that the bids to build the retractable roof had exceeded the estimate and exceeded it fairly substantially.

People knew without being told that we would be wrestling with that question, and we obviously were. Mr. Turner knew that. I know him from his other service to the government. He felt that it would be beneficial to all concerned if I knew that that could be a deal-breaker and certainly wouldn't enable the same contract that they had in mind when they believed that there'd be a retractable roof on the stadium. That was the extent of it.

S. Herbert: I'm curious. With the RFP that was given for that chunk of land, how many, I guess, statements of interest or how many actual proposals came through for that site? If it's possible…. I don't know if you're able to share the names of those companies, but if not, just the number of proposals that were given that were credible options.

Hon. K. Krueger: There were only two respondents to the RFP, and I can't name the unsuccessful company.

S. Herbert: I understand Mr. Turner was also involved in a company, Mobile Lottery Solutions Inc., which looked at other forms of gambling as well. I have just been handed a note that he made a donation through his company in May 2009 of $52,000 to the B.C. Liberal Party as well as about $17,000 personally between 2005 and 2010.

I think it's part of the reason why I'm raising some of these issues and trying to understand that. Obviously, we've got to make sure that everything passes the smell test. I thank the minister for being forthcoming in what knowledge he does have on this situation.

Was the minister aware of Mobile Lottery Solutions and any of those other projects that Mr. Turner was involved in when he was referring to the minister? I know that the minister says he knows him from previous opportunities.

Hon. K. Krueger: No, I was not aware of any of those details. I had interactions in the past with regard to the Insurance Corporation of B.C. with Mr. Turner.

S. Herbert: Also, the B.C. Lottery Corporation. I believe that the minister said earlier that he knew him from that association too. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: I knew that he had that association. I don't think that I ever had any interactions with him with regard to B.C. Lottery Corporation. I've never had any responsibility relating to my duties as an elected official to deal with matters of the B.C. Lottery Corporation until now, although gaming is in the portfolio of the Minister of Housing and Social Development.

[1740]

S. Herbert: I may come back to some further questions in that area. I guess I'm curious about the structure of the deal. I know I asked in the last estimates for a kind of business case on how it would all work and when the roof of B.C. Place would be paid for after this proposal.

From what I understand, there's about a $6-million-a-year lease payment for this chunk of property from…. I guess it would be Paragon and the various other folks that are involved in that site. I guess my understanding is….

The minister sent me a letter saying it included the year that the thing would be paid off, but in reading through all the back pages and everything, there wasn't any actual figure about what year it would be paid off. I guess that the $6 million lease payment…. I would be given to understand that it would be 93 years before the roof would be paid off using that lease payment. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: The $6-million-per-year lease. There is an inflation clause which comes in at ten years — the amount of the lease — and this is on the land itself. The remuneration for the lease will escalate. It's a 70-year lease. Simple multiplication: 70 times $6 million, even if it stayed at that level, is $420 million. But that is just one of many revenue streams for B.C. Place which this development will facilitate.

I already mentioned the increased number of days that the stadium will be able to generate revenues. It's expected to be 41 days on average. It's already a very well-run facility, and for a stadium of its type it's been doing very well to have the number of days per year of service. I think it has been around 206 or 200, and it's expected to have 41 more days that it's actually being paid to operate. Up until now there was always lost time bringing large trucks in through airlocks and having to close the airlock behind them and open it again on the inside and all those things.

The facility that Paragon is building will place thousands of people right next to B.C. Place with a very hospitable connection. They'll be able to go back and forth to B.C. Place for concerts, for sports events, for all sorts of events. They'll be customers of B.C. Place when they do that. B.C. Place has substantial revenue streams from food and beverage services and all of those things.
[ Page 3999 ]

The big picture is that stadia generate economic activity for the area where they're built, and the better they're run, the more attractive they are, the more economic activity. We believe that at least $100 million of economic activity will be generated by B.C. Place per year, and that will be a substantial increase from what would have been generated without this partner.

[1745]

There will also be savings, such as energy savings without having the airlock, and it will be a less expensive facility to maintain and more environmentally friendly. But the economic benefits of a stadium — this stadium in particular — are huge. They drive an economy of all sorts of things that happen as a result.

There will be further development. The east lands at B.C. Place will be eventually another RFP, another development, but this is a huge demonstration of confidence in the B.C. economy. Private business does its own business plans, and presumably they have. Nobody would commit to putting out almost half a billion dollars if they didn't have a business plan and think it was sound.

S. Herbert: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I guess a couple of questions come out of that. I look at the numbers for B.C. Place in terms of its operating costs, what it's costing to run. I guess right now, the expense aside, when you do the sales minus the operating costs, minus the amortization, it looks like in 2011-2012 it's about a $42.6 million deficit, and 2012-2013, about $22 million. Now, I know that includes the amortization, which is slightly different in terms of accounting practices, but that's quite a large cost to the provincial treasury and to taxpayers every year. I think that's just interesting to have on the record.

I'm wondering…. I've been asked many times, and I'm sure that the minister has as well, if he can release or tell us what the difference would be in terms of doing a…. I'm told it's about $100 million if we wanted to replace the current roof versus the total cost for the retractable roof. I think that it's $458 million, if I remember correctly, plus, of course, all the interior refurbishments and so on, which take it to $563 million.

What is the, I guess, cost benefit between looking at a fixed roof at about $100 million versus the retractable option? I think that it's just important to get on the record so people can see what that is.

Hon. K. Krueger: That decision was made some time ago now. I had asked that question myself, actually. I had seen PavCo's estimates of what it would probably cost, even if it was doable, and it was substantially higher than the $100 million. But nobody had put one of those pillow-style inflatable roofs on a stadium anywhere in the world for 25 years. It's very outdated technology.

The roof did last longer than British Columbia had been told was its life expectancy when it was first put on. The retractable roof will have a much longer life, reliable life, than the present roof did or a replacement ever could be expected to be.

The problem with putting on a roof now that would only have a life expectancy, even if it lasts as long as this one…. When it needed to be replaced again, the government of the day would probably have to just take the whole stadium down.

[1750]

This is such a huge job to do that the undeveloped lands around the stadium are needed for the staging process for the construction of a new roof because there are gigantic pieces to be lifted into place by huge cranes. The member may have seen the preparations more recently than I have.

The whole stadium is going to be closed during the operation, and those lands, those empty places, were needed for this construction project. So if the old style of roof even could be put on — and nobody in the world is doing it — it would have to be fabricated. We knew that the most we'd likely get out of it was 25 years, and then we wouldn't be able to put another roof on. That was one of the factors that mitigated in favour of the retractable roof.

Also, all the things that the member well knows, the things that prompted his leader to put out that media release two days before the election writ in 2009 saying that the NDP also expected that their fiscal plan would include…. In fact, she said it did include the then estimated figure. She knew it was an estimate, clearly, by the wording of the release.

People agreed…. Jim Sinclair has said frequently that this is the right thing to do. The building trade unions have said so. It only made sense.

We wouldn't get an MLS franchise without it. That franchise is something that Vancouver is very enthusiastic about. I gather the offering of seasons tickets sold out early on — the Vancouver Whitecaps offering.

So all things considered, a replacement of the existing roof — and I did pursue that to the nth degree going through the process — just didn't make sense. They're also very expensive to maintain — those airlocks, the tremendous pressure that's necessary. There's a lot of maintenance, and you'd probably have to have a specialized company in place to deal with that maintenance, because they just aren't done in the world anymore. It really wasn't that feasible.

S. Herbert: I guess I'm glad that the minister said that he's looked into this. I think that a lot of taxpayers are curious about this as well.

Now I guess that I asked for a fixed roof. I'm just curious, because if you can do a retractable roof, it would seem to me that you could probably do a fixed
[ Page 4000 ]
roof which wasn't a pillow-top style on that facility. I'm just puzzling through this. I think that we've got to puzzle through this — that's what estimates are about — to investigate what those costs would be, the cost benefit.

I remember hearing on the radio…. I believe it was Mr. Podmore talking about $100 million cost to do a fixed roof on that building. So that, compared to the numbers that we're now hearing about, of course, is much less. I guess I want to know if there's a report that the ministry has put together or that PavCo has put together comparing that cost of a fixed roof — not a pillow-top roof but a fixed roof — versus the retractable in terms of those costs versus the benefits that the minister has talked about. You know, you could argue one way or another for some of those benefits. A fixed roof could help with the acoustic problems of the pillow-top roof that we've got.

I'm just curious. Is there a report or was a report ever done by PavCo comparing those cost benefits? I don't believe that has anything to do with the casino site necessarily — although there are some arguments one way or another. I'm just thinking about the stadium itself.

[1755]

Hon. K. Krueger: A business case was done by PavCo and was submitted to Treasury Board. The cost of adding the retractable feature was only $16 million more than the cost of a fixed roof without the retractable feature. The retractable area is going to be the size of a football field, and it was a deal-breaker for the MLS franchise.

Also, I was briefed that there are touring companies that bring concerts up the west coast, who will only choose stadia that can open their roofs or are open roofs. So there were a lot of reasons to prefer the retractable option.

One of the issues is the way that B.C. Place was designed in the first place. It was not designed for the weight of a full fixed roof. The retractable feature is a weight that the reinforced stadium will be fine with, and the reinforcements have been happening as part of a seismic upgrade. But the weight was a consideration in the configuration of the walls of B.C. Place.

The additional cost, the gentlemen with me recall distinctly, was $16 million to have the retractable feature rather than a straight fixed roof.

S. Herbert: If it's possible — as the decision has been made; it's gone to Treasury Board; the minister has signed off; there's been the announcement and all of that kind of thing — to release that business case…. Of course, if there is anything specific — and I asked this last year as well — to a certain business that could harm their interests, I understand.

But we're talking generally about the people of B.C.'s business, and so I would hope that the business case that went there, that made those arguments and that had the $60 million figure the minister referred to can be released publicly. I think it would help the official opposition, but it would also help the public understand what's going on with their dollars. Is that possible?

Hon. K. Krueger: As the member knows, application has been made for the requested business case for B.C. Place's redevelopment based on section 12 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. There has been a refusal to provide it. The applicant can appeal that. That isn't my decision.

S. Herbert: I guess as the minister in charge of PavCo and the business case that I'm assuming went to Treasury Board and went to another caucus…. I'm not asking about who makes the decision around FOIs, because I understand it's not the minister.

[1800]

I'm asking: if the minister really believes that this is a good business case — that is saleable, that makes the right points, that is defendable — why is it not possible to release it? Of course, taking out the bits that are necessary to protect individual business interests.

Hon. K. Krueger: Section 12, as I think the member knows, directs a public body to refuse to disclose information "that would reveal the substance of deliberations of the Executive Council or any of its committees, including any advice, recommendations, policy considerations or draft legislation or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the Executive Council or any of its committees." That's the legislation.

S. Herbert: Well, I'm sure there's information in this business case that was prepared specifically for the executive council, for the Treasury Board — what have you — that could be taken out and put into another form explaining this in easy-to-understand numbers and easy-to-understand phrases that don't reference which minister did which, who said what and political considerations — that kind of thing. It wouldn't be difficult. Any business can do it.

I would assume that the government, the minister and his staff are able to do it. If it's such a good deal for taxpayers, as the minister has stated again and again and again, why is the government so afraid to release that information to the public?

Hon. K. Krueger: It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with the legislation. I've answered the question, and I think we should move on.
[ Page 4001 ]

S. Herbert: I guess what I'm hearing is that the minister either won't go to his caucus colleagues or won't prepare a different version of this information for the public. You could ask the question of whether or not it's because there's damaging information in there. You could ask the question: is it because it would be against the political interests of the minister and his party?

There's a whole bunch of questions for why that is. Still, aside from leaning on legislation when I've asked for other means to be able to address this that don't speak to the specific proposal that went to that executive council but instead the information behind it or some of the information behind it….

The minister has already shared, I'm sure, some of the information that was included in that submission, like the discussion around that $16 million difference. So the minister has already shared some of that stuff. Why can't he share maybe a brief or edited version, whatever he needs to do to make it so it doesn't touch off the legislation that he's leaning on? If he really wants to, he can do it.

The Chair: On vote 44, Member.

S. Herbert: I guess the minister won't do that — all right — saying he's answered the question, which is no. Okay, we've got through that one, I suppose, although I will continue to press. If the minister is proud of the project, he will do this. If the minister wants to address some of those criticisms and concerns, he will do this.

A question regarding B.C. Place: have there been problems with the amount of hydro, the amount of electricity being provided into that facility or any discussions with B.C. Hydro regarding adding another transformer or another line into the building because of challenges with the current amount of electricity going in there?

Hon. K. Krueger: There are three substations that service B.C. Place Stadium. There's plenty of power. I'm informed that there are no power shortages or concerns about shortages at all.

[1805]

S. Herbert: Well, that will be very interesting, I think, for the residents who live around B.C. Place. As the minister may have known, during the Olympic period there were residents at 3 a.m. in the morning going to try and get those diesel generators that were polluting the atmosphere and keeping them up at night, which were running into B.C. Place. Can the minister explain to me what that was about if there's absolutely no problem with the amount of electricity being provided into B.C. Place?

Hon. K. Krueger: I was just in B.C. Place very recently, actually, for the announcement of the contract with Paragon. They were still going through the process of removing the contents that had been brought in by VANOC in staging the huge event that they did.

That was a very unusual opportunity, of course — a huge opportunity. Mr. Buckley hadn't hurt his back yet and was with me. He was explaining how VANOC had needed essentially every square inch of space, and it was a tremendous operation — unusual demands for power and an extraordinary need to have backup power for the event. So VANOC and the staging of the Winter Olympics was a very unusual circumstance. VANOC was the client, and VANOC felt it needed those generators. B.C. Place doesn't anticipate ever needing such extra electrical service in the course of their business.

S. Herbert: Was B.C. Hydro…? Did they ever offer or were they ever involved in discussions about possibly providing that power through adding maybe another transformer or whatever they needed to do, rather than running these diesel generators?

Hon. K. Krueger: This was a need for three months, a temporary need. But the negotiations of this matter were between VANOC and the people that they dealt with. It was not a decision that B.C. Place made.

S. Herbert: I guess I'm understanding that to be because VANOC took over the management and the ownership, or what have you, of the venue at the time of the Olympics — that they didn't do that.

I guess I asked just because, if we're hoping that in future we have events of the scale of the Olympics, I was just thinking that might be something that actually would be useful in future as a possibility so that you didn't have to have generators keeping the neighbours awake all night and polluting the atmosphere — so just something to put out there as a possibility.

I'll go back to the roof. What would be the warranty on the new roof, the new retractable roof?

[1810]

Hon. K. Krueger: We don't have the firm number with us. I know the life expectancy of the roof is at least 40 years, but PavCo will respond by letter to the member.

The Chair: Member, and noting the hour.

S. Herbert: Are we quite there yet? All right. Thank you. Do we have a couple more minutes, Mr. Chair? Okay. Thank you.

Just so I understand it. Basically the cost, give or take…. It could be 93 years if you looked at that $6
[ Page 4002 ]
million. It could be less, because I know the minister has talked about that inflationary amount based on that $6 million base which can grow over the years. But so I understand it. We've got 40 years of life expectancy for that roof, but it could be much longer that we'll still be paying the debt on the roof, given the financial arrangement — if you look at it compared to the two. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm not sure where the member drew this from. I think he said 93 years, but it's…. I think now he's referring to the contract we just signed with Paragon, which is a 70-year lease. There will be a point along the way that the retractable portion of this roof will need replacing, and I've already said that PavCo will correspond with the member.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:12 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175