2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 21, Number 1

[ Page 6655 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2011

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

J. Rustad: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

J. Rustad: I wish to submit a petition from 1,800-plus people from my riding from the Burns Lake area. The petition is a request for the Minister of Health to carry on and build plans or to bring forward the plans for building a new hospital with a full OR room in Burns Lake.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M203 — Cosmetic Pesticide and
Carcinogen Control Act, 2011

A. Dix presented a bill intituled Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2011.

A. Dix: I move that the Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2011, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Dix: This bill will protect public health, safety and the environment in British Columbia by regulating, restricting and prohibiting the use and sale of pesticides for residential and cosmetic use and by regulating the use of pesticides around children.

I'm pleased to see the member from Kamloops North, who I think is a supporter of this legislation, across the way. This is the third occasion that New Democrats have introduced this bill into the Legislature. It's supported by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Toxic Free Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation.

It also follows the advice of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization. It is favoured by the overwhelming majority of British Columbians, including the overwhelming majority of those who participated in the government's own consultation 18 months ago on this question.

[1005]

The time for action is surely now. I'll be asking my House Leader, hon. Speaker, to work with the Government House Leader to see if we can't move forward with this legislation during this session, or with legislation put forward by the government and vetted by legislative counsel. We have waited long enough.

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

Bill M203, Cosmetic Pesticide and Carcinogen Control Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: Good morning, Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. Today in this House, the big House, we will be continuing the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. In Committee A, the small House, we will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On Vote 33: ministry operations, $236,513,000 (continued).

Hon. P. Bell: I am pleased to be joined here today in the big House with my deputy minister, Dana Hayden, and two of our assistant deputy ministers, Grant Mackay and Raymond Chan. I am looking forward to questions from the opposition member.

S. Chandra Herbert: Welcome to the deputies on this file, the tourism file, which is crucially important to so many British Columbians, both for employment but also for well-being in their communities.

I had the opportunity to speak with the Council of Tourism Associations, which, of course, has now changed its name to the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. Congratulations on their evolution, so to speak. I think they said the way to remember their new acronym would be to think of "this is amazing British Columbia" — TIABC. I think I will try to encourage the minister to keep doing the work to sell this amazing province across the world, across Canada and indeed in British Columbia.
[ Page 6656 ]

One of the principal concerns I've heard ever since — well, shortly after — I became the tourism critic was, of course, the bringing down of Tourism B.C. — the bringing in-house, the demolition, the destruction, the blowing up, whatever you wanted to call it. That was a principal concern I've heard from the industry and continue to hear loud and clear.

So I'll cut to the chase, and I'll ask the first question, which I think is one that I hear again and again and I'm sure the minister probably has as well. Does the ministry plan this year to fulfil Premier Clark's promise and bring about an industry-led, formula-funded tourism marketer in this province?

[1010]

Hon. P. Bell: I'd just ask the member's tolerance for a second. I will ask my staff to run up a copy of the platform document. I want to make sure that the wording is absolutely precise in my answer and not leave the member opposite with any questions. So if whoever is watching this on television would get us a copy of Christy's platform document, we'd be pleased to respond as soon as it arrives here.

If the member wants to go on and perhaps ask another question while that document is headed into the chambers….

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister for doing that. I know the impression that certainly people in the industry got was that that promise was industry-led and formula-funded. Maybe the wording was a little bit more wiggly, so maybe that's not quite what was promised. We'll see, and I look forward to hearing the direct words so that the minister can quote directly.

Obviously, we were concerned back in February, when the budget was brought about, that it looked forward and had no targets for the future, and many people were concerned about that. I know I was, certainly, when we used to have the promise that we would double tourism in B.C. by 2015 — and then to see in a budget that there were no targets anymore for where we should go in tourism.

I'm wondering if the minister can explain to me how we've got to the place where I believe it went. It's about $400 million less in the current year in what we're actually getting versus what the ministry said we would get last year. Does that suggest that maybe the Olympics have not played out as well as we had thought? I'm just curious because it was about $400 million, which is a lot of money. Maybe it wasn't the Olympics. Maybe it was something else. If the minister could explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.

Hon. P. Bell: We're just trying to track down the $400 million number that the member opposite refers to. I think it is reflective of the original service plan in March of 2010 that suggested the 2010-11 target would be $13.4 billion. That number was reduced in the service plan as of February 2011 to $13 billion, and I think that's the $400 million the member is referring to.

I could advise the member that in the service plan that was tabled the other day — and I know it's very, very recent — it's back up to $13.2 billion now. So it's a $200 million reduction in the estimate. These are all forecasts, of course. As we get closer to the year end, we're able to better forecast the accurate number.

[1015]

The $200 million that is reflective in the reduction is a reduction of approximately 1.5 percent off of our original projection and largely due to some of the challenges around the increased Canadian dollar. Forecasters were not projecting a $1.05 dollar nor the ongoing challenges in the American economy. I think those would have been two of the large ones.

The tourism numbers actually for the month of February we were reasonably happy with. It showed growth over February of 2010, which surprised us, because of course 2010 was during the games, and everyone was fully occupied and busy at that point. I think that was promising. Most of the information I've seen, particularly from Calgary and the review of the 1988 games, indicated that the real benefit accrued in the second and third year post-Olympics. Certainly we're looking to see what we can do to help stimulate that.

I don't want to minimize the challenges that we'll have this year. I think it's going to be a very tough year for us with a $1.05 dollar, perhaps heading to $1.10, and fuel at $1.35 where I come from, in Prince George, and $1.31 over here in Victoria. In the member's riding it's probably approaching $1.40. By all forecasts I'm hearing $1.50, potentially plus, this year. So lots of challenges around us, and we're going to have to work through those as best we can. I do expect it will be a challenging year for us in the industry.

S. Chandra Herbert: I read an interview with the minister some time ago. I think it was in a Whistler newspaper. They asked the minister: "So where are we at in terms of reaching our target of doubling tourism by 2015?" The minister said: "Well, maybe not so sure when we're going to get there." Is there still a goal of doubling tourism by 2015, or are we moving the goalposts?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to come back and answer the first question that the member had as well in a moment here.

We did remove that measure from the service plan this year due to the uncertainty of the world economy and where it's at. I am still optimistic that that can be achieved, but it will require lots of innovative work, particularly focusing on new market opportunities. I think generally we understand now that the U.S. economy will continue to struggle for a period
[ Page 6657 ]
of time, unlikely to see immediate recovery with the dollar valuation.

I recall back in 2001, I guess it was, the value of the Canadian dollar was about 62 cents or 61 or 63 cents to the U.S. dollar. So $1.05 today has clearly made our product more expensive for the American consumer. We do think there are lots of opportunities, particularly with the approved-destination status with China right now. But it is a new world, and it's going to require a change in plan.

I have not given up on the notion of us being able to double tourism. I still think that is a good goal that we should work towards. We still have four years to accomplish that, and if we are able to accomplish something similar to what we did with the forest industry in China, then I'm reasonably optimistic we could still achieve that. But it is definitely going to be a lot of work to do that.

I did want to just read into the record and for the member opposite the specific comment that was made by our new Premier, Christy Clark, in her platform document. Under "New marketing partnership," it says specifically:

"Every family in our province is impacted by tourism. Whether it's a family member employed in the hospitality industry or in the adventure of a holiday of one of our provincial parks, tourism touches us all. Tourism is a $13 billion industry in the province, and with the right collaborative approach we can continue to grow the industry."

I think the most important sentence in this is:

"Our government will work with the tourism industry to create a new tourism marketing partnership.

"It's important the industry is listened to and involved in implementing a long-range marketing plan. We need to have an unbiased strategy to promote tourism that is not imposed by government and is fair to all. We must recognize and build upon the successes that commercial operators have achieved in creating jobs and expanding the industry in British Columbia. We need to listen to the industry. The way to promote B.C. is by doing it together.

[1020]

"Our government will bring together successful commercial players, non-profit and community-based tourist organizations to set up a new market-driven regime that will implement a B.C. tourism strategy, which will be supported by government and have predictable funding."

It goes on to talk about some other elements. I'm happy to provide the member with a copy of that if he'd like that.

What I can tell the member opposite is that my commitment to TIABC, previously COTA, in my speech was that whatever decision we collectively and collaboratively come to over a new structure for — whether it be called Tourism B.C. or some other name — will be one that they will be able to support and stand up and agree is a step forward and helps support the industry.

I intend to develop this new model in a collaborative way, working with the Tourism Industry Association of B.C., TIABC. I forget what the member…. The incredibly amazing British Columbia — was that what it was? I have a tremendous amount of respect for the industry players and understand the importance of engaging fully with industry in developing that strategy.

I think the wording is fairly specific. It doesn't necessarily commit to the nomenclature that's been used lately, but that is certainly on the table, and I'm willing to entertain that. It will be a collaborative effort to develop the right model for everyone.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess in listening to the promise, the pledge, in the Premier's platform, a couple words jump out for me — "predictable funding," "not imposed" and "collaborating with the industry and with TIABC."

TIABC is on the record. Its members passed by a massive margin that they want an industry-led, formula-funded marketing model similar to Tourism B.C. — but maybe not quite the same. There may be other linkages and ways that it can work.

That's pretty steadfast. I've seen it repledged and recommitted to by the industry association a number of times at their leaders' summits. Just curious: how soon are we going to get there? And predictable funding — is that formula funding?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't in any way mean to be cute in my response here. It is just simply a fact that industry-led and formula-funded can mean many, many different things. I have met — at least three times now, I think — what was previously COTA, now TIABC.

We are engaged actively in discussions in terms of thinking about some options. I would expect to see those options by the end of the month in terms of what types of things we might entertain. My goal is to have it in place for fiscal '12-13. It could be that we will be ready before that. Meaning to be ready by fiscal '12-13 means likely an announcement in the fall to establish the organizational structure. I think that's a reasonable timeline to achieve.

I actually would look forward to working with the critic as well, and my door is open to the critic to consider what views and options you might have. I'd be happy to have the critic provide me with that advice and share some of our early thinking of what may develop, albeit likely past the end of this month in order to be able to share some of that information.

S. Chandra Herbert: Going back to the decision to delete the industry-led, formula-funded Tourism B.C. and bring it in-house, obviously there was a lot of concern about the potential for more partisan use of taxpayers' funds. We saw that with "You gotta be here" and special Premier-focused promotions and targeting voting-aged British Columbians to associate the success of the Olympics with the B.C. Liberal government. That was a big concern. We had the paperwork to show that that was going on. The industry was outraged — rightly so.
[ Page 6658 ]

I know one of the big concerns they had was that with that kind of government sticking their hands into how they do their jobs, a number of people would quit, would leave the great Crown at the time — which was Tourism B.C. — when it was brought in-house. I've had reports that up to 40 percent of the staff have left. I don't know. That may be high. That may be low. I'm not sure. Is the minister able to provide me with information about the staff turnover over the last year within the tourism section of his ministry?

[1025]

Hon. P. Bell: Again, just to reintroduce two of the three assistant deputy ministers responsible for tourism: Grant Mackay, immediately to my right, and Raymond Chan, to his right. Also, Susan Rybar is not with us right now, although she's eagerly watching in the room beside us, I'm sure.

All three were in Tourism British Columbia prior to it coming into government. All three are still here, as you can see today, or as the member opposite can see today. Grant advises me that out of his area of responsibility, which is about 55 people, he can think of two, off the top of his head, that have left in the last year. For Raymond, the same — no senior people, but he thinks about two.

It's important for the member opposite to remember that when Tourism B.C. came back into government, it actually did create some opportunities, which didn't exist before, for employees to move about within the public service. The finance side of Tourism B.C. came back into government. So technically, you could say they no longer work for Tourism B.C. But they're still working; they're working within government. So I think any suggestion of a 40 percent turnover would be far overblown.

We could go back and get the numbers. But I think, at least for the two ADMs here, who have responsibility for probably 75 percent of the total previous employment, they can recall two employees each that have left — so four. There are about 100 employees between the two of them roughly.

The Chair: Minister for Vancouver–West End — member for Vancouver–West End. Sorry.

S. Chandra Herbert: The Minister for Vancouver–West End — okay. I'm climbing up. Thank you, hon. Chair, and congratulations on your new role. You can mind the gap in this House, as you do — right? — between us.

I'm curious about the human resources because, of course, when a big decision is made — you know, the CEO is fired; the board is gone — there's a lot to it, which is a big concern because the whole culture of an entity can change. So if the minister may be able to provide me with a list over the last two years of changes in the staffing of people who may have left — however much detail he may be able to provide while respecting individuals' privacy — I would really appreciate it. I just think it's interesting, organizationally, to get an idea of what that kind of change can do to an entity.

Maybe it's only four people, as I've heard here, but in talking to people in the industry, they tell me it's much higher. Maybe 40 percent is quite overblown. I'm not sure, and I don't have the numbers to prove one way or another. So if the minister would agree to provide that information, I'd really appreciate it.

Hon. P. Bell: We'd be happy to provide the turnover statistics for the last two years. I should just advise the member that it would be by position and not by name, because that would breach some of the rules that we must abide by.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I appreciate that. That will be useful for me just to learn about how that's going.

[1030]

Has there been any increase in moneys to attract new people? I know, for example, that the head, I believe, of social marketing — or the person who kind of headed up social marketing within Tourism B.C. — has left the organization and is doing very well in a private business. I think they've just won some international marketing award for the Super Bowl that they did. Quite interesting and exciting work.

Has there been any increase in dollars put towards attracting new talent to Tourism B.C.?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm advised by staff that we haven't had to increase our budget for recruitment. In fact, when we have posted positions, we've had literally hundreds of applications for the positions posted.

S. Chandra Herbert: One more question around the staffing issue. I know the previous deputy minister, Martyn Brown, was put in place under the previous minister. There was a lot of concern in the industry because it was seen to be a partisan appointment as opposed to coming up through the civil service. Just curious what severance had to be paid to that deputy minister.

Hon. P. Bell: That number was publicly reported last week. I don't recall what it was, but it was in the media extensively last week.

It's important to note that although Mr. Brown was only responsible for Tourism for a short period of time, I believe he worked for government for around 17 years — something like that — as chief of staff in the Premier's office and previously, I gather, in other roles. While his responsibility for the Tourism portfolio was relatively short-lived, his responsibilities in the broader government did extend for a far greater period of time.
[ Page 6659 ]

I'm sure if the member were to google that, it would come up on numerous websites and was publicly reported.

S. Chandra Herbert: I read in the paper the other day about a new ad campaign focused on British Columbians, to get us to travel within our own province. Last year there was a new ad campaign which was launched, "You gotta be here," around the Olympics, and it was said to be the campaign for years and years to come. Why the change? If we're talking about branding the province, why have we changed to a new ad campaign? Was it because "You gotta be here" wasn't achieving success? What kind of analysis has been done?

Hon. P. Bell: The general theme of the ads remains the same. It exposes British Columbians to a variety of scenic areas ranging from wine tasting to horseback riding to rock climbing to sitting around a campfire in a B.C. park. In fact, the key theme this year is the celebration of the 100th anniversary of B.C. Parks. If the member tuned into the Canucks game the other night, he might have seen one of the ads. So the theme around it and the focus of it is the celebration of B.C. Parks' 100th anniversary.

Specifically to the member's question, we did switch the tag line from "You gotta be here" to "Don't miss a moment." That decision was based on a recommendation from our advertising agency, which is Bare Communications.

[1035]

Bare Communications has been with Tourism B.C. for at least 15 years. We're not sure if perhaps prior to that, but our corporate knowledge at these four desks at this point tells us 15 years. That would go back to when the member opposite was 14, according to my quick math — perhaps earlier than that. Just in case he forgets, that was actually during the NDP era that it would have been selected as the communications company.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the minister mentioning my age, that I am young, because thus it means the minister is older. So I appreciate that. I'll be here for a long, long time — maybe until when I sport the same do as the minister does.

Hon. P. Bell: I had this do when I was your age.

S. Chandra Herbert: He had his hairstyle when he was my age, he says.

Are we done with "Best place on earth," "You gotta be here" and moving into "A new era" — another slogan with this government? Are we moving into "Don't miss a moment" and "Super, natural B.C." again?

Hon. P. Bell: The first recommendation from Bare Communications to switch the tag line from "You gotta be here" to "Don't miss a moment" came in November 2010 and then was incorporated, as the creative was prepared, and has now been released.

That decision was made based on the recommendation of a professional communications company that provides advice in terms of how you can motivate consumers to get excited about spending time in the province of British Columbia, the idea being that it would create greater urgency behind that. So the timing around that was November of 2010.

But it's important to note — and I'm sure the member and I both see this identically; I think we do, anyways — that the "Super, natural B.C." brand has been a brand for decades. It might even go back to when I did have hair, which was prior to the current age of the critic. It's been around for a long time, and it is absolutely the theme for British Columbia and will continue to be the theme for British Columbia. I'm not anticipating any change in that.

However, the tag line in terms of the motivator each year could change from time to time. That would be a logical way of trying to get consumers to think about the product that they have the opportunity to purchase. So "Super, natural B.C." is still the theme. The tag line may change from year to year and, in fact, this year did, based on a recommendation from Bare Communications last November.

S. Chandra Herbert: The one point that wasn't answered in that question was "Best place on earth." It used to be plastered on TV screens and billboards and things like that throughout B.C., with just a little bit of a notice down at the bottom, hellobc.com.

Yes, I am proud of the province and I think it's the best place on earth, but it was probably not the best way to attract people from other parts of the world who think their little section of the world was the best place on earth. I'm just wondering: is "Best place on earth" shelved for now, and we're now not going to see that anymore, and we'll see "Super, natural B.C." in its place?

Hon. P. Bell: The "Best place on earth" brand is, first of all, a broader brand. It was a brand of the province of British Columbia, but it was only used on advertising in British Columbia.

So I agree with the member opposite that British Columbia is, in fact, the best place on earth. With the exception of a very short three years, I have lived here my entire life. I had to have three years of the Alberta experience but quickly returned. So I guess that means roughly 94 1/2 percent of my life has been spent here in British Columbia, and I do absolutely believe it's the best place on earth.

But that tag line was never used outside of B.C. If you were in Washington or in Oregon or in California or in Australia or other places where our ads would have run,
[ Page 6660 ]
it would not have been used. It was an internal tag line to help motivate British Columbians.

[1040]

S. Chandra Herbert: So I'm given to understand from that answer that "Best place on earth" is shelved now. It's now "Super, natural B.C." in B.C. Or is "Best place on earth" going to crop up again right before the election?

Hon. P. Bell: The ad that I approved and that is currently running does not contain the "Best place on earth." "Best place on earth" is a broader government initiative, so I can't affirm or deny that it doesn't exist in other places. But in terms of this year's ad campaign, it's not included in it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Documents that I'd received previously showed that it was the public affairs bureau which was managing the "You gotta be here" campaign, not the Tourism Ministry itself, as identified on the documents.

I'm just curious. Is the Tourism Ministry now fully in control of its ad budgets, its ad spending, what it does? It won't be public affairs that manages that side of things, but it will be the Tourism Ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the Hansard record will show that the member opposite said: "Is the tourism industry fully in control of the budget?" I suspect that what the member was asking was is the Tourism Ministry responsible, and he's nodding, so I'll accept that that was the question.

The answer to that is yes. We are in full control of our budget. We make the decisions on how it will be spent in terms of the campaigns, and the campaign approval processes rest with me.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess it's probably two budgets back now, or a budget and a budget update back, but the Tourism budget was cut by approximately $11 million for marketing. I think it's $11 million. Some people have said $7 million — anyways $7 million to $11 million.

Just curious. Obviously, we've had a challenge. We're still trying to get back to where we were, to 2008 levels and the number of industry categories. Is there any thought that the budget does need to be increased? I remember that the former Premier, Premier Campbell, did make a commitment in a speech shortly before he quit, where he said that we would have a dedicated, bigger, broader, more comprehensive ad campaign for B.C. than we'd ever seen.

I'm not sure how we are going to achieve that with less money than we did before, because of course, advertising costs dollars. Is the ministry happy with the size of the budget it's got for marketing, or can we ramp it up, especially considering that Canada, the Canadian government, has decreased its advertising budget, particularly for the United States, but in other categories as well?

[1045]

Hon. P. Bell: There are a couple of numbers I'll provide the member opposite with that may clarify the reason for what he believes is a reduction in funding to the tourism component.

Tourism B.C. was always funded based on the additional hotel room tax, which was forecast and would fluctuate from year to year. So one of the challenges, of course, for Tourism British Columbia was not knowing for certain where their budget would be, based on how much would be accrued from that additional hotel room tax.

When it was brought back into government, the additional hotel room tax went to general revenue, and it was funded — Tourism B.C., or that component of the ministry is now funded — out of general revenue at a fixed rate over the next three years at $52 million per year. So the original $59 million quantum was a projection that appeared in the Tourism B.C. service plan.

When it was brought into government, an assessment was done of the actual revenue coming into Tourism B.C. through the additional hotel room tax. It was actually $52 million. So that was what the base budget was set at for Tourism B.C. I think that's the $7 million, just to clarify for the member opposite. That's what they would have ended up with regardless had they stayed as Tourism B.C. with the actual revenue stream that would have come from the additional hotel room tax.

What might appear to be a further reduction, as one reads the service plan, from $52 million down to $49 million — that is a reflection of $1.6 million being provided to Shared Services out of that $52 million quantum. So that money would have been expended internally within Tourism B.C. to provide those same services. It's just being provided by another agency, so it's still being spent. Then the central management services — a further $1.1 million.

The actual budget remains consistent with what it would have been had Tourism B.C. stayed as an independent agency of government. But the member's question, or at least part of the question, was: is that enough? Are we spending enough money? Should we be thinking about spending more money in order to stimulate the tourism industry?

I've been in the hospitality industry both corporately and on my own as an owner for a long time, more than 30 years in fact. While it is always, I suppose, easy to think that incremental spending will help stimulate sales — and there is clearly some truth to that — there's also critical mass and developing marketing campaigns in a way that achieves maximum value for the dollar.

The member opposite says: "If we increase the budget, would we be able to do more?" Probably. But I have a
[ Page 6661 ]
Health Minister that's constantly reminding me of hips and knees that need to be replaced, an Education Minister who would like to see improvements in the education system, and a minister responsible for Children and Family Development who is working to also find ways to provide additional services to kids in this province.

It is always a balance in government. As we move forward, given that I've had responsibility for this portfolio for about seven weeks now, I am very keenly interested in how we can expend those dollars and maximize the value from those dollars and also work with other levels of industry and of government across this province that also market the tourism industry — regional DMOs, city DMOs, local entrepreneurs — to provide a consistent thread of advertising.

That is the work that we are doing right now. I'd suggest that perhaps the critic and I can have lunch one day in the next couple of weeks, and I'd be happy to fill him in on the work that we're doing, what we're thinking and where we're anticipating going with it. But it's probably beyond the scope of a discussion at this point, although I have spoken publicly about our work. So it's not a secret. It's just if we got into that, we'd use up the bulk of the estimates period, I think.

[1050]

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I'd be interested in having that lunch to talk about where we can go with this.

Obviously, one of the big concerns when formula funding was ended was that we would end up having a situation where the budget would be flat — $52 million for three years. It's nice to have that government commitment that it's going to be the same for those three years, but obviously, if the industry starts doing even better, they would have had more money to market.

The hope was, as it was decided at the time…. I know the government on that side of the House used to agree with that side. I hope they start to come around to that view again — that we need to keep building the industry. Part of that is when it's doing well, it can reinvest, and it can do even better. So that incremental increase will grow the industry faster than if everything remains steady.

Now, I know that many other provinces, countries and states have much bigger tourism budgets than us in terms of per capita because they believe that the industry…. When you market more of it, more people will know about you and more people will come here, and certainly it is a big concern — what's going on nationally. I hope the minister might be able to twist some arms nationally, as well, to get them thinking about tourism in a more progressive fashion.

The question — this may just get batted off to another ministry, and I totally understand — is one that I consistently get from people in wilderness tourism: what's going on with the proposal at Jumbo? Where is that at? Is a decision going to be made? What's happening there?

Hon. P. Bell: My understanding is that the decision around Jumbo rests with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and is currently in front of the minister, so I can't speak for the minister in terms of the decision timelines around that. Certainly the member opposite could canvass the minister.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you for that. This may end up being a very similar answer, but I'll try it just to see, since it is a tourism issue, largely. One of the issues I've heard on the north Island as well as along the coast in particular — but I've also heard it in other areas — is conflict between uses. In particular, for example, there may be a guide outfitting business which wants to go out and, you know, shoot things. There may be an eco-tourism group that wants to go out and shoot things with cameras. They end up coming to the same location — doesn't go so well.

Where's the ministry at in terms of trying to create more consensus within certain geographic areas — "this is the area you go hunting, and this is the area where you go doing your eco-tourism"? How is that process going, or is that in another ministry?

Hon. P. Bell: This, I think, is a very important issue. I concur with the member opposite that there are many challenges around conflicting tenures that extend beyond whether you shoot something with a gun or a camera to uses in different areas of other portions of our province.

When a lot of the rules were originally developed around land use, it was not conceived that we would have an oil and gas industry at the level that they're operating at, a mining industry that they're operating at, and the mountain pine beetle challenges that we've seen in the central Interior — the ability, as an example, for snowmobiles to reach areas that were previously unheard of because of the types of machines that were being ridden. So there was never any fear of, as an example, heli-ski operators — that they would be confronted with a snow machine operating in their area.

[1055]

I am very cognizant of the issues. The policy work can rest with us in terms of that. I have committed to the guide outfitters and to the TIABC to look at what we can do around tenure and tenure security.

It is always a complex problem, because where there is a winner, typically, there is a loser as well. So I don't want to suggest to the member opposite that this is something that we could engage in and that a year from now I'd be able to say is complete and that we're well on our way to providing that balance across the province that everyone is looking for. I think it is much greater work than that. But I'm aware of it and concerned about it.

I would like to see us find a way to start to reconcile those differences and get to a place where tenure holders
[ Page 6662 ]
have the certainty of tenure that they need in order to finance their businesses or their personal activities, as well, over the long term, because we also have many British Columbians that are interested in being able to exercise the ability to shoot something, whether it be with a camera or a gun, in different parts of the province without being disturbed, necessarily, by the other user of the land base.

A complex issue. I agree with the member that it's a problem. We're thinking about it. Don't have a quick answer for him.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister for that answer. It's one that I've heard about for two years, and I'm sure it's one Tourism ministers will grapple with 50 years from now.

Some of it, I think, could be addressed by something more like the core process back in the '90s that was done. I still hear about it from tourism industry folk, who were very happy. They hated the process while they were doing it, because it was meeting after meeting of trying to grapple with what they could accept — of course, the land resource management planning and those kinds of things — but they were really happy that they were involved.

On an ecotourism versus a hunting thing in certain locations, those kinds of "let's all sit down and address it; let's talk about it….” They will find a way to work together, because they do grow up in the same communities and work many times in…. You know, they're neighbours. So I would hope we could move in that direction as well.

One of the other ones I hear is about resorts or so-called resorts. Sometimes it's hunting lodges, or sometimes it's a kind of "get back to ranches and riding the horses" — that kind of thing. Because they are on Crown land or primarily on Crown land, they don't have the same kind of security where they could, if they were selling the business…. Maybe they got too old and they were retiring or something like that and leaving the land to go move closer to an urban centre.

The banks won't finance somebody else coming in to use that area, because a mine might decide that it wants to open there and then they lose their rights to that area. So they're finding it really difficult to be able to pass that business on to somebody else who might be interested in using it, particularly young folks who may not have as much money to plunk down immediately.

Has the minister heard of this issue? Is there any work being done to try and address it?

Hon. P. Bell: The critic and I must be talking to the same people, because in fact I have heard this — and, actually, in previous roles as Minister of Agriculture and Lands and Minister of Forests and Lands as well. So it is topical; it is an important one. There are kind of two pieces to it, perhaps three, that I would advise the member opposite.

The first is that we are looking at the policy implications of allowing a tenure holder of a remote site, perhaps a heli-ski site, a guide outfitter site, a back-country tourism operator — what the implications would be of allowing them to own that property versus lease that property. So we are looking at that from a policy perspective at this point in time.

In addition, I should advise the member that whenever you get into a policy discussion of that nature, it's important to engage with First Nations and figure out how you work through the implications of taking land from Crown to private, albeit relatively small parcels, but those have implications from a First Nations rights and title perspective. So it is an increasingly complex environment that we operate in, which also creates the necessity for thinking about decisions like this, to provide that level of certainty.

The other thing that I would tell the member opposite is that we are pursuing a policy discussion around compensation for rights takings at this point. That also is a big issue on the minds of back-country tourism operators as well as other users of the land base.

[1100]

There was a piece of legislation tabled a number of years ago that was met with a resounding thud by the industry and a lack of support. It was withdrawn. I recall it because I was the minister at the time of that particular file. I have brought that file over with me, and I hope to have far more success on the second go-round than I had on the first.

S. Chandra Herbert: Another issue that I hear — and maybe the minister has heard this probably as much as I have — is the cost of ferries, in particular for the Gulf Islands, for the north coast. It's a real concern for a town like Port Hardy when you see a price increase talked about — it could be 25 percent; it could be 50 percent — or a place like Saltspring or even Saanich, to a certain extent. That can be really damaging to their local tourism industry, and they've seen a decline as the prices have shot up.

I know Ferries isn't the minister's file, transportation isn't the minister's file, but obviously transportation is hugely important for tourism. What kind of advocacy is the minister doing on this issue, because clearly it has a huge impact on tourism in those areas?

Hon. P. Bell: As the member opposite will know, the Minister of Transportation is currently engaged with the ferries commissioner, considering the options around proposed ferry increases. He's been very public in that discussion. I have spoken on a number of occasions with the Transportation Minister. I am confident that he will be pursuing this topic and trying to achieve
[ Page 6663 ]
the best possible outcome for all ferry users, both resident and tourism users.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know there are some colleagues here who are keen to get to their set of estimates, and because it is such an abbreviated session, I do have to be brief.

One of the goals of a former minister was to talk about heritage tourism and the role of cultural tourism. I now understand that culture and heritage are not any longer in this ministry, but clearly they are very important in order to get people to come to B.C., get people to stay longer in B.C. as well as to get us, our own people, to travel throughout the province.

How does the minister see working with groups like the Heritage Tourism Alliance, groups like the Alliance for Arts and Culture, and so on, to develop both heritage and culture as other places, other reasons for people to come to B.C., not just the super, natural aspect of B.C?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: First of all, I'll just open by saying that I particularly find the historical sites in British Columbia quite stimulating and try and get to the different sites, especially Barkerville and Fort Steele, some of the other ones, whenever I have the opportunity. I think they are very, very good quality sites, and we need to continue to support and preserve those. We've certainly put some capital into those relatively recently to do that.

Right now what we are looking at in the ministry…. This probably gets into our lunch opportunity to sit down and talk a bit more. One of the things that business has taught me over the years is that to achieve positive results, one needs to focus their efforts. They can't be too broad spread.

So we're looking at all of the key things that people come to British Columbia for that are of interest as a tourism attraction, whether it be internal British Columbia residents or external people coming to British Columbia on a tourism vacation. We are considering everything at this point. We're looking at all the options.

I've asked the ADMs to look at what the key attractors are for us. What is it that makes British Columbia different from Washington or Oregon or California or Alberta or Idaho — or the rest of the world, for that matter? What is it that we can go to the international audience and sell that makes us unique, that makes us different?

"Super, natural British Columbia" — there is no question in my mind that that is the overarching element. What makes us really unique and special is the super, natural component of where we live: the fact that 80 percent of our province is mountains; that we still control, as a province, 94 percent of the provincial land base — only 6 percent of it is private; that we have 4 1/2 million people on a hundred million hectares.

[1105]

We have a lot of innate advantages that we need to lever up. We are, as an industry…. I'm happy to go into this in more detail with the member. I'm happy to do it in the House, if he wants to take the time, but I'm certainly happy to chat more about this.

What we're looking at right now is what the key things are that we can focus our efforts on. Once you do that and you bring the tourists to British Columbia or once you take the internal tourists in British Columbia and keep them here, the rising tide will lift all boats. I don't know which ones are going to be the key focuses yet. I don't know if cultural tourism, if historical tourism will be one of them. It may well be. I don't have the answer to that. That's the type of advice that I need to get from staff and from the industry as well.

As we go through that process over the next very short period of time, a few more weeks to a month or a month and a bit, then we'll be in a better position to say, "Here is what our strategy is," thinking about how we raise the tide in British Columbia. How do we find a way to stimulate greater levels of activity from both outside British Columbia and staycations, and then be able to focus our effort?

I realize that's very high level. It's not kind of a detailed discussion, but the principle that I want the member to be aware of that we are considering at this point in time is creating a far more focused effort on the key attractants that will bring external tourists to British Columbia and keep existing internal British Columbians here to vacation.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I'll wrap my questions with this final one, and I'll let the other critics do their part in this House. The final question, of course — it's the tough one — is, well, the HST. It's had a big impact, I know, particularly in the border regions, up in Peace country and right on down — Revelstoke, Golden, down even into Surrey and Burnaby and Vancouver and down to Sparwood too, with people crossing the border to avoid paying it here.

In particular, I've heard of cases out in the Kootenays, a dude ranch in one of the places, where he didn't know, because of the uncertainty of whether he'd have to pay it or whether he wouldn't. He's still in that position. The tourists chose to go to Montana for dude ranches there, because they didn't have a sales tax like we did. There was no uncertainty.

Obviously, we have a referendum coming up. In the meantime, is the ministry having any thoughts on ways that we can better support those businesses that are struggling because of the HST?
[ Page 6664 ]

Hon. P. Bell: As the member knows, I have a specific economic interest in some restaurants, so I am well aware of the industry and the HST and all of the kinds of economic decisions that have been made around it. I still do very much believe in the HST. I do think it's the right decision, and I do think it will create the rising tide that will lift all boats and help support our overall economic endeavours.

Some of the things the member opposite mentioned were exempted previously from PST, but for many of them — hotels, as an example…. Actually the tax was reduced on hotels as a result of the HST. There is some misconception in terms of what the actual cost is and isn't. For that reason, we're currently engaged in a series of telephone town hall meetings around the province.

I led one of those last night in ten ridings in central and northern British Columbia. There were 23,000 callers on the line. I took 27 questions that were very interesting. I know there is a real thirst for information out there in terms of where we go.

But the most important part, I think, of the telephone town hall meetings, as well as the question the member opposite asks, is this. Our new Premier, Christy Clark, has been very clear that we want to listen to industry and that we want to listen to our constituents groups. If there are improvements that can be made to the HST, we will bring those forward prior to the referendum date and advise the public that should the HST be kept, these are the types of changes we will make to the HST.

Recommendations for what sorts of changes could be made are welcomed. They're already coming in on a regular basis from different people — individuals and companies across British Columbia.

[1110]

One of the ones that I heard last night referenced the cost of the HST on second homes — on recreational homes on ski hills, as an example. The individual that called in believed that it would make a difference if the HST was exempted or treated in a similar way to the HST that is applied to the primary homes, with the $525,000 initial deduction.

We are in the process of accepting input from the public right now. Prior to June 24, when people will be asked to make their decision on the HST, we will be bringing forward a series of recommendations should the HST be kept.

If it's not, of course, we go back to the PST system. I think we all know what that looks like. Certainly, it would be predictable in terms of the outcome, but there are costs associated with that.

I would just, for anyone that happens to be sitting at home listening to this, encourage them to go to www.hstinbc.ca. I said that about 50 times last night, so I should remember it. Have those individuals go, and if they think there should be some exemptions around tourism to the HST, then we would take that input and consider that as we make our final decision going into the referendum date.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for his spiel. I notice that the gallery has cleared out after that speech. I don't know if it was the speech that made them leave or….

I ask because I know there are tourism businesses that cannot wait. There are tourism businesses which indeed have already closed. The rising tide that the minister speaks of has sunk a number of boats and has also made it difficult in many cases for people who cannot afford to buy that second home on a ski hill. But we will leave that HST debate for somewhere else than this place.

I will wrap my estimates at this time. I do want to say that in future I would really appreciate it if the government could, instead of a one-month session, have at the very least a two-month session so that we actually could get into the multi-millions of dollars that are spent to more detail, dig down through the numbers. When we're spending millions of dollars of British Columbians' money, at the very least I would hope that I, as a critic, would get more than two hours and a bit to go into different ways that those moneys have been spent.

For those on that side of the House, out of respect for British Columbians, I would hope that that you would tell your House Leader and tell your leader that this is not acceptable for how we treat democracy. Indeed, when I was in civic politics on the park board, we would spend more time debating and discussing with the public the expenditure of $50,000 than we are here on discussing and debating the spending of multi-millions of dollars.

Thank you to the minister for his time. Thank you to his deputies and the staff from PavCo as well, who came and did their best to help me get into what's going on with this ministry. I will finish at this point.

N. Macdonald: Well, we'll switch, and while we're waiting for the switch, we're going to move to the trusts now — okay?

While that's going on, I'll just comment on some of the things that the minister talked about with his phone canvass of British Columbians.

First, when Premier Clark talked about the possibility of changing the HST before the referendum, she dismissed it completely as something that the public would see through as trying to buy off British Columbians. But now I see that again there's a switch, and she has decided that that's a perfectly reasonable way to go — either to muddy the waters or to buy off British Columbians.

It sounds, from what the minister is saying, that there's going to be some goodies thrown out there before the referendum takes place. So not only are they distorting the type of referendum that we're going to
[ Page 6665 ]
have, they're going to use all the resources available to muddy and confuse the public as much as possible.

But I can tell you, in his community, in my community and every community in British Columbia, British Columbians are well past falling for any of these tricks from this government and well past the place where they can be convinced that the HST is the proper policy for this province.

[1115]

With that, let's move to another area that Premier Clark talked about in getting the leadership of the B.C. Liberals. This is from page 9 in her list of promises. Here she promised to "review the progress made by regional trust organizations such as the Northern Development Initiative Trust, the Island Coastal Economic Trust." And while I didn't see it here, the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust is the same sort of trust, which was set up with legislation back, I believe, in 2005 or 2006. She also said that she'd be looking at the Columbia Basin Trust, which, of course, was set up by the NDP and has a different history and a different structure.

We'll look first at the promise to look at the development trust that the B.C. Liberals set up with legislation. The first question is: when are those reviews going to be done, and when are they going to be reported publicly?

Hon. P. Bell: Now I recall why I was disappointed at moving away from the Ministry of Forests, because the critic opposite used to always be so candid and open with me in his discussion at the estimates process.

However, in the member opposite's criticism of Premier Clark making the decision to consider changes for the HST, I would strongly argue that in fact that's listening to British Columbians. It's hearing what they had to say, and it's reacting to it.

I suspect that if Premier Clark had not made that decision and in fact had we stayed with the original commitments, the member opposite would be critical for us not being flexible. The member opposite offers criticism that is shallow, because on many occasions I recall the member opposite saying: "Well, if you just make a change now, it would all be better." I find it difficult to accept the shallow criticism from the member opposite.

Specifically to the member's question, I will say that the process we're considering now in terms of exactly how we will engage in the process of reviewing the trusts…. I anticipate having that work done prior to the end of the calendar year.

N. Macdonald: Okay, so let's just continue with the shallow criticisms, then, and the shallow questions for the minister. The question is…. Let's get the minister on the record here. On the record the minister has said that they are going to have it done by the end of the year. The minister has said that these reviews will take place at the end of the year. Let's just be clear here. Will there be publicly released terms of reference for these reviews?

Hon. P. Bell: I have yet to take forward to cabinet the final shape of the reviews as they will be done, so I can't confirm to the member opposite whether there will be a public terms of reference or not at this time.

N. Macdonald: Well, I mean, what the minister can do is listen to the words of the Premier. The Premier has said that things are going to be open, that it's going to be different from the past ten years, where there's been a consistent pattern of hiding information.

The minister can take the Premier at her word and can start to give commitments here in this House around how he is going to run this review of these trusts. The question is when. The minister has been pretty vague on that. I hope that's not a shallow question. I think it was pretty vague saying, "some point at the end of the year" — if you get to it, perhaps. You could be more specific than that.

You can certainly be more specific about the level of openness you're going to have in doing these reviews. It's a fair question. The minister can stand up and make the decision now. Are you going to do it in a closed way or an open way?

Do you commit now to release the terms of reference for these reviews, or is this intended to be a sort of typical B.C. Liberal review where the information remains hidden? Is it going to be open? In that case the minister can commit to getting the terms of reference and putting them out into the public. Will the minister do that?

[1120]

Hon. P. Bell: Well, I'm glad to see that the member has changed his view on our new Premier in the span of about a minute and a half from his first question to his second question. Previously, he was critical of the new Premier deciding to listen to British Columbians and to follow a different path, and now he's suggesting that we should make a firm commitment and not make any changes after that.

What I will tell the member opposite is that we have a firm commitment to have open government. We have a firm commitment to make sure that we're communicating with the public. I think we've clearly demonstrated that already, and as we decide on the final shape of the review that will take place of the various trusts that have been committed to by the Premier, we'll make sure that we do incorporate into that all of the commitments that we've made already, very publicly, about having open processes and open government.

N. Macdonald: Well, it's typical to talk about these in vague terms, but when you're asked specifically to commit to something, you don't. So if you're unable to say that you're going to have public terms of reference, are
[ Page 6666 ]
you going to have public tender for this review? Is it going to be done internally and then the information kept internal, or is it going to happen at all, at the end of the year, or whenever? I mean, surely the minister has given some thought to this. Can you commit as to whether there is going to be public tender for the reviews?

Hon. P. Bell: I have already pretty clearly said to the member opposite that we are considering our options right now in terms of how we might go forward. I'll take that recommendation to cabinet once it's completed. But what I will commit to the member opposite is that we will honour the spirit of the commitments that the Premier has made in terms of open, accountable government, making sure that people are engaged and involved in decisions that are being made.

Some of the suggestions that the member opposite has stated in terms of making sure that we have that open and accountable process are ones that we're very supportive of. I can't give the member opposite the level of detail he's looking for today because that decision has not yet been made.

N. Macdonald: Well, the record of this government speaks for itself over the past ten years. It will be interesting to see if there is any change. The very least the minister can commit to is that the results of the reviews will be made public.

So far, the minister has been unwilling to say specifically when he intends to finish the job. He has been unwilling to say that he will have the terms of reference ever made public. He's unwilling to say whether it's going to be in public tender. But surely the minister can be absolutely clear that when this is finished — the reports on each of the trusts that we're talking about here — the results will be made public.

Will the minister commit to putting the reports before the people of British Columbia when they're completed, in a timely way?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the member perhaps is stumbling over himself a little bit there. I think the Hansard record will show that he hasn't asked the question yet of whether or not we'll make the reports public once they're completed. I can confirm that, in fact, I will make those reports public when they're completed.

N. Macdonald: Presumably the minister will then do that in a timely way. Timelines tend to sort of fluctuate with B.C. Liberals. There was a time when his ministry was going to double tourism by 2015. I mean, that fluctuation, certainly with that, is something that this House now recognizes is a pattern for the minister.

Let's go to specifics with the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust. Let's just talk about one of the areas that the minister is tasked with looking at. The question is: why is the Premier looking at these trusts? Presumably there are problems. Can I just ask about just one example?

With the Southern Interior Development Trust, you had Delta Air Lines. Delta Air Lines is a private company. It is a company that is based out of Salt Lake City — at least, that's one of its hubs.

[1125]

The Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust provided money to Delta to fly to Cranbrook — a bit of an odd setup. The question is: how much money was provided to Delta, and what was the criteria for that money?

Hon. P. Bell: I find it a little bit rich. The member opposite says that B.C. Liberals' timelines fluctuate a little bit when, if memory serves me correct, it's the leader of that party that chose to go through a revisionist history process and actually backdate memos trying to absolve their previous leader from an activity. So to suggest that we have flexible timelines…. I'd go and talk to his leader, who is the one that is the master of revisionist history and the master of backdating memos, and I think the court processes will show that.

The specifically stated comment in the leader's document….

Interjection.

Hon. P. Bell: That may hurt, member opposite, but that's your history, not mine.

The actual specific comments from the Premier in her platform document is: "Review the progress made by regional trust organizations, such as Northern Development Initiative Trust, Island Coastal Economic Trust and Columbia Basin Trust, and look at how we can improve and enhance regionally based economic investments."

It seems to me the logical thing to do. These trusts have been in place now, in some cases, for many, many years, as the member points out with Columbia Basin Trust. Northern Development Initiative Trust, I think, is up to about six or seven years now. So it seems to me prudent to see what the best practices are, if they are successful, and what it is that we can do to continue to enhance the work that goes on with these organizations. So the motivation is simply to make sure that we're getting the best possible results that we can.

N. Macdonald: Well, a rather classless personal attack on another member here.

Hon. P. Bell: Only the facts. Your facts, not mine.

N. Macdonald: I'm just saying that there's a standard for behaviour here, and you crossed the line.
[ Page 6667 ]

Hon. P. Bell: No, I don't think so.

N. Macdonald: I mean, the minister knows that, and other members know that as well.

The Chair: Members.

N. Macdonald: So if you want to get back to the question…

The Chair: Members.

N. Macdonald: …then let's get back to the question, and it's on Delta.

The Chair: Member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, I draw your attention to the estimates debate.

N. Macdonald: The specific question was around Delta Air Lines. The specific question was around trusts — that when they were set up…. The question was whether these would become B.C. Liberal slush funds. That was the question at the time.

Now, as we go and you look at the trust funds, and you look at the pictures they turn out, they pretty clearly serve the government interest. That's what one would often conclude from how they're used.

The question was specifically on Delta Air Lines. Delta Air Lines is a private company. Delta Air Lines received money to augment the revenues that they received in flying into Cranbrook. For the minister's interest, this was pre-election. Delta was given subsidies. The subsidy ended, and the flights ended. It's seen as a fairly odd arrangement. Maybe the minister doesn't think so, but perhaps Premier Clark does think that that's a bit of an odd arrangement.

So specifically, does the minister think that the money…? First, how much money was spent by SIDIT on this? Does the minister think it was a reasonable way to spend money? What is the criteria? The minister has these huge binders. The information is there. The question is legitimate. Would the minister give me information on that Delta deal by SIDIT?

Hon. P. Bell: I apologize for not answering the question the first time around. I will endeavour to this time.

The Southern Development Initiative Trust is at arm's length from government. Government doesn’t control the Southern Development Initiative Trust. In fact, it was set out in legislation and operates independently. Decisions by that trust are made by an independent board, although it was funded initially from the province of British Columbia with $50 million.

[1130]

The specifics around the Delta deal were…. Those decisions, again, were made by the people that sit on the board of the Southern Development Initiative Trust, and the information was publicly reported in their annual report that is made public annually. I do not have a copy of the report here, but if the member opposite would like, I'd be happy to have a copy printed out and delivered to him.

N. Macdonald: Well, I mean, the minister talks about it being at arm's length, but the media around this has a B.C. Liberal cabinet minister at the time bragging about the influence in terms of being able to get this grant — pretty well said that it was government money. I mean, that certainly was the media that was around it.

The minister will be familiar with the specifics of this deal. It involved putting money into a corporate entity based outside of Canada to subsidize a flight into Cranbrook, presumably to support tourism. What were the criteria for that investment? Does the minister think it was successful? To suggest that it was at arm's length when, pre-election, you had B.C. Liberals taking credit for getting the money seems a bit of trying to have it both ways.

The minister has the information. Will he give us those facts? How much was spent by SIDIT? What were the criteria? What was the business case for doing this?

Hon. P. Bell: I actually recall several circumstances where NDP MLAs stood on the stage with other trusts and celebrated investment decisions made by those trusts. So I don't think it's unusual for a local MLA, be it an opposition or government MLA, to stand in support of an economic decision made with funds from any one of the trusts that have been established in this province.

But as I said prior, I'd be happy to…. It's available on the website, but if the member opposite would like a copy of the Southern Interior Development Trust annual report which has the details on this specific transaction, we'd be happy to provide it if he doesn't want to print it out on his own.

In addition, I would remind the member opposite that we are here to discuss the 2011 estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, and I believe that the transaction or deal that the member is referring to stems back to about 2009.

N. Macdonald: Well, I just thank the minister for again the belittling answer. If this is the sort of openness that we can expect in terms of the review of these trusts, I think that British Columbians will not be surprised to again find that it is hidden and that for any information that may be provided, they can wait a long time because they're not going to get it from this minister, and they're not going to get it in this process.

Simple questions about whether the process is going to be made public in a meaningful way, and the minister has been pretty clear to those that would watch
[ Page 6668 ]
that that's not going to happen. Even simple questions about what has taken place within the trust, the minister doesn't seem interested in answering.

Let's go to a different trust. Let's go to the Columbia Basin Trust. Columbia Basin Trust was initially set up by the NDP to deal with, really, a historically difficult chapter for people in the Columbia Valley. Problems were created in 1964 that the valley residents have had to live with for a long period of time.

Now, the minister will know that the Columbia Basin Trust was set up in part to try to ease some of those problems for communities and people living in the Columbia Basin. While no organization is perfect, there is ample evidence and certainly strong feeling within the Columbia Basin that the Columbia Basin Trust has served the area very, very well — and a strong feeling that what comes in the next number of years is going to be crucially important for the people of our areas.

[1135]

The minister knows or will know that the Columbia River treaty is open to review in 2024. Notice must be given in 2014 if changes are to be made to the treaty. The Columbia Basin Trust has been tasked by the government with acting as a facilitator and canvasser on behalf of basin residents. They are to assist basin residents to organize and to be meaningfully engaged in the treaty discussions.

Now, the member for Kootenay West and myself participated in a forum that the Columbia Basin Trust had set up, which included representatives from the United States — from Bonneville Power as well as from the Army Corps of Engineers.

In that forum it became very clear that American communities in the affected areas of the Columbia River treaty area are organized and will be prepared to report out by 2013 in a really in-depth community consultation and process that makes it clear that you have agencies that are committed to involving people in the basin in a meaningful way.

There is activity by the Columbia Basin Trust, but we left that meeting feeling we were well behind the Americans in the public decision-making that is needed for our region. There is an understanding of the impacts of the Columbia River treaty on our area. It's not necessarily widely held in British Columbia, but it certainly is in the Kootenays.

There is a phase 1 report that included B.C. Hydro, Bonneville Power and the Army Corps of Engineers. They all contributed. It focused on power and flood control, but no community concerns on a whole host of other issues, including fisheries, wildlife habitat, cultural resources, recreation, irrigation, water supply, water quality or navigation.

The exchange so far has been a bit testy, so let's just change the tone here. This is a hugely important issue. It is a hugely important issue. It is a one-in-a-generation opportunity for people in our area. The Columbia Basin Trust, which the minister has responsibility for, has been tasked to make sure that that public discussion is going to be deep and far-reaching.

The question is: how much is the government providing to the Columbia Basin Trust to conduct community consultation?

Hon. P. Bell: I appreciate the member's concern and very much agree with him that this is an important period of time for the discussion around the Columbia River treaty and how that's managed going forward. I appreciate the member's interest. I think it is a bipartisan one. We all need to make sure we're fully engaged in this process to best represent the interests of people through the Columbia Basin area.

[1140]

My understanding of this file is that the Columbia Basin Trust is dealing with the community engagement process. We're not aware at this table of a specific direction, at least from this ministry, to CBT to lead that. As far as we know, that was a decision they made. We could be wrong about that, and I'm happy to be corrected if the member opposite has some further information. It's just that our corporate knowledge at this table leads us to that conclusion.

The Ministry of Energy and Mines is leading the physical negotiation process over the rights and how the treaty may be renegotiated or carried forward on an ongoing basis. So in terms of the actual negotiation, probably best to ask the Minister of Energy and Mines that.

In terms of specific to CBT and the work that they are doing, I would be happy to answer whatever questions I'm capable of answering here today, although our corporate knowledge is somewhat limited, and it may require an answer in writing at a later date if that's acceptable to the member opposite.

N. Macdonald: Well, I think it is. There is bipartisan interest in that if we had a gathering of Kootenay MLAs from both parties, we would, as Kootenay MLAs, agree on how we are supposed to go forward on this. The questions will be specifically around the public engagement process which is with the Columbia Basin Trust. If the question is more like I'm providing information on the record, that could be the case, but it's an important thing to put on the record.

The Kootenays want to own this process as much as possible, and we're just looking at one factor. Right now $300 million per year in downstream benefits flow into provincial coffers. We supply one-half of B.C.'s power needs. Power from the area that I represent provides enough power for two million homes per day. So we supply a tremendous amount of wealth to the province by providing energy in a cheap and efficient way to the
[ Page 6669 ]
rest of the province, and we also create $200 million to $300 million per year.

Now, the NDP moved, with the Columbia Basin Trust, to alleviate some of the damage that was done, but Kootenay residents see a tremendous imbalance. They see that we have lost huge numbers of schools, hospitals. In my area, three of four courthouses shut down. We see forestry offices gone. Beginning in 2002-2003 right up, as the minister knows, to very recent history, we have lost government agents, and it goes on and on like this.

Columbia-Kootenay pays the price for that $300 million in other ways too. We have lost a tremendous amount of opportunity in forestry. I mean, there is a list. It has all been tabulated. Essentially, we have one opportunity with the renegotiation to get this right. The minister's responsibility is to ensure that the Columbia Basin Trust has the resources to make that consultation real, deep and wide.

There is a very tight, tight time frame here. We are talking about the Americans ready to report out from their communities by 2013. We need to be in the same place. I know work has been done, but there is a tremendous amount of work that still needs to be done.

So the question here is: what commitment is there that the Columbia Basin Trust and the government will use this one-in-a-generation opportunity to correct the social, environmental and economic impacts of damming in the Columbia-Kootenay?

Hon. P. Bell: As luck would have it, the member opposite and I actually share a fair bit in common. About half the power from the province comes from his riding, and the other half comes from my riding with Williston Lake and the Peace River system.

[1145]

Thanks to the good fortune and the good thinking behind two gentlemen by the names of Ray Williston and W.A.C. Bennett, the twin river system was developed in the 1960s and flooded significant portions of the member's riding as well as the riding that I represent today.

However, it has served us all well, as the member points out. A significant value to all British Columbians has come as a result of those decisions — and challenges, in both of our ridings, as a result of it.

I would suggest to the member opposite the following. I hesitate to do this, but I will. I have had the file for about seven weeks now and don't have the depth of knowledge or understanding that the member opposite has. I would invite the member opposite, along perhaps with the other members from the Kootenays, to…. We will offer a meeting, an hour or two if necessary, to get together prior to the end of this session, where we can discuss the opportunities going forward around the negotiation and how that can be best managed in order to reflect the needs of the residents in the Kootenay region.

If that is an acceptable solution to the member opposite, I would propose that we invite the four members from the Kootenays and myself to sit down and review that.

N. Macdonald: Well, I'd just like to point out that the minister invited the critic for Tourism to lunch, and you didn't do the same to us. I just wonder….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: It's even a longer meeting. Okay.

In all seriousness, that would be very much appreciated. Just to give on the record more background for the minister. When Mica 5 and Mica 6, which are excellent projects, in 2008 were being implemented, B.C. Hydro, which has improved its processes pretty substantially, went through a community consultation on those projects, which of course would have limited impact but nevertheless had real impacts. One of the conclusions they reached is that there needed to be a thorough process to address longstanding grievances surrounding the lack of adequate compensation.

As the minister becomes more familiar with what took place on the Columbia River, there are stories that families still tell about how they were dispossessed from their land. There are still real economic restrictions.

I can just speak from Golden — the reservoir and how it is managed. It benefits all British Columbians, and we understand that. But the complications for our forest industry, the complications with using that reservoir the way that it's used, are huge. Those impacts are not recognized and compensated for. But that opportunity to get proper compensation comes, as I say, once a generation with the treaty that's coming forward.

The offer that the minister has made to meet with members from the Kootenays…. I would suggest not only that Kootenay West and Nelson-Creston would join you, but I'm sure that you've heard and will hear about this from the member for Kootenay East as well. There are the four of us to sit down and talk about the process that's going forward.

Unless the member for Kootenay West has a question, I'll turn it over, and we'll set up that meeting. I thank you for the opportunity.

G. Gentner: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Gentner: With us in the gallery today, or above me somewhere in the gallery, are some of North Delta's finest: 28 students from Mrs. Blaak's grade 5 class at Sunshine Hills Elementary. Included in that are staff and parents. Can the House please give them a warm welcome.
[ Page 6670 ]

Debate Continued

K. Conroy: I just want to reiterate what the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke said. I was in the Kootenays, in Castlegar, in the early '60s when the original dam, the High Arrow dam, was being built. I saw the devastation. I saw the destruction, but I also saw the benefits that came to the community. When they really came back to the community was in the '90s, when the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corp were developed then.

[1150]

People still in our community talk about the devastation of what those dams did to our communities, how it benefited the entire province, but it didn't benefit — really benefit — the Kootenays. So to not have a voice in what's happening now is incredibly frustrating. The people are looking around and saying: "What's happening? What is the government doing?"

It was very obvious to us last weekend that the Americans are very well organized. Not only are they organized through the government agencies; they're organized with people in the communities throughout all of the states that are part of the Columbia Basin. For us not to be as far ahead as they are was really frustrating for us to see.

It is important that the Columbia Basin Trust is there. I think it's also important that the government has some input into what the trust is doing through some financial remuneration. I don't think that, once again, it should be all on the trust to be responsible for the funding of that consultation. I think the government — which will benefit hugely by this treaty, which already has benefited from it for many, many years and will continue to benefit from it — should be part of contributing to the cause.

I bring that to the minister's attention. We just want to make sure that what happened in 1964, what happened in the '60s, does not happen again to the people of the Kootenays in 2011 and onwards through to 2024.

Once again, I thank you for the invitation to meet. We need to meet, and I think that the minister is well aware now of where we're coming from with it.

Hon. P. Bell: The member discloses that she was living in the Kootenays in the early to mid-1960s, and I can't believe, due to her youthful age, that she would possibly be able to remember what went on at perhaps age one or two. I'm certain she can't be older than that. I find it incredible.

The member opposite actually does point out, I think interestingly, that there were impacts of decisions made in my riding with the W.A.C. Bennett dam and Williston Lake, the largest reservoir. I don't know whether it is globally anymore or not. I think it still is, actually, because the Three Gorges dam didn't create a reservoir as big as Williston Lake. Anyway, it's a very large lake and many displaced people and many challenges around it, so I understand the nature of those decisions over the years.

I think we still have a couple of minutes. I don't know if there are any other critics prepared to ask questions at this point or if we should just move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

J. Kwan: I guess, on the rural issues, our colleagues are done, then, with respect to that. I'm going to yield the floor to the member from Cowichan. Ladysmith? Nanaimo?

The Chair: Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

D. Routley: Somewhere on Vancouver Island.

The Island Coastal Trust is an interest of my constituents. Recently the E&N Railway ceased passenger operations on Vancouver Island because of poor track conditions. Several of the projects that were funded by the Island Coastal Trust involved beautification of stations and various improvements alongside the rail. I wonder about the wisdom of those investments, now that we see that in fact the track was in such poor condition that it can no longer support passenger rail service.

Does the minister have any view on how wise it was to spend millions to upgrade stations and beautify the accessories alongside the track while the track was in such deplorable condition?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the issue the member points to would be the type of thing that would be contemplated in the Premier's commitment in her platform document — that we'd want to look at decisions of that nature and see if they were based on the appropriate principles of creating significant economic benefit to the local communities.

I will take the member at his word. I haven't seen the specific improvements that the member opposite refers to, but I understand that if they are as described, that may have been an investment one would want to think through. I don't know if there would have been sufficient knowledge as to the quality of the track at the time or not. But I think, again, that's the type of thing we'll be looking at as we do the reviews.

I think with that, Madam Chair, we will recommend that we rise, report substantial progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 6671 ]

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

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

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

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $52,297,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. D. McRae: Good morning. A number of ministry employees have joined us here today, and I'd like to introduce some of the people that are working to ensure the success of agriculture in British Columbia.

To my right is Wes Shoemaker, the deputy minister. Behind is Denise Bragg, who is the executive financial officer. In the back there is Lindsay Kislock, assistant deputy minister, agriculture science and policy division. We have Grant Parnell, assistant deputy minister, strategic industry partnerships division. Other ministry employees will be coming and going through the course of our estimates, and I'll introduce them as they arrive so that they don't feel left out.

It's an honour for me to speak here to the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture. For the record, just in case, I'll make sure everybody knows that this is my first time speaking to estimates. I'm looking forward to the quality conversation that we'll have back and forth, all working for the common good of agriculture in this province.

We're very lucky in British Columbia, for obvious reasons. We have a beautiful climate, and the geography is very conducive to agriculture in many ways. The agricultural land we have is not as abundant as it is in other provinces, but what we do have I think we treasure greatly. I'm very proud to represent and help grow agriculture in this province.

One of the things we also do have is the geographic advantage of being Canada's Asia-Pacific gateway. Five of our six biggest customers are there: China with its billion-plus people, Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan. We're perfectly located to send our food products to Asia. We have the advantage of growing quality products and also being able to do it faster than anywhere else in North America, and the quality relationships that we have, have been developed over the last number of years.

I'm proud to say that the previous Minister of Agriculture and the Ministry of Agriculture itself made a trade mission to Asia last October. We had the primary focus on market access for B.C. beef and berries. From my understanding — though I wasn't there, obviously — it laid some great framework and foundation to build and expand the trade. With the 1.5 billion consumers there, any chance we have the opportunity to increase the purchase area for B.C. products is absolutely vital.

Then when we look here in British Columbia, I'm very proud to say that more than ever our farmers markets are a success. There are nearly a hundred farmers markets across this province. They are growing in both number of participants and number of visitors, and in pure numbers over a period of time in the last several years as people become more and more aware of how important it is to support local producers and local product. Not only is it the farmers market where you can basically purchase good-quality British Columbia goods, but grocery stores across this province have recognized the importance of good-quality B.C. product. Not only is it good for the consumers for quality nutrition, but it also is good for the local economy.

Also further beyond that is farm-gate sales. I think more and more people want to actually get to know their producer and hear the story of agriculture in their community and know the pride that the farm family takes in basically creating the product and selling it to the consumer. I think that this is actually a huge experience that people really relish, and it's also reflected, as well, in things like agritourism.

There is definitely a global spotlight on agriculture, and I think that it will continue to grow. We're going to advance agriculture in B.C. with a strong vision, courage and creativity, and we're also going to think outside the box.

I want, first of all, to thank the members opposite for, I'm sure, their incredibly long nights getting ready for these estimates, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much for coming today.

L. Popham: I feel fortunate to be here myself. I would like to welcome the new Minister of Agriculture. This is my third set of estimates for Agriculture, and that is in line with the third Minister of Agriculture that I've had to have a relationship with.

[1015]
[ Page 6672 ]

As far as I'm concerned, what the minister said in his opening statements is completely true. We live in an amazing province that offers incredible potential to grow agriculture. I want to keep this positive, because I believe that this is one of the best times for agriculture that we've seen because of consumer awareness.

But at the same time, it's quite puzzling, after listening to the minister, to try and understand why we have the lowest investment in agriculture in any province in Canada. We're at 5 percent; the national average is 15 percent. I believe that agriculture is an economic driver, and it's hard for me to understand, when I'm touring around the province and hearing about the lack of support to the agricultural communities that the minister himself has alluded to supporting.

Although this is a positive time, I find that the budget for Agriculture is disappointing, and it continues to be disappointing each time I'm in estimates. One of the reasons why we have agriculture as a strength in our province is because of a decision that was made in the '70s around the agricultural land reserve. A commission was established to protect that reserve and to promote agriculture. This year we've seen the biggest cut in our budget around the Agricultural Land Commission.

So I would like to open the estimates by discussing the Agricultural Land Commission, with permission from the minister. Because the deepest cut in the ministry is around the Agricultural Land Commission, I guess I'm wondering why that decision was made.

Hon. D. McRae: You know, the budget has been reduced by $114,000, or 5 percent. It's done in part because we have the targeted reduction for the government to meet its financial plan.

It's been a very rough time to be in government, not just in British Columbia but in North America. Obviously, the recession of 2007 through 2009 brought some fiscal impacts. It is just a challenging time to meet, basically, the financial challenges there plus meet the areas of health care, education and social services.

It's all a balancing act, and we're trying very hard, basically, for the ministry to be as effective as possible and find the efficiencies it can within, without cutting services.

L. Popham: Let's be clear about how the budget for the Agricultural Land Commission has actually been reduced since 2003. There's been a third of the budget cut. There was an Auditor General's report that came out that basically lays out the fact that they are now cutting into their ability to effectively run the Agricultural Land Commission.

So I'm going to ask the minister again: why was the decision made to make that specific cut?

[1020]

Hon. D. McRae: As I said earlier, the government has to meet its required fiscal targets. Yes, you know, we do recognize that there was a $114,000 cut to the ALC budget. But at this stage what we're doing is looking forward to working with the ALC and basically making sure they can achieve their mandate as we go forward and allow them to be as effective as possible and cost-efficient to the taxpayer.

L. Popham: Thank you, Minister. There's a theme that resonates when we talk about agriculture, and it's been happening for the last three sets of estimates. That's the fact that agriculture seems to be a cost to this government instead of an investment.

When you look at the rewards that you get back when you invest in agriculture…. It's commonly known that what you get back is much more than what you spend. So the benefits in job creation that specifically relate to our domestic market are critical, and that is something that happens with each dollar that's spent in agriculture.

As far as being fiscally responsible, I think that a cut to the budget in Agriculture is actually fiscally irresponsible. But again, I'm going to ask the minister: when making the decision to cut the budget for the Agricultural Land Commission, how was that decision made and why?

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: Like I mentioned earlier, the government is committed to returning to a balanced budget. Yes, there were cuts to the ALC of $114,000. But we have done so in an attempt, working with the ALC, to achieve these goals through trying to find administrative efficiencies within the organization and protect the core services.

[1025]

L. Popham: Thank you, Minister. I think everybody understands that the current government put aside $950 million in a contingency fund allowing the new Premier to have flexibility in spending, so I'm just wondering. Is this something…? Is this a fund that the Minister of Agriculture is lobbying for, to bring the funding for the Agricultural Land Commission up to an appropriate level?

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, as the member across knows, the Minister of Finance has control over the contingency budget, but I do continue to advocate for the interests of the ministry at all times possible, trying to make sure that we have the best amount of resources and services available.

L. Popham: Thank you, Minister. The report by the Auditor General specifically says that the budget for the
[ Page 6673 ]
Agricultural Land Commission is below its minimal requirements to maintain its core business. So my question to the minister is this. Can the minister tell me his understanding of what the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is?

Hon. D. McRae: Well, I can give you the technical definition out of the books, but otherwise what it comes down to, basically, is that the ALC mandate is to preserve agricultural land, encourage farming and work with local government to encourage agriculture.

[1030]

L. Popham: Understanding that, one of the priorities is to protect and preserve farmland. Right now we have a budget that doesn't allow for, in my opinion, adequate enforcement in situations that are destroying farmland, such as fill dumping. For me, that would be a priority and something to look at.

I know that there is a report on the minister's desk that was submitted by the Agricultural Land Commission — I haven't seen it yet; it's my understanding that it's a business plan — with recommendations on how the ALC would be best funded. I'm just wondering…. At this point there's not enough money to fulfil the mandate, and preserving farmland is probably of top importance to most people in British Columbia. How is the minister addressing this at this time?

Hon. D. McRae: The member across calls the report a business plan, and I want to basically be very clear that it's not a business plan or a budget. The actual purpose of the report was to review. The review was to verify that the ALC is meeting its mandate while looking for ways to improve its decision-making process and achieve its mandate more effectively, but it is not a business plan or a budget.

L. Popham: Thank you, Minister. Within the report that's been submitted, I guess I have two questions around that. When will you be releasing that to the public? I would like to know when you'd be releasing that to me.

Also, as far as recommendations go, I call it a business plan because I think there was a very in-depth look at how the Agricultural Land Commission was operating. I know that the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission…. His heart is in agriculture and protecting agricultural land and promoting agriculture in B.C. The recommendations that he may have put forward to you would be something that would be an effective tool for trying to establish a proper budget for the Agricultural Land Commission.

We're now going into almost, probably, eight months since the Auditor General's report came out. The report to the minister from the Agricultural Land Commission was submitted at the end of last October, maybe the beginning of November. It's very critical at this point, as we move into a new growing season, to address the concerns of the Agricultural Land Commission.

I was lucky enough to spend the day over in Burnaby with the commission a few months back and went out with some of their enforcement staff. I was really heartened by the commitment that they have under such a restricted budget. Unfortunately, they're at a point right now, I believe, that the core services they provide are threatened.

Time is of the essence, and I would hope the minister would act on this report as soon as possible. I'm wondering if he could give me a timeline.

[1035]

Hon. D. McRae: Let me re-emphasize to the member opposite: this review is not a budget nor business plan. I'm looking forward to sharing this report with the Premier and cabinet in the near future.

There's not been a major review in the ALC in ten-plus years, and the last thing I want to do is move too quickly at the expense of agriculture in this province. Let me assure the member opposite that this review is a priority for both myself and for this government.

L. Popham: Thank you, Minister. Unfortunately, that answer is a bit too vague, and I would like to know when you're releasing that report. I believe that it's been on the minister's desk for months now. If agriculture is a priority, I believe that probably allowing us all a window into that report would be helpful, if we're all going to be working on agriculture together in this province.

The problem with the way that the budget for the ALC has been decreasing over the years is that it's death by a thousand cuts. It's shocking to visit the site in Burnaby, specifically when looking at the maps that are being used. These are the original maps that the Agricultural Land Commission started using. They are part of British Columbia's history, and I believe they deserve more of a priority than the state they're in right now, although I commend the staff for taking extremely good care of them.

But these are paper maps from the '70s. The way they're being stored brought some questions to light. Are they being protected from water damage in case of fire? Are they being put into archival form and put into our museums? These are incredible pieces of our history, and the reason why those maps are still in use, from what I understand, is that there's not enough in the budget to transfer all of that material on to a computer-based system.

I know that there are attempts that are being made right now with the budget they have, but that should be a priority, and that's unacceptable. I know that that's
[ Page 6674 ]
probably in the report that was given to the minister by the Agricultural Land Commission, but these are things that….

In the near future, I understand, a release of this report politically speaking is good, but for me that's rhetoric. I want to see that report now, and I want to see this province taking action when it comes to agriculture. It's not a priority, because you can see that by the amount that was given to this ministry in the budget. This is not a priority for this government. We'll be getting more into that as we review each line item that I'd like to discuss with you.

[1040]

So I want to know exactly when you're releasing that report. If it's in the near future, to me that means in a month. Maybe the minister can give me some indication of what that means.

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to thank the member opposite for commending the great efforts that the employees of the ALC have been making. We're truly lucky to have all of them working for the good of agriculture and the good of the province.

While I don't like making excuses at all, I will remind the member that we do have a new Premier, we have a new cabinet, and I'm a brand-new minister. We have been sitting in Victoria for only five days in this legislative session. This ministry, like almost all ministries, is working very hard to meet its financial commitments to the taxpayers of British Columbia, but let me re-emphasize that releasing the ALC report is a major issue, a major priority for me.

I've met with the chair of the ALC already, twice since I have become Minister of Agriculture. I think that the meetings have been very fruitful, and I've been always keen to hear his insight into how we can improve the ALC and improve agriculture in this province. So again, I'm not going to be able to give you a date today. It is a priority, and I'd like to release it in the near future.

L. Popham: I understand what the minister is saying, but the choice of how many days we've sat in this House was not a choice by the official opposition. That was a choice by the government. So knowing that that report has been there since November, it's hard for me to understand that it's a priority.

It's spring. That's when farming happens, the majority of farming, in British Columbia. As we speak here today, there is dump truck after dump truck filled with construction fill being dumped onto prime agricultural land in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island. That is something that seems to me to be an emergency. There isn't enough money in the budget to watch every one of those dump truck loads of fill being dumped. It's a huge crisis in agriculture. You cannot have an agricultural land reserve with a commission that's mandated to protect agricultural land without treating that issue as a priority.

Does the minister have a plan for fill dumping on agricultural land?

[1045]

Hon. D. McRae: The ALC has a plan to deal with this issue in the future, and it basically revolves around partnerships with other government agencies and local governments which should be key to the ALC's success.

For example, just recently 11 appointees from FLNRO were used to assist with compliance matters that the ALC had in front of it, and basically this experience was very successful and resulted in some good results. Right now the ALC is looking to continue on this relationship but also expand this relationship so that basically matters of concern are brought into compliance.

L. Popham: Part of the problem with fill dumping onto agricultural land is there's no requirement for testing. I guess I'm wondering: does the government have any current plans to amend the right-to-farm legislation or other pieces of legislation that would ensure proper soil testing as a requirement to fill dumping on agricultural land?

[1050]

Hon. D. McRae: We're obviously very aware of this issue, and we take it incredibly seriously. We're working with ALC and other ministries to address this issue.

L. Popham: Thank you, Minister. I've got two more questions before I allow my friends to ask some questions as well.

I guess I'd like to know: does the minister believe that the cut in the budget to the Agricultural Land Commission will have a negative impact on the commission? Or does he think that the cut in the budget will not affect the commission at all?

Hon. D. McRae: I want to re-emphasize that this government and all governments are dealing with these tough financial times to the best of their ability, and I'm very proud that I think this government has done a yeoman's service.

The cut of $114,000 to the ALC has been basically dealt with through adapting administrative efficiencies within the organization. But let me also resay that our focus remains that we want to work with the ALC. We want to move forward and allow them to best achieve their mandate.

[1055]

L. Popham: Am I understanding it correctly, then, that the cut to the budget of the Agricultural Land Commission would just be considered by the minister
[ Page 6675 ]
an administrative efficiency change and not affecting the core services? The Auditor General's report that I have says that we're already below the amount needed to fulfil the requirements to maintain its core business.

Efficiencies. I'm not sure if we're understanding the word "efficiency" in the same way. To me, it already seems like we're below what we need. Does the minister believe that this is just an efficiency cut, allowing the commission to work at a more efficient level?

Hon. D. McRae: Any budget cut to an organization has an impact, and I want to acknowledge that, obviously.

But we do look forward to working with the ALC. We look forward to working with its chair to make the organization as responsive to the needs of agriculture as possible. At the same time, we want to balance the responsible use of taxpayers' dollars in these tough economic times with making sure the ALC is able to meet its mandate of protecting agriculture.

V. Huntington: With respect to the minister, it does not matter whether you've been in your position for five days, two months or ten years. What you do represent is this government's policy on agriculture in the province of British Columbia. And on this side of the aisle — as, I'm sure, everywhere in this room — there are a lot of people who are extremely concerned about the situation this minister represents and the faith that we have in our government toward its commitment to the agricultural industry in this province.

I have to say that there is a great deal of concern in this province about the government's commitment and that the questions on this side of the House are genuinely posed, and we need some specific answers.

[1100]

We want to take back to our public that this government does, indeed, support agriculture and is committed to the Agricultural Land Commission. Without the Land Commission in a strong and fiscally able way to represent its mandate, the ALR will go up in smoke within two years in this province. That's what concerns us here.

I understand that the portfolio is new, but I don't believe that the answers we're getting represent the urgency with which we need those answers. I really suggest that the minister ask his staff for more specific responses to these questions.

Could I ask the minister: have you personally read the Auditor General's report on the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. D. McRae: I hope there are no illusions here. When I came in as Minister of Agriculture, even before I met my staff in a serious capacity…. The ALC and the ALR are absolutely essential to myself. I'm from the Comox Valley. It is something that is part of our culture. It is absolutely essential not only to the sense of our community but to the sense of our agriculture community. I hope that there are no illusions with anybody in this room that it's not a priority to myself or this government.

You asked a question specifically to the Auditor General's report. One of the nice things about being minister…. Again, I'm not here to make excuses. I said that I want to know about the ALC and the ALR as much as possible, as soon as possible. Amongst the many, many binders I was able to receive, the first ones I got to and opened up were on the ALC.

Yes, I've read the Auditor's report, and it's just part of the puzzle about moving forward and preserving the ALC to the best possible level that we can. I guess the other thing is…. Let me remind the members opposite that, basically, the review commissioned by the minister of the day was put forward and asked for prior to the AG's report coming out. But it's just one of the tools, as all the tools will be, to making sure that the ALC meets its mandate and commitment to preserving and protecting agriculture in this province.

[1105]

V. Huntington: Thank you for that, Minister. I'm not sure I quite understand when you say the previous minister asked for…. Was it the ALC chair's review before the Auditor General's? I would need to see the timing of that. It's not important here, but I think there is a bit of a timing problem on that statement.

Madam Chair, as you can understand, what we need is a firm commitment from this government that it stands behind the mandate of the ALC, and we are not receiving that. I have absolutely no doubt that the minister supports the mandate of the ALC, but that's not good enough anymore.

The ALC is suffering. It is incapable of pursuing its mandate effectively anymore, and without the commitment from this government and without this minister telling us that he is fighting all the way through cabinet to get the fiscal priorities of the ALC in hand, we have no faith anymore.

I can tell you that the public doesn't have any faith anymore. They are extremely concerned about the inability, or maybe the unwillingness — and that's the point to which it's getting, at least in areas of the Fraser Valley — of the ALC to protect the agricultural land base in the province. They can't do it without the tools, and the tools are what are needed right now, and those needs are based on the fiscal ability of that commission to do its job.

Can I ask the minister: what does he feel are the fiscal priorities of the ALC at this moment?

[1110]
[ Page 6676 ]

Hon. D. McRae: The member opposite asked about the financial priorities of the ALC. I think the answer that the member opposite is looking for is that we're looking to continue with the enforcement and compliance elements of the ALC, working with local government on land use planning. Also, we're going to continue to have the ALC work with other government ministries in support of agriculture.

I don't know if you want more details or specifics in response to your question as to actual dollar amounts.

V. Huntington: Well, yes, I certainly would, if you have them, appreciate the dollar amounts, because that's what counts at this stage.

Yes, we want them to continue their enforcement activities and continue the hoped-for long-range planning with local governments and continue the science that would enable them to draw a hard edge around the ALR.

But I'm wondering, given the fiscal problems that this government has, what you personally feel is the fiscal priority of the ALC that you can satisfy. And how much more money do you think you'll be able to give them in order to allow them to do the job that they need to do and which both, I'm assuming, the chair of the ALC has advised you of in his review and the Auditor General has advised are absolutely critical for their mandate to be carried?

So if you have further specifics, I would certainly love to hear them, Minister.

[1115]

Hon. D. McRae: As you know, we have the AG's report. We have the chair's ALC review. I look forward to bringing these recommendations forward to my cabinet colleagues. Once we have those recommendations in front of us properly, we can start getting a clear idea of the financial resources required.

Today we are trying to do the very best we can with the resources we have available. When we look at the review and the report, we're going to incorporate those elements into the ALC mandate and see how best we can work within the resources available within government to allow the ALC to move forward to protect and enhance agriculture.

V. Huntington: I'd like to thank the minister, and we look forward with hope to his arguments with his colleagues.

I have one last question, directly relating to my riding of Delta South. I agree with the critic's position that dumping on the agricultural land reserve at the moment — agriculturally zoned land — I think is the most significant problem that the Lower Mainland especially has. I'm not quite familiar with other areas of the province, but because of the construction happening in the Lower Mainland, I want you to know that the richest soil in this country is being covered with boulders and crap, and nobody is able to stop it because there is no enforcement capacity within the ALC.

The corporation of Delta has requested, I believe…. If you haven't already seen the letter, you will be seeing it. They are requesting the ministry's assistance in delegating their enforcement authority to officials within the corporation of Delta.

That is desperately needed, and I hope that the minister takes a personal look at that letter and moves swiftly to assist the ability of at least local government to do the work that the ministry and the ALC are presently incapable of doing. Two enforcement officers just doesn't do it anymore in this province. So I really hope the minister will take a personal interest in that request.

Madam Chair, I'd like to withdraw the use of the word "crap," even though that's what it is. [Laughter.]

[1120]

Hon. D. McRae: Nonetheless, the vernacular at the time was much appreciated. It gets your point across. I guess maybe it's struck from the record but maybe not from Hansard. The visual is forever.

You are correct. Obviously, there are two enforcement officers. Yet at the same time I'm very proud to say that in 2010 we were able to delegate with other enforcement agencies. That's an example where the 11 individuals from FLNRO came in and basically brought the numbers up to 13. That was such a successful partnership. I know we're looking forward not only to using that kind of relationship again but expanding it.

I'm also very proud to say that the chair of the ALC, Richard Bullock, also met with Delta council recently in response to the issue you brought up to discuss partnerships and how to look at this issue in a different way. The reality, in my opinion from my experience in local government, is that local government is on the ground and its citizens are very aware of the issues in their community. That idea of a partnership, I think, has a lot of merit, so I'm glad the chair was being proactive in having that meeting.

B. Simpson: Most of my questions will have to do with ranching, given the neck of the woods that I'm from. Just a quick opening comment on some comments the minister has made. I think it would be a very exciting time to be Minister of Agriculture. One of the things that I find — over the years that I've been here, certainly — is that ministers have an opportunity to be leaders in their file or to be followers in their file. I think it takes a while to figure out which one you want to be. Agriculture is definitely one of those files that, I believe, needs political leadership. It needs direction from the minister.

We are in probably one of the most exciting times because people are concerned about food security. They
[ Page 6677 ]
are concerned about local production. They are concerned about these announcements that they get from the industrial food sector about tainted meat and things coming from China that are not healthy and that need to be recalled. I think with the price of oil going the way it is, it's a very exciting time to drive a B.C.-first, a B.C.-feeding-itself, a B.C.-self-sufficiency strategy.

I did have to just very quickly comment on something the minister made as an assertion. The minister asserted that everybody is facing tough times, and it's a catch-all for why the ministry's budget is cut, etc.

In reality, all governments are not. The Saskatchewan government in their 2011-2012 year increased the Agriculture budget by $32 million, making it the second-highest budget that Agriculture has ever had in that province. Not everybody is going down the path, and I think that it would be good if this government actually looked at agriculture as an investment as opposed to a cost centre.

With that in mind, I want to specifically start canvassing the Ranching Task Force, when we talk about investment, and ask the minister specifically: where does that Ranching Task Force lie now? I note in the service plan that somehow it's in the ministry. Last time it was with the parliamentary secretary. Where does the Ranching Task Force lie?

[1125]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: It's no surprise to anyone involved in agriculture in this province that the ranchers have faced some really serious challenges in the last several years. Some challenges are obviously climatic, others are geographic, and others are economic. It's been a many-faceted sort of death of a thousand cuts at so many levels, yet the ranchers are so resilient. I'm so proud that they're able to be there and be proactive.

The ministry finished phase 1, as I'm sure the member opposite well knows, last May. It created its four-point action plan. Again, the member opposite asked about the ALC review. Well, that was one of the priorities. One of the other top priorities was obviously the Ranching Task Force, and its good work.

Since last May the Ranching Task Force continues to meet. It has met twice, and I was pleased to be able to attend one of their meetings. In fact, last April, while I was in Vancouver, I was able to attend their meeting in Richmond. I thought that they were an incredibly dynamic group of individuals who are looking to grow their industry forward and be basically as self-sufficient as possible.

We continue to monitor the regulatory changes that came out of the Ranching Task Force. We also continue to oversee the $5 million in agriflex funding, which they're using to grow and innovate in their industry. I'm looking forward to having them meet again on, I believe, May 31 of this year.

The Ranching Task Force, I think, is a prime example of where you take industry with government, and the two groups work together for the good of agriculture in this province. I was so impressed with the time and efforts that came out of that program. I hope other sectors of agriculture look at that as a really workable plan.

B. Simpson: I will take at face value the minister's thoughts about the ranching community and their resiliency, but after the long period of time that they have been experiencing this death of a thousand cuts, there are a lot of them that are running out of that resiliency, as the minister must be fully aware. With respect to the Ranching Task Force, as I look at it….

Let me go to a specific question, and I would appreciate…. The minister needs to, I think, better understand the time pressures. This government is already giving us a very short period of time to do estimates debate. I know that the critic has a lot of work yet to do. The questions, as long as they're really legitimate and not being challenged by the Chair…. I think it is the minister's responsibility to try and truncate the time for the briefing and deal with questions that are straight-up questions as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the whole ministry can't be canvassed.

So very quickly, in the Ranching Task Force there was a B.C. value creation program tagged at $40 million; the Canada Beef Export Federation, provincial share $250,000 a year; a range improvement fund with a cost of $2 million a year; the B.C. branding initiative, $2 million a year. The minister mentions the $5 million fund, of which $3 million is federal government. Will those other programs in the Ranching Task Force be funded by this government?

[1130]

Hon. D. McRae: At the last AGM the government issued its four-point action plan, and the Ranching Task Force understood at the time that the government is limited in its ability to afford further financial assistance to the cattle industry at this time. However, when provincial revenues permit, the Ranching Task Force advises that an investment in programs would improve the viability of the cattle sector.

Just to remind the member opposite, since 2009 the commitments to the ranching sector have included the harmonized sales tax, which the cattle sector considers as a positive impact on their sector. We have basically committed to highway and rail corridor fencing, rangeland fencing, in the range of $5.5 million. Through Growing Forward, we've brought in the farm advisory services, and there has also been $3.85 million targeted towards invasive plant management.
[ Page 6678 ]

B. Simpson: I hear the same about HST, but I also hear a lot of beef, if you'll pardon the pun, about the carbon tax. So there's a bit of a wash there.

Again, trying to stay specific here, my read of the government's response to the Ranching Task Force is: "You've got Beef Day." It specifically stated that you should continue the parliamentary secretary role. That didn't happen. You have a whole bunch of programs in there that are deemed to be necessary by the ranching community that are pending the government trying to figure out how to balance its books in 2013 and, therefore, in a fiscal restraint period. I think that's the fair assessment of what's going on.

With that in mind, there is a specific incremental ask to this. That is the AgriStability program by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association — a specific ask for $11.5 million as immediately as possible for drought, fire and all of the other issues that they're dealing with and to level the playing field, specifically with Saskatchewan and Alberta, which have, outside of the federal program, supported with significant provincial dollars an AgriStability program. Again, yes or no — is this government going to fund the AgriStability program in this budget?

[1135]

Hon. D. McRae: Member opposite, of course I recognize completely that the fires, the floods and the droughts, which is just an incredible array of climactic issues facing the Ranching Task Force, have impacted the industry — and how it impacted the ranchers themselves. That's why I have and we have, as government, requested a formal AgriRecovery assessment with the federal government. These assessments are underway and ongoing.

B. Simpson: This government has a tendency to hide behind the federal government for funding. In fact, the minister's own announcement of $5 million in the agriflex program is actually $2 million, in order to leverage $3 million from the federal government.

This ask is of the provincial government, and it's an ask for immediacy of response from the provincial government. So rather than hiding behind the federal government, will this government fund this AgriStability request — yes or no? Are you going to fund it?

Hon. D. McRae: I think I might have to correct the member opposite. The ranchers were asking for AgriRecovery dollars, not AgriStability dollars. That's where we're willing to fund the assistance, and we initiated the AgriRecovery assessment program with Canada. That came out of the Ranching Task Force. So we're working with the Ranching Task Force to respond to what they're asking for at this stage and to try to get the dollars that they're eligible for.

B. Simpson: We're running out of time here. I do have an area I need to canvass.

I stand corrected. It is AgriRecovery. I was using the term "AgriStability." It is an adjunct to it. It comes out of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. It's not part of the Ranching Task Force, though. We'll leave that part alone.

I do have to canvass an area that was raised in the Ranching Task Force. The minister has indicated he has responsibility for the Ranching Task Force report on the ongoing function of that, and that's the area of prey management and the ungulate management. As one rancher puts it to me, they've got all kinds of legal obligations on what they do with their herd, and the Crown seems to have no obligations to what it does with the wild herd, particularly elk and deer and wolf and cougar.

[1140]

I'm curious. From the minister's perspective, what is being done to more adequately and appropriately manage the government's herd in this case?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the member opposite knows that the Ministry of Agriculture has a role to play in response to predator control, but it also is sort of a multiministry-pronged issue here. The Ministry of Environment has a role to play. Obviously, I can't answer for them. FLNRO has a role to play. I cannot answer for them.

But obviously, we do have a role to play, and we continue to help fund the verification program for which predators preyed on livestock. Once that's done, we also have the program to help fund compensation for wildlife damage to the livestock. These programs continue.

B. Simpson: Thank you. Noting the time, this will be my last question.

Maybe what I'll need to do is follow up with the minister at a later date, because the minister's main argument today on the ALC or anything to do with agriculture and agriculture investment is that they're tough times, tight times.

Any rancher will tell you that money is better spent on actually getting the predators under control, better spent on actually getting the ungulates under control than spent compensating them for business losses as a result of a verified kill. That's an after the fact and, as far as they're concerned, a waste of money.

I know that much of that is under MOE, and we'll canvass that in MOE. But the minister has what is a major part of the Ranching Task Force in his file, and it strikes me that if you want some cost savings, if you want to actually use taxpayer money more appropriately, we should switch from compensation and verification of kill to money spent controlling the predator population and doing something about elk and ungulates.
[ Page 6679 ]

I would ask the minister if he's willing to take a leadership role on behalf of the ranching community, certainly in my area, to try and drive government to change its priorities to controlling the provincial herd and provincial animals, as opposed to compensating for business loss.

[1145]

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to inform the member opposite that I do intend to take a leadership role in regards to this issue, and I do take it very seriously. By all means, I'd rather be proactive than reactive, and I look forward to making some improvements in this area for sure.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175