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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 2

[ Page 6681 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2011

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Popham: For my curious friends across the way, I'm going to say the names of my guests first. I have Sebastian and Damien here visiting from Germany, along with my husband Jon.

They've joined our family for the next little while because of an amazing program called WWOOF, which stands for Willing Workers on Organic Farms. It's a program that is offered to travellers around the world if they want to come and incorporate themselves into your family life and share in a little bit of farming, eat meals with your family and sort of learn about our culture. It's a fantastic program. By the end of the stay they usually are part of our family.

Welcome to the House.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 54 students from grade 5, our future leaders who are visiting here from the Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers Mrs. Nancy Bakken, Mrs. Sue U-Ming and Mrs. Sharon Van Dijk as well as 21 parents and volunteers who have taken time away from their busy schedule to accompany these kids. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: It gives me great pleasure to inform the House that today marks the International Day of the Midwife, an occasion that is celebrated in over 50 countries around the world, including here in Canada. In recognition of this, I am pleased to inform the House that here in British Columbia the province has proclaimed today, May 5, as British Columbia Midwives Day.

In our province midwives are highly trained, university educated and publicly funded and regulated. They are an important contributor to our health care system and deliver over 10 percent of the 40,000 babies delivered every year in British Columbia. Midwifery care improves health outcomes and is evidence-based. Midwives are deeply committed to the health and well-being of mother, baby and family.

To help celebrate British Columbia Midwives Day, greater Victoria midwives, their supporters and little ones are walking from Clover Point to the front steps of the Legislature today beginning at four.

Joining us here in the gallery today we have two midwives: Kelly Hayes, who practises midwifery on Saltspring Island, where 100 percent of the babies are born into the caring hands of midwives; and Michele Buchmann, who is a longstanding midwife in greater Victoria, where approximately 30 percent of the births are assisted by a midwife.

Would the House please join me in giving a warm welcome to their visit to the Legislature.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I am pleased to introduce to the House today the recently married staff person in the Premier's correspondence branch. Her name is Julie D'Argis. Will the members please congratulate her and make her welcome.

C. Hansen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two special guests who I had the pleasure of having lunch with today in the dining room. One is a very charming young lady by the name of Ellie Girard. She is nine months old, and she showed me during lunch today how she learned to clap very nicely. And of course, all politicians appreciate British Columbians learning that at a very young age. She is accompanied today by her mother Devon Girard, who was such a great help to me as executive assistant in the years that I served in Economic Development and Finance.

I hope that all members, with our clapping, will show Ellie and Devon how much we appreciate them joining us here today.

E. Foster: Joining us in the House today is a longtime friend of mine and the mayor of Vernon. Would the House please make His Worship Mayor Wayne Lippert welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

[1340]

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

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 7, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. This bill amends the following statutes: the Adult Guardianship and Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act; the Clean Energy Act; and the Ministry of Environment Act. The bill also
[ Page 6682 ]
makes a number of consequential housekeeping and clarifying amendments to other statutes.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 7, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment 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.

BILL M204 — FALL FIXED ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

B. Simpson presented a bill intituled Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2011.

B. Simpson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

B. Simpson: This act amends the Constitution Act in order to bring greater transparency and accountability to the budgeting process surrounding British Columbia's fixed general election date. Moving the general election from May to October will ensure that the provincial budget cannot be used for political purposes every four years.

Having elections in the fall will require the governing party to introduce a budget that accurately reflects the state of the government's finances and program priorities in the spring. Moving the election date from May to October would also ensure election year budgets are scrutinized by the opposition and the public and are passed into law, providing certainty to the public service and organizations that are dependent on government program spending. Fall elections would also allow the public to access the comptroller general's assessment of the government's finances presented to Public Accounts in late June.

This bill proposes that the first fall election be held on October 11, 2012. The current fixed election date is May 14, 2013, and it would be reasonable to hold the first fall election in October 2013.

However, there have been some indications from both the Premier and the opposition that an earlier election date is desirable. My hope is that October 11, 2012, will be soon enough for both parties to seek new mandates while still respecting the principle of having fixed election dates.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M204, Fall Fixed Election Amendment 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.

bill m205 — Residential Tenancy
Amendment Act, 2011

S. Chandra Herbert presented a bill intituled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2011.

S. Chandra Herbert: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Chandra Herbert: I rise today to ask each and every member of this House for their support for the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2011.

This is a bill for renters who've withstood incredible odds and an imbalance of power to fight to stay in their homes. It's a bill for residents of the Seafield, who withstood attempts to jack up rents 73 percent through the geographic area increase clause and the same landlord's attempt to drive them out through phony renovations. This is a bill for the residents of Emerald Terrace, where they had to fight fake renovation attempts again and again just to stay in their homes.

It's a bill for thousands of British Columbians who are unknown, who've been forced out of their homes because of a few landlords who abuse loopholes in the legislation. Also, they can get around the law and drive up rents. It says no to massively jacking up rents for renters. It puts into law what is there in spirit. It says no to big landlord companies who try to evict long-term tenants under the pretext that it's for use of a landlord, when there are actually other suites available.

This bill says yes to the vast majority of landlords and renters who do follow the rules and maintain long-term relationships based on trust, a home based on peace and quiet enjoyment, and a steady income for the property owner. It follows some of what the Ontario Liberal government has had in place for years to protect renters.

As members will know, there are a number of other steps needed to balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, but this bill is a good first step. It could be passed into law this week or next week to immediately protect long-term tenants who are currently living under the threat of mass eviction or massive rent hikes because of an unbalanced and unfair Residential Tenancy Act. I hope members of this House will think of their constituents and unite to pass this bill.

I move this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of this House after today.

[1345]
[ Page 6683 ]

Bill M205, Residential Tenancy Amendment 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS

H. Bains: May is Motorcycle Awareness Month. To kick off Motorcycle Awareness Month today, the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists organized their 21st annual MLA Ride. This public awareness campaign started May 1 to convey the importance of being aware of motorcycle drivers who share our roads.

As the weather warms up, we are asking drivers to take extra caution and watch for motorcyclists. In urban areas crashes involving motorcycles often occur at intersections involving an oncoming vehicle. In rural areas there are more single-vehicle accidents where motorcyclists lose control and run off the road due to higher speeds.

When driving we must be extra cautious of our surroundings, especially when turning at intersections. Always be alert to see if there are motorcycles in traffic. Keep in mind that motorcycles are smaller than cars and trucks and more difficult to see. We must be extremely vigilant at this time of the year when motorcyclists are starting to join us on roads and highways.

We need to put ourselves in the same mindset as, when our students go back to school in September, we retrain ourselves to slow down in school zones. Motorcyclists and their associations are reminding themselves to remember to abide by the posted speed limits, as they know that unsafe speed puts you at a greater risk.

Slow down and watch other traffic in intersections. Be sure that traffic sees you. Do not drive in their blind spots. Wear bright clothing and reflective material and keep your headlights on at all times.

Please join with me to thank the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists for organizing the MLA Ride to kick off Motorcycle Awareness Month. It certainly will bring awareness to drivers to be extra careful of their surroundings. It will save lives and reduce injuries to our motorcyclists in British Columbia.

E. Foster: I rise today to discuss a very important matter, which has just been brought up. May is motorcycle safety month in British Columbia. As a longtime motorcycle owner and operator, I certainly applaud the initiatives of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists. They do a tremendous job in bringing awareness to the general public regarding motorcycle safety.

Motorcycles are growing in popularity around the world but perhaps especially so in B.C. According to ICBC, there are over 90,000 motorcycles registered in British Columbia, a number that continues to rise. This is why raising awareness of motorcycle safety is vitally important. Motorcyclists are seven times more likely to be killed in a crash than other road users.

Today many of my fellow members from both sides enjoyed a brief tour around downtown Victoria and James Bay. The British Columbia Coalition of Motorcyclists was good enough to come out each year and take everyone for a ride and let everybody experience what it's like to be on a motorcycle. This annual event gives MLAs and their staff a glimpse of the passions they have for their amazing pieces of machinery.

The BCCOM does great work advocating for motorcyclists' rights in our province. This is a membership-driven organization, and they have become instrumental in promotion of motorcycle safety, education and awareness in British Columbia. BCCOM has worked hard to raise the profile of the motorcycle community from simply driving in and between the cities all the way to racing and off-road riding.

Most important, however, is their excellent and ongoing work to promote safety. I hope all members of this assembly will join me in thanking the BCCOM for the great work they do for motorcycle enthusiasts and their families in British Columbia.

FIRST NATIONS TREATY CELEBRATIONS
IN KYUQUOT

C. Trevena: On a wet spring night several hundred people sat in a school gym at Kyuquot watching the clock until midnight. The day had been spent with dancing, the sharing of family songs, speeches, gift-giving and feasts.

At midnight on March 31 going into April 1, silence descended. Babies were hushed, and children and their parents, aunties and elders watched as hereditary chiefs and elected councillors of the Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' First Nation signed their first piece of legislation, which took them from subjects under the Indian Act to people with the ability for self-determination.

[1350]

It was the effective date for their treaty. When asked by the elected chief councillor whether anyone wanted to speak, one councillor simply said, "I'm free; I'm free." It was a refrain which echoed around the room and then, through the coming days, through the community.

The celebration moved outside, fireworks were set off, and as people left the hall, they were given a page from the Indian Act to add to the flames on the bonfire. A few hours later the waters of Kyuquot Sound and 70-plus kilometres of the logging road to Highway 19 were busy as the community moved almost en masse to Port Alberni, where there was a celebration for all five Maa-nulth Nations to mark their treaty's effective date.
[ Page 6684 ]

It had been a long time coming. Years of negotiations resulting in 2007 with Bill 45 before this House, where we agreed to their treaty. Most here will remember the historic occasion when the chiefs of the Maa-nulth Nations addressed this Legislature. There were celebrations in the community too — which, as the now Minister of Health will attest to, were joyous and moving. But none of us who were at the school gym in Kyuquot will forget the power and emotion of a people who are now free.

The Ka:'yu:'k't'h'-Che:k:tles7et'h' know they still have a long way to go, but the dynamic is now different. They're working for their own future, their own way. It is a journey, they're all in the canoe, and they are paddling together.

ASIAN-CANADIAN HERITAGE

R. Lee: Back in 2001, a Senate motion officially designated May as Asian Heritage Month across the country. Asian Heritage Month is a time to celebrate the long and rich history of Asian-Canadian communities and the contributions that members of these communities have made to British Columbia and to Canada.

Our province is home to hundreds of thousands of Asian Canadians who trace their origins back to countries from the Black Sea all the way to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. The cultural backgrounds of these citizens are diverse and rich. The traditions and festivals that they have brought with them have enriched cities and towns throughout B.C. As Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and as someone who immigrated to this great country, I feel it's important for us to celebrate this.

It's also important to reflect on the tremendous economic advantages we derive from multiculturalism. The connections and cultural understanding that so many of our citizens possess are extraordinary advantages for B.C. as we compete in the global marketplace. This is another reason to celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, every year in Metro Vancouver the explorAsian Festival celebrates Asian Heritage Month with events for everyone. Presented by the Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society, the theme is "Many cultures, many languages, one celebration." This is not only a great description of the diversity of Asian communities in British Columbia. This is also a great description of British Columbia itself — a place that truly celebrates diversity.

MOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITY CENTRE

J. Kwan: I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the first anniversary of the official opening of the new Mount Pleasant Community Centre in my constituency.

The centre is an innovative and shining civic centre that brings together our community's residents for a range of valued activities and services. This unique mixed-use project, completed by the city of Vancouver, combines several community facilities with market rental housing in a tower above. The centre opened to the public in December of 2009 and replaced the old centre on West 16th Avenue.

I was pleased to attend the official opening ceremony about a year ago and since then have been bringing my children there to enjoy the centre.

Several important community services and activities are together under one roof at the landmark site of 1 Kingsway, including a multipurpose community centre, a branch of Vancouver's public library, a fitness centre and a state-of-the-art daycare centre. The community centre features a gym, climbing wall, dance studio, multipurpose rooms and rooftop outdoor community space. The second-floor daycare has access to secure outdoor play space with wonderful views.

[1355]

During its first full year of operation, there were over one million visits to the centre. The community centre opened and reportedly had 525,000 users, double the number of the users at the previous centre.

The fitness centre is active and well-used throughout the day, drawing attendance of over 126,000 people in one year. The daycare has been at capacity since it opened on its first day of operation. The library has seen an average of 1,500 patrons per day, which is nearly double the number of patrons at the library's previous location.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating the Mount Pleasant Community Centre on its first anniversary and wishing the board and staff continuing success in the future.

MENTAL HEALTH AND
WORK OF NANCY HALL

M. MacDiarmid: Hon. Speaker, May 1 to 7 is Mental Health Week in Canada. This year is the 60th anniversary of Mental Health Week. This week is a time for all of us to learn, talk, reflect and engage with each other on the many issues relating to mental health.

We've made some great strides in the past decades, yet there is still a lack of understanding of mental health, and for some, there is a stigma attached to having a mental health problem. We need greater understanding and acceptance, and we can all play a role in that. Any one of us or a family member could be affected by a problem with mental health. One in five Canadians will have such a problem in their lifetime, and the impact can be profound.

Today I want to honour a dear friend and one of my constituents who was an untiring and devoted advocate for people with mental illness. Dr. Nancy Hall died in
[ Page 6685 ]
March of this year. She has left a great legacy and is a stellar example of how one person can make a difference. She's greatly missed.

Nancy had a wonderful spirit, sense of optimism and incredible drive. She connected people in a marvellous way and worked tirelessly for what she believed in. Always generous with her time and her knowledge, one of her great gifts to me was to help me better understand mental health problems and what they can mean to people and families who are affected.

She was filled with humanity and compassion. She had two beautiful children who lit up her life. She was a loving mother, daughter, sister, aunt and friend, and the celebration of her life was truly a joyous occasion.

In 2010 Nancy was honoured by the Canadian Mental Health Association when she received their highest award, the C.M. Hincks Award. Nancy was a spectacular person who made this world a better place. Her hope and love for family and friends, her optimism and her life that demonstrates how one person can make a tremendous difference — these are some of the gifts she's left us as a legacy. It was a joy and a privilege to have known her.

I ask the House to join me in celebrating and acknowledging the life and contributions of Dr. Nancy Hall.

Oral Questions

COST OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Finance, and that question is about the initiative, the HST, the tax formally known by the B.C. Liberals as the single most important thing we can do for the B.C. economy, now exposed as a $1.3 billion tax increase on B.C. families.

Now, the minister has had a week. Perhaps he can tell us how much public funds…. It's bad enough that families have to pay this thing. Can the minister tell us how much they have to pay for him to provide misleading information about the HST?

Hon. K. Falcon: I told the Leader of the Opposition that as soon as I get that number, I'm going to present it publicly and make sure that everyone in this House and outside knows exactly what that number will be. But I'll tell you what we won't do. I will tell you what we will not do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: We will not do what the Leader of the Opposition did when he was chief of staff under the Glen Clark government. He went out and said that they were going to have a $2.3 million campaign to promote the Nisga'a agreement and actually spent $7.8 million. That's what he did when he was the architect of one of the worst governments in the history of the province of British Columbia.

[1400]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, it's surprising to me that the Minister of Finance would intentionally bring up one of the most shameful moments in the history of the Liberal Party — their lawsuit against the Nisga'a people, where the B.C. Liberal government decided that the B.C. Liberal Party wouldn't have to pay their costs. It's shameful.

Now, my question to them is this. The wizard of the accounts over there can surely tell us, since the report has rendered his assumptions about the HST inaccurate…. That's what the report did yesterday. They said that all the things that he's been using public funds to tell the public about the HST are essentially wrong — a $1.3 billion tax increase on families. Surely he can tell us how much it's going to cost. Surely he doesn't spend money first and budget later.

Hon. K. Falcon: I've told the member opposite, on numerous occasions now, that that's exactly what I'm going to do, and the moment I know that, I'm going to let the member know.

But I'll also say this. Last night one of the things we were doing was engaging in a listening exercise with British Columbians to see how we might improve the HST, to see how we might reduce or even eliminate some of that impact on families. In fact, last night, myself and the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation and the Minister of Transportation collectively held telephone town hall meetings with over 78,000 British Columbians who participated.

What that tells me is that actually British Columbians are very much engaged in wanting information and wanting to talk and listen to their ministers and to provide input on how we can improve the HST. That's exactly what we are going to do on this side of the House.

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

A. Dix: The minister is phoning up the public on their dime. He's not paying for it. The B.C. Liberal Party isn't paying for it. He's phoning up on their dime to give them misleading information about the HST. That's what's going on here — a $1.3 billion tax increase on families, his previous assumption…
[ Page 6686 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: …a burning pyre on the ground. That's what's happened here. The people of B.C. know. To put it in hockey terms, he's on the side of the owners, and we're on the side of the fans with respect to the HST.

Surely there was a budget. There was a budget when the government…. I mean, B.C. families….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, a 50 percent increase in hydro rates, three consecutive increases in MSP premiums on families, massive increases on ferry fares, vulnerable seniors paying more in long-term-care fees and now a $1.3 billion tax increase on B.C. families. Families first? They call this families first? Why don't you tell B.C. families how much they're paying for your propaganda campaign on the HST?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, isn't this rich. The architect of the worst government in B.C. history, that had the highest tax rates in North America, trying to pretend he's on the side of families. Well, that is really rich. So let me just….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just sit down for a second.

It's your time, Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

[1405]

Hon. K. Falcon: Boy, it is rich to listen to the Leader of the Opposition pretend he's on the side of families when it comes to tax burden. All the member has to do…. I know they never read budgets, but just go into the 2011 budget in appendix A3. It actually compares the total tax burden. That includes HST. It includes personal income tax, child benefits, property taxes, consumption taxes — all included.

Here's what it was for a senior couple earning $30,000 under the NDP in the 1990s: $3,391, all taxes in. Under the B.C. Liberals in 2011, that same senior is earning $30,000: $2,417. For a family of four earning $30,000, all taxes in, under the NDP and under the B.C. Liberals, a 44 percent reduction in overall taxes. And that was the architect of the worst government in the history of the province of British Columbia.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON FAMILIES

S. Chandra Herbert: The HST report released yesterday claims the average family will pay $350 more under the HST, and that number was spread far and wide in the media. But as with everything with the B.C. Liberals, you have to read the fine print. It turns out, down at the bottom of the report, that it says a family could be defined as one person — a family of one person paying, on average, $350.

My question is to the Finance Minister. Isn't the report really saying that the average cost is $350 per person? So an average family of four could be paying $1,400.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll try and make this simple for the member. That is an average. That means it will be less for those that have lower incomes; it will be more for those that have higher incomes. News flash for the NDP: if you earn more money, you're probably paying more HST. I thought that's what the NDP always cared about — that the rich people should pay more. They do under a consumption tax. It was pointed out in that same report that 40 percent of the HST is paid by people earning over $100,000 a year.

But I'll tell you that what I'm really interested in is the other part of the independent panel report that they haven't been talking about — that is, if we go back to the Leader of the Opposition's choice, which is going back to the PST, that blows a hole of almost $3 billion over the next couple of years in the provincial budget. I'd like to know how they are going to square that with their promises to increase spending in every single ministry of government, still balance the budget and do it with almost $3 billion less revenue. That's what I'd like to know from the NDP.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second, Member. There are other people that want to ask questions.

Member, continue.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I can understand why the Finance Minister doesn't want to answer the question. Statistics Canada refuses to acknowledge a family of one. Only the B.C. Liberals would say family first was really me first. That's the B.C. Liberals' version of family first.
[ Page 6687 ]

Again to the minister. It says at the bottom of the report, in fine print, a family can be defined as one person. So basing that on that statement, is the real cost per person $350, on average, as the report asserts?

[1410]

Hon. K. Falcon: Another uncomfortable fact for the NDP. Even with the introduction of the HST, as I mentioned, if you look at total tax burden, and I think it's appropriate to do that — MSP premiums, property taxes, income taxes, HST, total tax burden on average families in British Columbia — what you will find…. Don't take my word for it. It's in the budget. They can go read it. They never do, but they should read the budget. You will find the second-lowest overall tax burden in the country right here in British Columbia.

Now let's be clear what the choice of the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP is. They have what I call the tax trifecta.

(1) They want to go back to a PST, and they're going to have to explain how they're going to do all their spending with $2.7 billion less income. That will be fascinating to watch.

(2) They want to raise small business taxes by 80 percent and general corporate taxes by 20 percent.

(3) They want to reinstate the corporate capital tax, one of the worst job killers in the history of taxation.

That's the NDP plan. That's a job killer.

We're about growing the economy, growing jobs, growing revenues and supporting social services. That's what we're doing on this side of the House.

JOB CREATION PROJECTIONS
FOR HARMONIZED SALES TAX

J. Kwan: I'll tell the minister an uncomfortable fact. That would be the Jack Mintz report. It turns out the government's own HST guru, Jack Mintz, is wrong. He's not just a little bit off of his job projections; he is off by 88,000 jobs. And the Liberal cabinet ministers and backbench MLAs have been misleading British Columbians with their misinformation from the Jack Mintz report. That would be another uncomfortable fact.

Even today, though, it doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop there, because even today in the government's own supposedly impartial and factual websites, those websites still provide for those misleading figures. Why is the minister still continuing to mislead British Columbians about those figures?

Hon. K. Falcon: So you've got one highly respected independent economist, Jack Mintz, that's talking about the potential for 113,000 jobs to be created. We have a second independent panel report that comes out and suggests that there could be over 24,000 new jobs created. But I will say this. I don't know whether it's 24,000 or whether it's 113,000, but I do know one thing.

I do know that under the NDP plan to go back to the PST, the only new jobs created will be the 300 tax auditors that the province has to hire to go after British Columbians, investigating PST audits. That's all that's going to be happening under the NDP.

We are about creating private sector jobs. They want 300 civil servants hired, at a cost of over $30 million a year, to do the paperwork on PST so that we could reimpose $150 million in compliance costs on small business to do the paperwork for the PST and the paperwork for the GST. That's the NDP approach. That's not our approach.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister would like to do this math: 24,000 jobs over ten years, at the cost of $1.33 billion to the consumers per year. That's over $54,000 per job for the consumers per year.

[1415]

Now, I like to see new jobs created in the economy. The problem is the minister doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't trust him, and neither will British Columbians, with these incorrect facts.

Will the minister at least do this? Will the minister correct the misinformation on his own government website and tell British Columbians the truth for a change?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's a little tough to take job creation advice from a member who was part of a government that was an economic wrecking crew in the 1990s. I mean, let's be clear. The Leader of the Opposition was the chief of staff who led a government that took B.C., for the first time in our history, to have-not-province status — meaning we had to take money, transfer payments, from other provinces because our economy was doing so badly. I am not going to take any economic advice from those folks across the aisle.

What I will do is celebrate a tax change that will generate tens of thousands of new jobs in British Columbia, that brings hope to families, that grows our economies, that grows revenues to support important social services like health care, like education, like all the things those members opposite purport to care about.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

SHELLFISH AQUACULTURE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

C. Trevena: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. His primary role in shellfish aquaculture is assistance in marketing B.C. shellfish products. I'd
[ Page 6688 ]
like to know whether the minister agrees that a healthy shellfish aquaculture industry requires a rigorous environmental review.

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to thank the member opposite for giving me the first opportunity to stand and respond to a question in these very distinguished chambers.

I'm incredibly proud of this province's environmental standards that we've put forward in the last ten years. It is so refreshing to have a province that respects the environment, does the best to make sure we encourage economic growth at the same time. It is the complete opposite of what the members opposite did during their ten years in office.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members.

The member has a supplemental.

IMPACT OF PROPOSED VANCOUVER ISLAND
COAL MINE ON SHELLFISH INDUSTRY

C. Trevena: Having given the minister an opportunity to have his first question, I'd hoped that he'd give the House his first answer too.

I was asking the Minister of Agriculture about environmental standards on shellfish aquaculture because there's a proposed coal mine in the minister's own riding five kilometres from the richest and most prolific shellfish beds in B.C., in Baynes Sound. There are legitimate concerns about the impact of heavy metals from the mine leaching into those beds.

As MLA, he has ignored the issue, and it's now his ministerial responsibility. So will he continue to dismiss the demands of the residents of the Comox Valley, who want a full, independent and rigorous environmental review?

[1420]

Hon. D. McRae: It is nice to know that the member opposite, who is my constituency neighbour, is basically acknowledging the good repartee we have going here today.

First of all, you're right. Baynes Sound is one of the most important aquaculture places, not just in British Columbia but in this nation — hands down. With $24 million going out of the Baynes Sound into the economy of British Columbia, it is something that we are desperate to protect in this province, and I'm committed to doing that. I'm not about to play politics with the environment.

Right now, that project is at the pre–environmental assessment phase. It isn't even, I'm sure the member knows, within my ministry at this stage. At this stage I'm not going to prejudge what's going to come out of that. It is before the environmental assessment review panel, and we're going to make sure that we don't play politics.

If it goes forward for the coal mine, it is something that the applicant can do as they go through the process. But no, not for one second do I want to see the shellfish industry in this province prejudiced by actions like you're implying.

S. Fraser: And I'm the MLA bounding the southern edge of your riding, hon. Minister.

The livelihood of hundreds of families in the shellfish industry in Baynes Sound is at risk. I would think that the minister would want the most rigorous standards of environmental protection put in place because of that.

All local governments within his riding are demanding an independent expert review panel with public hearings. Any heavy metals released from the proposed coal mine would kill all shellfish export from Baynes Sound, would kill the industry in Baynes Sound. Why has he ignored his mandate as minister responsible to market shellfish?

Hon. D. McRae: It's funny. As an MLA, the B.C. Shellfish Association, which actually is based in my riding, didn't come to see me. However, when I became the Minister of Agriculture, I was proactive, and I decided that — you know what? — since they're not coming to me, I'm going to them to hear their concerns. I made an appointment, I saw their executive director, I've heard their concerns, and I am listening.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: I'm sure they were very happy with the outcome of that meeting. I have attended five standing-room-only public meetings in this minister's riding, and he was absent at every one of them, even with…. He's been ducking this issue as MLA; now he's ducking it as a minister.

We're talking about the richest shellfish beds in British Columbia, and we're apparently talking about a B.C. Liberal government that has no interest in protecting them, to say nothing of the hundreds of jobs that support the families in his constituency.

Now, will the minister commit today to ensure that a significant industrial project that could have grave impacts will not go ahead without a full public hearing and a rigorous, independent, expert review panel?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the member opposite well knows that we're in the pre-consultation period for the environmental assessment. You know, I feel like I'm sitting up here answering a question which the members opposite obviously know is not to do with my ministry.
[ Page 6689 ]

However, don't think for one second that I don't have the belief that the agriculture industry in my region, as in all parts of British Columbia, is hugely important. This is an industry which is sustainable, provides jobs — tens of millions of dollars for families across this province.

We will protect this resource with the highest environmental standards possible. It is absolutely essential. These are sustainable jobs that will last for generations, and I am committed to protecting those jobs and that industry for as long as I'm around — and my children.

[1425]

PREMIER'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
DURING BY-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

D. Routley: Candidate Clark in a by-election in Vancouver–Point Grey has made a number of announcements in that constituency. Yesterday in estimates for the Ministry of Citizens' Services, it became clear that public servants were used in the planning and implementation of those events. This candidate also happens to be the B.C. Liberal leader.

My question is for the Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. Did she or any other minister seek advice from Elections B.C. as to whether those government resources should be costed as part of her election campaign?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, the Premier, as she should, is fulfilling her obligations as the Premier and making announcements that benefit all of British Columbia, including things like raising the minimum wage, eliminating parking fees in parks and support for Ronald McDonald House. These are fabulous things for the people of British Columbia. Government is making great announcements, and of course the Premier of the province is making those announcements.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: These announcements are occurring in a riding, in a constituency, where she is a candidate in a by-election. Given the serious ongoing concerns regarding a previous B.C. Liberal campaign in Vancouver-Fraserview, I would think an abundance of caution would be in order for this government.

To the Minister of Citizens' Services: if advice was not sought from Elections B.C. on whether government resources should be used in the Premier's by-election campaign in Vancouver–Point Grey, why not?

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Premier is making announcements on behalf of government, as she should. She is the leader of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Our professional public servants in government communications and public engagement are responsible for ensuring that British Columbians receive accurate information about these announcements, and they're going to continue to do so.

GOVERNMENT POSITION ON
SUPERVISED INJECTION SITE

M. Farnworth: The previous Minister of Health was very supportive of Insite in Vancouver. After the recent federal election, statements by the….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: There have been a lot of you. But for once, despite there being a lot, they did have a common position: that Insite is an important part of health care delivery in the province of British Columbia.

The day after the election in which the Conservatives achieved a majority, the statements from senior B.C. MPs were that the federal government is going to take a long, hard look at Insite to see whether it's in the best interests of the community.

My question to the Minister of Health is this: (1) is Insite still part of the government's health strategy, and (2) what specific steps is the government taking to inform the federal government that Insite is a key part of health delivery and strategy in dealing with addictions in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you to the hon. member for the question. I can assure him and members of the House and British Columbians that the position of the government of British Columbia has not changed insofar as discussions that may occur and will occur with the federal government.

I suspect that I will at least await the appointment of a federal Minister of Health, and those discussions will commence. But he can be assured that the position of this government has not changed.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Cadieux: Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the annual report…

Interjections.
[ Page 6690 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Cadieux: …of WorkSafe B.C.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House, in the Legislative Assembly, we will continue with the estimates of the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, and in Committee A we will continue the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
JOBS, TOURISM AND INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

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

D. Routley: Before we ended this debate for our lunch break and for question period, I asked the minister a question about the E&N Railway and the fact that the roadbed and track has come to such poor condition that passenger services have been suspended. I asked him if he thought it was a wise use of the Islands Trust money to upgrade stations and other accessories and adornments along the rail line without addressing the core fundamental health of its capacity to move passengers — its safety.

[1435]

I realize that the minister needs to be acquainted with the history of the railway and the current history of the management of the railway to really give a wholesome answer. But I would ask him that passenger service on Vancouver Island provided by the E&N Railway — whether he perceives that as a high value in terms of marketing tourism and whether he would be prepared to join the advocacy that is seeking funding from all levels of government to repair the railway and restore passenger rail service.

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. There are some tremendous success stories around railway tourism here, particularly in British Columbia. The Rocky Mountaineer has been an incredible success. But that is based on a specific product, a specific quality of product, and the need to make sure that it can be provided consistently to the consumer.

It has been early days in my entry into this position. I have been following along the issue of the E&N Railway, and I have met with Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, who is lead on this particular file. I think a properly run railway corridor can add to tourism values, whether it's here on Vancouver Island or in other parts of British Columbia as well.

D. Routley: The railway is a spectacular piece of B.C. history. It is the railway that was never new. Dunsmuir built it to service the coal mines. The bridge over Niagara Canyon here in Goldstream was recycled from Cisco in the Fraser Canyon where the two railways crossed, when traffic became too heavy there.

It was the first place on the CPR where diesel locomotives were used and also the last place where steam locomotives were used. It has a long and proud history, and it is essential to our tourism industry.

When I ride it, I meet people from all over the world on that railway, so I think it's essential that it be restored. Now that it is owned by the Island Corridor Foundation — which is a coalition of Island communities, First Nations — it is really important to those of us on the Island that it be restored.

I would ask the minister one more time if he would actively join as a petitioner and add his weight to the effort to lobby all levels of government to bring the necessary funding to restore the passenger rail service. It is not an extraordinary amount of money. It's estimated to be between $15 million and $20 million to restore the trackage. If that is accomplished, we will have the opportunity for commuter rail as well as servicing more options, such as along the lines of what the minister has described. It would service tourism more.

Hon. P. Bell: Just before I try to respond to the question, I should reintroduce my staff. To my immediate left is my deputy minister, Dana Hayden. To my immediate right is acting Assistant Deputy Minister Gordon Borgstrom, and to his right is Exec Director Greg Goodwin.

Again, to answer the question, first of all, I do believe that rail tourism is an opportunity and something we need to build on. I've seen success stories. I've also seen failures, frankly, on rail tourism that have been unsuccessful for a lack of capital and a lack of quality of product.

It's pretty clear to me that kind of a commuter low-end rail service is not something that will be successful and attract tourists to it, but a properly developed business plan around a rail system that is attractive certainly has lots of potential.

The member describes some historical references with regards to the E&N Railway. I think those are some of the good reasons why one should contemplate a detailed economic strategy around how a high-end tourism-related product can be built. I don't actually think that's what is currently envisaged by the proponents. I am only
[ Page 6691 ]
basing that on media reports, not on any information that I have beyond that.

Perhaps in the coming weeks the member opposite and I can find some time for coffee, and he can fill me in a bit more. Obviously, he has a very good understanding of the E&N rail lands, and if there's something I can do to help support a business strategy that would lead to a high-end, good-quality tourism product, I'd certainly entertain that.

[1440]

D. Routley: I certainly welcome that invitation.

Some of the plans that are underway regarding the E&N were things like to offer steam excursion and dinner trips that are along the lines of what the minister has described in conjunction with the B.C. Forest Discovery Centre perhaps, which operates steam trains on its property. They have been asked informally by the Island Corridor Foundation whether they would be willing to participate in that sort of engagement. I look forward to being able to speak to the minister about that.

Another concern regarding tourism that has a transportation component to it in our island communities is the issue of the small ferry runs. I realize that is not directly related to this minister's portfolio, but my constituency has the most ferry terminals of any ferry constituency. Most of them service our small islands, and those islands are heavily dependent on the ability or the attractiveness of that transportation option in order to develop their tourism businesses.

Many of my constituents who operate small businesses on the small Gulf Islands are suffering because of the increased ferry fares. Has the minister considered any options that his ministry could assist in addressing some of those obstacles to developing tourism businesses?

Hon. P. Bell: This question was canvassed by an earlier member, but I'll just try and repeat my answer. I understand there is great concern amongst island businesses as well as residents on some of the smaller islands, as well as some of the major routes, about ferry fares.

I can, I believe, confirm for the member opposite that the Minister of Transportation has been engaged with the ferries commissioner in talking to the ferries commissioner about the costs associated and if there are ways to mitigate increasing costs over time. More detailed responses would be better pursued with the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. But certainly I've met with the minister, and we've discussed the situation, and he knows my concerns.

D. Routley: Thank you, Minister. It's funny that on Vancouver Island, most of our tourism alternatives involve some form of transportation. There's the railway, and there's the Island Highway. There are the ferry options, but there's also an extensive network of trails.

The Trans Canada Trail is an integral part of our outdoor tourism option that we offer to people. So I would ask the minister what programs are being offered to develop and support the trail infrastructure on the Island.

Hon. P. Bell: The specific operational issues as it relates to trails and trail management lay with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. But I will tell the member opposite, as I've stated previously in the House, that we're currently looking at the tourism product that we offer here in British Columbia to try and better understand what makes us unique, what makes us different and what the major international selling features would be.

Pretty clearly, beautiful B.C. and the wilderness that we have is one of the key elements of that, but we want to make sure that we build a better package, working with industry and creating specific interests.

I think trails, back-country tourism and some of the associated features will probably be one of the areas that is very important from a B.C. tourism perspective, but it is still in the early days of my responsibility for this portfolio. So we are doing that analysis right now.

For this summer it'll be status quo. The level of activity on our trail systems, the systems that we operate them under in terms of Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, will continue. But we certainly are contemplating this as one of the opportunity areas. As we move forward over the coming months, I'll be happy to keep the member opposite informed.

[1445]

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and your staff. I'll try to be very brief here. I've got two issues, both dealing with trusts — sort of different issues, though.

The first one. The Skeetchestn Indian band has a significant problem. Their location, their traditional territory, is within the boundaries of the Northern Development Initiative Trust. However, they could arguably be within the Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust. But they seem to be in neither.

The issue has been brought up apparently previously by the band. They seem to be caught in the middle of an interjurisdictional problem. It could be very awkward if their traditional territory that's in the Northern Trust boundaries is not recognized as such. That severely hinders their chances for economic development, and indeed it appears to already.

They did put in an application a couple of years ago now on a value-added incubator. As the minister notes from his previous portfolio, small scale for basic lumber production is very important in the region for the band. They were turned down, it looks like at least in part, because of this interjurisdictional boundary problem.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any solutions or if he'd be willing to look into this on behalf of the band.
[ Page 6692 ]

Hon. P. Bell: I don't have any information on that specific issue, but I'd be happy to look into it and report back to the member opposite.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that.

The second and final issue is…. It's dealing with, I guess, it could be all the trusts, but specifically the Island Coastal Economic Trust. I'm just curious. The new Premier has stated that she's looking to review these trusts — how they they're run, how they're organized, what their criteria are. I'm curious as to what that will cover.

I'll get to a specific issue that I found of great concern. There was an initiative in Port Alberni that was being proposed, and they applied to the trust. I'm on the advisory committee. As the minister knows, the MLAs are all on the advisory committee. This was for the Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences in Port Alberni that was being proposed at the time.

Port Alberni, as you know, has had significant economic downturn — 5,000 people once not that long ago in the forest industry down to less than 1,000 now. So this economic diversification, a potential university — very exciting. It was one that was agreed to by all sides of the House, I am pleased to see, in a bipartisan, non-partisan way a couple of years ago.

So they went to the Island Trust for money. They put in a proposal. Significant work and resources were used to do that. It was a unanimous decision by the advisory board to endorse this very enthusiastically. I've never seen that level of support before. The entire advisory committee said yes and move it forward post-haste.

It didn't get post-haste. It got mired for over a year. The proponent actually ended up spending a quarter of a million dollars trying to meet a never-ending moving set of goalposts, and eventually it failed. We can argue about that, whether that was good or not, but the proponent lost a significant amount of resources as opposed to gaining it.

It was contrary to the net economic contribution that the trust has mandated to do. But it gets worse. The building was…. Part of the funding was coming from federal money. The most stringent criteria for application acceptance under the KIP proposal federally…. They accepted this one. The university is now at the point where it's just about up and running. The building is in place. It's a wonderful thing.

The economic development that will flow from that — not as much as if they had got the support of the Island Trust, as we thought would happen — would fit into every criteria that the Island Trust had. It was supported by the mayor and the regional district and everything else, but it failed.

Is there any ability to scrutinize and review this from the minister's level when something goes wrong? There doesn't seem to be a methodology to address what appear to be some pretty significant inconsistencies in how the trusts are adjudicated, how the money is doled out.

[1450]

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member for his question. The purpose of the commitment made by the Premier really is to try and have another look at issues like that and find out if the current model of the trusts is meeting the test of helping support community economic development and whether good decisions are being made or not.

As the member opposite knows, there are a number of different trusts around the province. Each is operated completely at arm's length from government under a governance model that is prescribed. It's more similar to an authority model where the positions on the body continue to be renewed depending on the nature of positions held and that sort of thing — mayors, MLAs, but also other individuals that are appointed to the board.

Government, the minister, does not have any authority to overrule decisions by trusts, by the nature of the legislation under which they were founded. We will, as part of the work that we do, look at the nature of the trusts, the way they're established, the legislation, and whether they are achieving the goals that they were set out to achieve in the first place. We'll consult broadly on that — obviously, with members of the boards, which would include opposition members, as well as the public and other key stakeholders in it.

Earlier on I stated that I've not yet taken terms of reference to cabinet. I need to do that prior to being able to disclose any information on the exact nature of the reviews. But my hope is to have the review completed by the end of the calendar year. Then I, of course, would make that review public at that time or at the time that it was completed.

I think the point that the member makes is a good one. I appreciate it. I think that's exactly the type of decision that we'll be looking at and trying to better understand. If the decision was not made in a way that perhaps reflected the spirit of the original intent, if there are changes necessary, we'd certainly be willing to pursue those changes.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the fact that he's answering these questions so forthrightly and quickly with the time that we have — it's very limited — and considering he's brand-new in this position. Thank you for that.

To finish this off, then, I just wanted to make a comment. I hope that we will have the ability to be able to review some of these things. I mean, the actual work that was done by the staff of the trust to analyze and review this project showed a very, very strong economic benefit.
[ Page 6693 ]

As we know, universities like UNBC, University of Vancouver Island — these institutions actually provide huge economic benefit and the potential for diversification of economies in communities like Port Alberni, which is so important.

I would hope that we have an ability to have some oversight, that indeed the terms of reference that a net economic benefit will accrue, as opposed to…. In this case it was an economic loss not just to the university but to the community of Port Alberni and, I would submit, to the province and to the world. Sixteen nations in the world have actually adopted the platform and the programs of this university. So it's a shame that our own trust was the only one that didn't seem to deem it necessary to support it.

G. Gentner: Yesterday during estimates I learned from the minister that InterVISTAS was a successful bidder of an RFP for conducting a study of proposed foreign trade zones for British Columbia. Now, the RFP clearly states that the feasibility study would be conducted by "an independent consultant." So I asked the minister if it was affiliated with the group lobbying hard for the foreign trade zone — the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council. The minister responded that they were "independent of that group."

But the company has worked for the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council, amongst other entities related to the port development — B.C. Ferries, B.C. Rail and, not surprisingly, another independent corporation, Omnitrax.

[1455]

The company has stated that it was "retained to develop a new vision for the greater Vancouver gateway." So why would the minister say that InterVISTAS was an independent consultant when it has already been engaged with studies for the Greater Vancouver Gateway Council and other entities of the province?

Hon. P. Bell: My understanding is that the ownership of InterVISTAS is independent and distinct from the foreign trade zone steering committee members. That's the advice I've been provided, and I believe that to be the case. While they may have provided services to individual members, I don't think in any way that connects InterVISTAS to the company. It is only logical that a company with that sort of information would provide services to a variety of groups and individuals.

G. Gentner: Well, in the RFP it clearly states that the successful bidder will not be a company that would be involved in any association or previously of that of lobbying. It's quite clear. It says here: "The proponents must not attempt to communicate directly or indirectly with any employee, contractor or representative of the province, including the evaluation committee and any elected officials of the province or with members of the public and the media."

It's clear to me that the province is also very much involved with the organization of gateway, and there is a close association with the province and of course the gateway committee, including the consortium that is pushing hard for the foreign trade zone made up of these members.

Again, is the minister suggesting that there is a defined independence from this company with that of the operation of putting forward a foreign trade zone?

Hon. P. Bell: I'll repeat my previous answer. To the best of my knowledge, InterVISTAS has no ownership relationship with anyone within the foreign trade zone committee or the provincial government. It is an independent entity that provides services on a contract basis, and while it has worked for government and for others from time to time, I don't think that in any way it creates a connection between the province and InterVISTAS.

B. Simpson: I want to make a quick opening comment. We're going to be talking about FII later on, but this is my first opportunity to make a public statement to the fact — because the minister has raised it a number of times….

I wanted to give kudos to the minister for his leadership on the China file. I have mills operating in my constituency that are operating because of that shift to China. Now having said that, we will talk about what needs to be done in that China strategy, but I did feel compelled to make that statement. I have a lot of people in my riding who are currently working because political leadership was shown, and we have a bigger presence in China than we ever had. My respects to the minister for that.

I want to just canvass very quickly — because we are time-sensitive, as we always are in estimates — the softwood lumber agreement and some questions for clarification, based on some folks that I've been dealing with.

First off, we're at a phase where the options — option A, option B — I believe, are available to be adjusted or changed at the request of British Columbia, and I believe that some folks down in the southeast at one point were asking for a change of options. If the minister could clarify whether that discussion is happening.

[1500]

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the member opposite for his very kind words.

The deadline for the decision point of changing from option A to option B or staying with option A has expired. We did consult extensively with the industry. There are always different views, but the overwhelming sense amongst licensees was that option A was serving us well and to continue with that option.
[ Page 6694 ]

B. Simpson: The next question has to do with the status of negotiations. As we all know, it takes a while to figure out where we're going to go. The softwood lumber agreement does have an expiry in the out-years, but are there negotiations just now underway with the United States around renewing the softwood lumber agreement or doing something different?

Hon. P. Bell: There are no active negotiations at this point with the U.S. government or with industry in the U.S. on the renewal process. However, we have started consultations with industry as well as with the federal government. As we complete that work over the next number of months, we'll then be taking that advice and contemplating what we should do going forward. Whether we should request the extension of two years with no changes, whether we should look to have some changes in the agreement or whether we should let the agreement expire would be the three options.

B. Simpson: The reason I raise the issue of where we're at with negotiations is that the minister will remember that many people characterized this as a political deal at the time. There was some fast-tracking that occurred. There were sectors of the forest industry that believed they were shortchanged because of the nature of the fast-tracking and, in particular, some unfinished business that was supposed to have an ongoing dialogue around the secondary manufacturers, non-tenured producers who got pulled into this deal and had to be part of the tax regime.

Then of particular note in terms of log export debate, in terms of manufacturing on the coast, is the issue of lumber or tariffable products produced from private logs. My question to the minister is: is there a sense that those particular issues…? People felt this deal unfairly treated certain sectors of the forest community. Are they going to be part of the dialogue leading into the new deal?

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to take a few seconds here. One of the items that the member opposite mentioned was that non–tenure holders got dragged into the agreement. In fact, non–tenure holders are exempt from border tax. They are entitled to ship into the U.S. without any form of border tax. There's a criteria around that that must be met, of course, but that's the case.

It's a bit of an awkward relationship in terms of how this all unfolds. The federal government clearly has responsibility and authority over international trade deals, so the U.S. federal government is technically only allowed to talk to the Canadian federal government. However, British Columbia represents about 60 percent of the industry, so we're the largest stakeholder, and the federal government has been very good in working with the provincial government, allowing us to participate in that level of discussion and making sure that we're actually at the table. But the technical discussion takes place, as I'm sure the member is aware, between the two federal governments.

We have encouraged the federal government, and the federal government has made attempts to raise these issues with the American government. The American government has been unwilling to pursue discussions around some of the things that the member has mentioned to this point in time. However, in a renewal period of the nature that the member is contemplating, certainly that creates some levers. If the U.S. is interested in pursuing an extension, there may be an opportunity to talk about some of those additional items that are important to his constituents, to my constituents and to all British Columbians.

B. Simpson: Thanks for the minister's answer and the clarification. As the minister knows, if secondary manufacturers are associated in getting wood from tenured manufacturers, and so on, they did get lumped in. Some of them got lumped in, in a way that they didn't before, but the minister is apprised of that and knows that that's an issue that needs to be addressed.

[1505]

In particular, though, the private log issue on the coast is one that I think really did get lost last time and really needs to be addressed. If we're going to be able to get lumber manufacturing from those private logs on the coast, we need to have a fair playing field with the Americans, and I would hope that that would be one of them.

I had to chuckle as I recalled the debate around the softwood lumber agreement as to whether B.C. was driving the bus or was the big dog at the table or all of those things that the previous minister was using as language as we did debates in the House. I understand it's a Canadian deal.

There is one thing that British Columbia has that could avoid a future softwood lumber agreement, and that's the issue of tenure reform. I'm wondering. I know it's not within the minister's direct control, but because the minister has a softwood lumber agreement…. There was, when he was Minister of Forests, a paper circulated within the ministry about tenure reform. I believe, and the minister knows this from previous debate, that tenure reform may be the way that we actually avoid a softwood lumber agreement or B.C. participating in a softwood lumber agreement in the future.

Could the minister state whether or not a serious look at tenure reform is occurring, either as a result of trying to avoid an SLA or within the ministry's and the minister's area of responsibility?

Hon. P. Bell: I may think about tenure reform in a slightly different way than the member opposite does. A tenure reform is something that kind of rolls off the tongue very easily. But there are 85 members in this
[ Page 6695 ]
House, and if we asked everyone to write down on a single piece of paper what they thought tenure reform meant, I suspect we'd get 75 different responses and ten pieces of blank paper. It is a very complex issue.

We've gone through extensive tenure reform in terms of the 20 percent takeback originally, which is now sold competitively or provided to First Nations community forests. We went from one community forest to 41 community forests in the time since 2001, increased the number of woodlots, and so on. Receiving licences I consider to be a form of tenure reform, commercial forestry, so there was lots of work going on.

I think what the member is probably more referring to is perhaps another large-scale takeback, something of that nature, that creates a more competitive playing field. But I'll leave that to him to describe.

I actually believe that the answer to the softwood lumber deal with the U.S. is China. I think that as we grow the Chinese market….

The growth rate has been tremendous — last year 2.9 billion board feet. I haven't seen March's numbers yet, but as of the end of February, we were at double the pace again for the first two months of the calendar year against the previous year. That might lead one to believe that we'll see something perhaps around five billion feet. That may be optimistic; I'm not sure. A couple of years ago when I set a goal of four billion board feet within two years, everyone thought I was crazy. In fact, I'm sure we'll exceed the four billion board foot mark — no question about that.

Given that we produce about 15, 16 billion board feet in a big year in British Columbia and have traditionally tried to sell ten, 11, perhaps 12 billion board feet into the U.S., as we displace that volume into the Chinese market — or perhaps Korea and India and others as well…. It could be a variety of markets. As that volume is displaced, B.C. will be less reliant on the U.S. marketplace.

While tenure reform could be part of the equation, I think there are other reasons to do tenure reform. Certainly when I was minister, I was pursuing a goal of incremental tenure reform as opposed to broad, sweeping reform. The current minister I can't speak for. I'm sure the member opposite will have an opportunity to ask the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations what his intent is.

[1510]

My belief is that the SLA will go away the day that we are no longer heavily reliant on the American marketplace. My goal always was, and will continue to be, to make that happen through the Asian marketplace.

B. Simpson: The minister's characterization of the tenure reform debate, I don't disagree with. I think he's being kind with only ten blank sheets of paper if the House was canvassed, but be that as it may.

We're already seeing China influencing price in the U.S. market. It's not bottoming out where it otherwise might as a result of China's presence, so I take that point. But as the minister does know, tenure and putting a public resource in the hand of private companies and all of the associated benefits that that comes with — in terms of how we price timber, in terms of credits for silviculture and roads and various other things — of course is the root of a big part of the U.S. challenge against our interference in the marketplace.

That's what I mean by tenure reform. Often it's around 50 percent or the 51 percent mark that has to be in a truly free log market, etc., and that's where the debate comes. But I'll canvass the tenure part with the appropriate minister.

Having mentioned timber pricing, the minister is aware that there is an arbitration underway just now. I found the arbitration claim from the Americans but couldn't find Canada's response so that I understand the argument. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of when Canada will be making its response public.

Hon. P. Bell: The response from the Canadian government that, of course, we were involved in was provided to the tribunal around mid-April. We don't have the exact date with us here. But if it was not posted, for some reason, on the Internet, we're happy to provide the member opposite with a copy, because it is public documentation. So I'll endeavour through the miracles of the legislative television network to have someone somewhere magically produce a copy of that and provide it to the member opposite.

B. Simpson: So my final question is on this. I may have just missed it on the Canadian website. I just couldn't find it. My final question on this. It's my understanding the time frame will be the appointment of the panel. The panel is appointed out of the United Kingdom, but the hearings or whatever will be held here. That independent panel is supposed to rule within 180 days, it's my understanding.

My question, however, is because…. There's time sensitivity associated with this. I have had individuals approach me about concerns that — and this is a hypothetical — in the event that there is a ruling against us in this case…. They're concerned that the incremental tax that Canada used in the Ontario and Quebec situation — across-the-board increment tax — to deal with the so-called damages…. In British Columbia there are some companies that have actually not benefited from the practice in question, and they're concerned about the process that will be used by British Columbia and Canada for determining what the actual punitive damages will be and what the government will do to address those.

So my question to the minister is: will there be an opportunity post–the arbitration ruling for a discussion in British Columbia about the best way to address whatever that ruling is so that people who didn't bene-
[ Page 6696 ]
fit or participate in the practice are not punished by a flat, across-the-board increase in the tax, as Quebec and Ontario did?

Hon. P. Bell: In the current softwood lumber agreement and in the arbitration process there's no mechanism for a differential penalty to be applied. So if there was to be any sort of a differential penalty applied, it would have to be a negotiated agreement that all parties, including the Americans, would agree to.

[1515]

Just to be clear, in the actual construct of the agreement as it stands today, there is no opportunity for a differential penalty.

B. Simpson: I understand that. My question, though, to the minister was…. B.C. is particularly under the gun on this particular claim. The concern is that British Columbia needs to actually address the issue that the minister is speaking to, to determine whether or not there is a position to put forward to ask for some kind of special circumstances. So the question actually is: will there be a process engaged in post…?

Hopefully, Canada wins, but failing Canada winning, will British Columbia be able to actually take a very reasoned look at some options and then make the determination whether they want to go and try and fight for some kind of differential penalty as opposed to across the board?

Hon. P. Bell: We are convinced that we will win this arbitration. So we certainly start from that premise and believe that to be the case. The legal advice that we have we are comfortable with and confident that, with our response to the initial filings, we should win the case. So I haven't presupposed what might happen in the event that that's not the case at this point.

J. Kwan: Seeing as we are sort of on the theme of wood, I'm going to carry on and ask the minister some questions about the dream home initiative. This is the Canada Dream Home initiative.

The last update that we got that was on the public record about the dream home initiative actually came from the former Minister of Forests, who is now the Minister of Health. At that time it was reported that the dream home initiative…. The total cost of the exhibit was $12 million. The dream home initiative, I believe, is ongoing. Although I'll have some further questions about it later, I'd like to see if I could get an update from the minister on the total cost of the dream home initiative to date that British Columbians had carried for this initiative.

Hon. P. Bell: Joining me to my immediate right is the CEO of the Forestry Innovative Investment, Ken Baker. Ken has a plethora of spreadsheets available to us, so hopefully I'll be able to answer all the members' questions.

The actual cost of the construction of the facility was $3½ million. We still occupy that facility today. But we've had an extensive number of employees in China. We continue to invest heavily in things like the Sichuan earthquake zone rehabilitation project and the like. I just need a little clarity from the member opposite in terms of what she includes in the dream home project.

The actual physical construction of the dream home project was $3½ million, but I wouldn't want to suggest that…. We still occupy the building. It's our office in Shanghai. We have about 40 or so staff, between the Canada Wood Group and FII China, in that particular facility. We use that as our primary facility to house the office and market wood in China.

Just need a little more clarity in terms of the number that the member opposite is looking for.

[1520]

J. Kwan: Actually, I'm looking for pretty well all the numbers — right? My next question was going to be the breakdown of the project's budget. It includes, obviously, the operating part of it in terms of the operating cost, in terms of the ongoing cost to finance this initiative. So what was the startup, then? Is the startup that the minister is saying $3½ million — for the construction of the dream home itself as a demonstration site, and then afterwards the ongoing cost, and is that each year? It's not just the one-time cost; it's an ongoing cost as well. So it's a cumulative cost to the treasury.

Hon. P. Bell: I think probably the best thing is that I'll arrange for a copy of the spreadsheet to be provided to the member opposite, because there's a fair bit of detail in terms of expenditures. This spreadsheet starts in 2008-09 and goes forward and assumes the '11-12 fiscal year. There are four years included, but of course, Dream Home was built a number of years prior to that. We'd have to go back and pull that data together.

In a nutshell, provincial commitments in China, and this includes all of the associated costs from the provincial government, have ranged from $6.26 million in 2008-09. The low was actually in 2009-10 at $4.97 million and then back up to $7.9 million, and $6.5 million is assumed this year. On top of that there are industry contributions as well as the government of Canada.

What we've tried to do is offset the government of Canada contributions against provincial contributions. Although our funding dropped in '09-10, the federal government contributed a greater amount to the Sichuan earthquake reconstruction projects, which are included in these budgets lines.

The average '08-09 was $8.8 million, and then we bounced up to about $14 million this year. Because we've completed the Sichuan earthquake reconstruction
[ Page 6697 ]
projects, we're down to $10.7 million. That's total federal government industry dollars, trade association dollars as well as the provincial government. I'm happy to provide a copy of this to the member opposite.

J. Kwan: I would be very interested in getting that, because I know that's getting into all the various details, and presumably the spreadsheet will provide for federal breakout and then provincial breakout and then industry costs, etc. If I need to go back further, I'm sure that I can get that from the ministry's staff. He has many spreadsheets. Weirdly enough, I like to look at them too. Okay, that would be great if I could get that information from the minister, and thank you for that.

I would like to get the minister's view on the Dream Home initiative. With the completion of the earthquake natural disaster that China had faced…. The cost, presumably, that the minister has just outlined is included in that. Beyond that, what was the project able to generate for British Columbians? That is to say: what other initiatives did China take up that they pay for themselves, that utilize the Dream Home initiative to do construction they required that was not paid for by the taxpayers?

Hon. P. Bell: The Dream Home China project was our first foray into the Chinese marketplace. It was interesting, and it was probably the right idea at the time. But it really didn't end up, I think, reflecting the vast majority of the Chinese construction market and the opportunity that exists for wood-frame construction.

There were a number of villas built in and around China on a commercial basis as a result of people coming and seeing Dream Home China and seeing what it looked like. They liked the style of construction, so they went on. I can't provide a number to the member opposite. It certainly is not in the tens of thousands. It may be in the thousands; I'm not sure. But it wasn't a huge component of the growth that we've seen.

[1525]

It has been a good project from the perspective of demonstrations of what you can do with wood in China. The fact that it's been there for, I guess, about eight years now also shows that wood-frame construction is a good style of construction that can last for a long period of time. There's no degrading of the building. It's still in very, very good shape today.

I typically visit it once a year while I'm over there. It largely at this point in time houses our office staff — all of our staff, in fact, in our FII operations as well as the Canada Wood Group operations. That could be somewhere else, actually. There were two buildings, and I think one of them has been re-leased and is now a pub, if I'm not mistaken. Some of the area where it was built has been attractive, and it is used by the developer now as another type of facility.

The initial project was our first foray into China. It probably wasn't the best style of construction, but it allowed us to learn from the project. The real development in terms of the Chinese marketplace has come from those learnings.

As we've pursued other opportunities — and I'll use wood roof trusses as an example around that — we entered into some agreements where we would build two, three or four wood roof trusses for a developer on the conditions that we were able to demonstrate affordability and also sustainability of the roofing system and that the developer would then go ahead and build some other wood roofs on their own.

Typically, that's been kind of in the neighbourhood of three to six roofs that we would build. The developer would build 100 to 150 roofs. That would be kind of normal. We have done other demonstration projects. In fact, we just completed a project where we built a three-storey apartment building that had three apartments per floor in front of the Beijing conference center. That was the purpose of my most recent trip into China.

For that particular project we provided the lumber, which was a little under $100,000 for the project, as well as some technical expertise, but the developer actually paid for everything else in that building. The cost of the building to the provincial government or to FII was about $100,000 plus another $100,000 to have it transported and set up in front of the Beijing conference center.

We're seeing a shift taking place where we no longer have to contribute $1 million or $2 million to do a demonstration project. In most of the demonstration projects now, if we provide the lumber and some skilled expertise, typically a developer will put in the rest of the associated costs.

We have a project that's going on right now in the Tianjin Economic Development Area that's a four-storey building. We went out as a result of a memorandum of understanding signed with the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development a little over a year ago, actually, to build a multi-storey apartment building.

This facility is just under construction. The foundations were in when I was there in March. I believe it's started to be framed at this point. It will be the first multi-storey wood apartment building of this nature.

In that particular case, again it's the case that we provided lumber for one building. They are actually building, I think, five all together, if I'm not mistaken, out of wood. They liked what they saw, so they're expanding.

We've really shifted gears, and it's not just around wood frame. That certainly is one of the elements, but furniture is another element. Concrete forming we know about. Everyone is aware of that — the wood roof systems, doors, windows. I think we are at a place now where we will continue to see that very, very significant growth in China.
[ Page 6698 ]

Was it perfect from the beginning? I say absolutely not. I think lots to learn from it. One of my jobs in this new portfolio is to take the learnings from FII and the processes we've gone through since 2002 or '03 and try and apply them to other industrial sectors in the province. The member may have some other questions, but I hope that kind of gives her an outline of the process so far.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the minister for that, because the website actually lists the number of different demonstration projects as well. So I appreciate that.

[1530]

Many of these questions that I have are fairly detailed. I wonder, with this spreadsheet, if the minister could also ensure that he provides me with each of the demonstration projects — the list of them; where they are and what the province contributed in terms of those demonstration projects; the cost of those demonstration projects for the province of British Columbia; and if it's in kind, such as wood; and the techniques that are being utilized for the development. If the minister can list those things out and cost it out for me, I would appreciate it.

Also, provide what the matching dollars are — coming from the developer, from the Chinese government or whoever else is involved with those demonstration projects. I would be much obliged.

Segueing from that, if I could also get a spreadsheet — I'm sure the minister's staff has loads of them — that will then tell us…. Presumably, the ministry is tracking, out of those demonstration projects, what it is yielding by way of a return investment for us in terms of the Chinese government or developers in China that are now utilizing these techniques that they've learned and the demonstration initiatives that they have picked up on, in building their own projects at their own cost. Then, if we can get an estimate of the value of that in terms of revenue generated for British Columbia, I would really appreciate it as well.

I know that the roof trusses were part of the thing that came out of the Dream Home initiative. In fact — back in 2005, I think it was — I and the critic for Health travelled to China. Actually, we went to visit the Dream Home initiative to see what it looked like and what it was doing and how it was generating potential revenue and economic activity opportunities for British Columbia.

In looking at the site, I must say, I was dumbfounded, because in China there is a huge population base, as we all know, and there is a scarcity of land. Therefore, density is the order of the day, and single-family dwellings such as the dream home are not the order of the day. And I thought: "How are we going to really generate these opportunities in return?"

I'll be interested out of that…. As the minister says, it didn't generate that many houses or villas or projects as such, but rather it might have paved the way for something else. I'd be very interested in knowing what those things might be.

One of those things, I know, would be those roof trusses. Again, I know that British Columbia also provided for and built roof trusses, etc. The cost of that, in terms of the roof trusses to our treasury by way of demonstration and, again, the return of how many trusses we managed to sell to China, I guess…. I would be interested in getting that figure. If the minister can provide that to me, I would really appreciate it.

Hon. P. Bell: Just before I respond to that question, I want to correct the record. To the member for Cariboo North: I had indicated that the option to change from option A to option B had expired last year. In fact, it was in June of 2009 that the option expired. However, there is a second option, and the second option is January of 2013 for a decision. I just wanted to correct the record and make sure that's clear.

To the member's question, we would be happy…. I'm thinking three years. Most of the demonstration projects have taken place in the last three years or so. We'll provide the spreadsheet data that the member is requesting for the last three years around demonstration projects.

I do want to say to the member opposite, though, that tracking the specific sales related to those projects is very difficult because developers typically purchase from their mainstream suppliers. They don't necessarily tell us after the fact whether or not they have done other projects that we're not aware of.

We are aware of…. For example, in Shijiazhuang, I believe, in Hebei province, we signed an agreement for half a dozen roofs or so — and we'll provide the exact data — with a commitment to build an additional 100-some roofs. We certainly can track that and provide that data. In Shijiazhuang, the last time I was there, there were many, many more roofs going up — far too many that we could count — and would have directly related to the demonstration projects, because they were never done there.

[1535]

I think the easiest, best number to count is really the total volume of lumber that's moved into the marketplace. If the member opposite would like a graph or would like the total volume since we've started our efforts in China in 2002, I'd be happy to provide that.

J. Kwan: Well, I appreciate the information that the minister is going to give me, so I'll be looking forward to receiving the graphs and spreadsheet, particularly on the breakout of the demonstration projects, the actual costs and so on, and then also on the Dream Home initiative itself.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how much this investment was from British Columbia and what the yield was in return. Now, by way of measurement in return,
[ Page 6699 ]
I would argue, though, that's kind of measuring a little bit like apples and oranges. If we look at raw logs, how much we were able to export to China as a measurement, I don't think that's a fair measurement of this initiative at all.

Why I say that is this. Unless the minister can provide to me out of that figure the breakout of how much of that actually went into these specific areas of development…. Or did the raw logs go into China, then, to be utilized to build furniture and so on? The reason why I ask is this. I think there's an opportunity here for British Columbia to see how we can extend our economic opportunities by adding value to these logs, therefore giving value to job opportunities right here in British Columbia in terms of furniture production, door frames and so on.

I'm just wondering how we can maximize the job development opportunities in British Columbia — have we done that? — in trying to get a sense of this initiative and its value to B.C. in terms of the taxpayers' point of view.

I want to ask another question of the minister. We know there is some interest from the Chinese government in looking at building the lower, six-storey-type buildings in China — residential buildings, although some commercial, I guess. That's something the minister is embarking on. If the minister could tell us how that is going and whether or not there are going to be issues around fire code related to that, which the Chinese might be looking at with these six-storey wood-frame constructions.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to provide some approximate data here, but more detailed data certainly is available if the member opposite would like it.

In terms of the value of shipments into China of logs versus lumber, typically logs are representing something less than 10 percent of the total value going into the Chinese market. Lumber is something over 90 percent. It does fluctuate a bit, but it's kind of in that range.

That's quite different than other countries. Our experience in Washington State is on the order of 50 or 60 percent log and about 40 or 50 percent lumber. If you look at New Zealand, it's much higher to log again. Russia — virtually exclusively log now.

[1540]

I think British Columbia can be pretty proud that the majority of our shipments into China is lumber, and it is because we've stayed very, very focused on lumber. I know the sensitivities around the exportation of round logs. Certainly, my goal — publicly stated many times as Forests Minister; I continue to state that position — is to see us shipping lumber, not logs into the market. So I think we have a good credible story to tell around that.

The member opposite asked about the six-floor housing, multi-floor housing units in China and the opportunity that's associated with that, as well as the fire code. The province of British Columbia, as well as the government of Canada, entered into a tripartite memorandum of understanding, signed an MOU with the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of China in March of 2010 — originally from an initial meeting in November of 2009 that we had with Vice-Minister Qiu Bao Xing.

The memorandum of understanding was to develop a joint working group on wood-frame construction for China. The Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development is responsible for all housing in China. In China over the next five years we're anticipating about 86 million units of housing. That would include about 36 million units of affordable housing and then 50-or-so million units — about ten million per year that occur on an annual basis. That's how you get the 86 million units.

Vice-Minister Qiu and I in our meeting discussed how we might move forward on the project and how we might advance the agenda around wood-frame construction. He grew up in a wood-frame house, is quite comfortable with wood-frame construction and has been provided with the objective from central government to see them reduce their carbon footprint on the landscape, particularly as it relates to construction. The Chinese government has mandated that in their 12th five-year plan to reduce their carbon intensity by 17 percent.

Vice-Minister Qiu and I and the federal government signed this joint memorandum of understanding to establish a committee, which is working on an ongoing basis — it's a technical committee — as well as pursuing a demonstration project.

The demonstration project I referred to earlier in the Tianjin Economic Development Area is the project that was chosen by MOHURD and ourselves to move forward on, and that would be the first four-storey wood-frame building in China that is built under the new code that's available.

The member's question, though, is: will there be challenges around fire codes, building codes, as we move up from four to five to six storeys? Undoubtedly. Vice-Minister Qiu in my meeting with him about two weeks…. In fact, two weeks ago today I was with him here in British Columbia. Vice-Minister Qiu came on our invitation and spent a day with us in Vancouver.

He's keenly interested in hybrid construction. He thinks a combination of concrete and wood is a good option so perhaps a couple of floors of concrete and four floors of wood, or three and three, or five and one. I'm not sure where we'll end up on it, but the technical committee continues to work away at this initiative. The first building is physically under construction in Tianjin and is scheduled for completion as we move into the fall months.

So I think to the question the member asks: yes, lots of work to do on fire code, lots of work to do on build-
[ Page 6700 ]
ing code, but a very promising marketplace if we're able to create the appropriate codes that give the Chinese the confidence necessary.

J. Kwan: Is there any indication from the Chinese government on the 86,000 residential units that they're trying to build, that these are going to be in the framework of, I guess, low- to midrise-type buildings, or is it going to be highrises?

The reason why I ask this is that when the current critic for Health and I went back to China, shortly after that, the Chinese government — I believe it's the central government — actually put out an edict for all the provinces in China that talked about construction and particularly residential construction. Because of the density issue, people were not allowed to build low-density-type buildings.

[1545]

I'm just wondering: in terms of that 86,000, the opportunity there in terms of wood construction — is that really real? Or is it really going to be more like the highrises? Even when we talk about the mixed-hybrid-type building, mixed concrete and wood structure buildings, I'm not even sure if that is meeting the density requirement of the central government. Maybe the minister can shed some light on that.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite dropped three zeroes on the number of housing units being built in China. However, I've been known to jump from billions to millions as well. So just to correct the record, it's 86 million, not 86,000. It's actually such a large number that it's hard to fathom that that many housing units would be built, especially given that the United States in a big year builds two million. Biggest market and hard to believe.

I should also say, just for the record…. The member didn't ask this question, but I often do get asked this question: how big are these units? Typically about 800 square feet would be a normal housing unit that is built, so probably half the size of what is built in the United States but very similar to what we're seeing constructed in downtown Vancouver or downtown Victoria here. In fact, my daughter and her husband just moved into a place that I would say is very similar in size, and it is a very high-end condominium unit in downtown Victoria. So size-wise, about 800 square feet.

The member asked about the density levels and the direction provided by the central government on that. The member asked: is it going to be highrise or mid-rise or low-rise? The answer is: all of the above.

In speaking with Vice-Minister Qiu just two weeks ago today, actually, he advised that he expects somewhere around 70 percent of the units that will be built out of the 36 million affordable housing units will be six-storey. Those are typically in second-tier cities. Second-tier cities in China tend to be cities of under seven million, eight million, nine million in population. Those are often considered small suburbs in China versus the first-tier cities that are larger populations — ten-million-plus people. In a place like Shanghai it is unlikely that you will see significant six-storey structures.

The target market for wood would more likely be in the strapping market there, where they build the units out of concrete, and then when they drywall them, they need to strap them with wood in order to apply the drywall or panelling or whatever product is used. So there's a lot of strapping material. There's also a lot of concrete forming material as those buildings get built. So there's lots of opportunity for wood, but it's a different opportunity.

In the second-tier cities is where the six-storey walk-up tends to develop. Those, I'm advised by Vice-Minister Qiu, probably represent in the order of 70, perhaps as much as 75 percent of the total number of units to be built. It is different depending on where you're located in China.

We're focusing our efforts — and this is important as well, I think — on northern China — really, Shanghai and north. In southern China, because of the moisture in the air, wood is probably not the best product to use. So we're really not focusing on the southern half of the country. We're focusing our efforts on the northern half of the country. Clearly we're not going to build 86 million units of wood, but if we can continue to expand and grow that market, we think it would be a good thing.

J. Kwan: The minister is right. I did drop three zeroes. I meant million, and I think I said thousand and 36 million, so you're correct.

I'm now going to pass the floor over to the independent member, who is just hopping in his chair.

B. Simpson: Thank you to the opposition critic. Speaking of dropping zeroes, one of my estimates debates as Forests critic was in a roundabout way to point out that the B.C. Timber Sales had booked their spreadsheet in the millions when it was supposed to be in the thousands. It took a little while for the minister to figure out that he was not playing with that much money. So other people drop those zeroes easily as well.

[1550]

I want to stay on FII — a couple of questions, in particular the B.C. Wood First component of FII. FII has responsibilities for looking at implementation and driving that, and yet there is no stated objective or performance measure or target. My question to the minister is….

This is an explicit initiative of government to drive uptake of wood to be used in construction and various other building, and yet I don't see a measure here. I'm wondering if the government did a baseline and is track-
[ Page 6701 ]
ing against that baseline how successful the uptake is on the government's B.C. wood initiative.

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks very much to the member for his question. B.C. Wood Specialties Group is an organization that represents the broader value-added sector and typically kind of the high-value producers in the wood manufacturing industry. FII has a number of contracts with FII.

According to my very quick calculation here, there are six individual contracts, and the total value of those contracts for fiscal '10-11 is a little over $1.5 million. They include the Global Buyers Mission, which is maybe not quite the biggest single endeavour, but it's almost $500,000 into Japan, $400,000 into the United States and then some smaller programs that are associated with it.

I'd refer the member opposite to page 19 of the service plan, where we do measure incremental sales generated in B.C. in the B.C. non-residential market in terms of millions of board feet, which is typically the place where these companies would sell their products into.

B. Simpson: I guess what I'm getting at is the caution of so much energy being spent in China on trying to expand wood growth in China when we may have a huge incremental market here in British Columbia. It's a matter of focus. So I'll take from the minister that that is being tracked.

I do think it's important as a benchmark for making sure we maximize our domestic market, because as the minister knows, that also maximizes our community economic development opportunities, keeps things in British Columbia. It addresses climate change if we're not shipping wood all over the place.

Speaking of performance measures, I would refer to page 21 of the FII service plan and just ask for clarification on what appears to be a bit of a strangeness in this performance measure.

[1555]

"Percentage of customers who feel that choosing products from B.C. is a good choice for the environment" is, in '09-10, n/a; '10-11, 100 percent; 2011-12, n/a; 2012-13, 90 percent; 2013-14, n/a. I'm not sure if that's a typo or if there's something strange with tracking whether or not people think that we're producing environmentally sensitive lumber products. I wonder if the minister could just clarify that.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm going to answer the second question first and then come back to what I think may or may not have been a question. It might just have been a statement, but I do want to touch on it.

So this measure in terms of the international recognition for B.C. as the leading supplier of environmentally superior forest products. The survey is done every second year, so that's why the member will see it. We think that although we perhaps had the initial lead in this area, we're going to have to work hard to continue, and 100 percent is hard to build on. Perhaps we've given ourselves a little more room than we should, but we think 90 percent is a reasonable goal.

The member opposite, though, talked about his concern of us focusing too much on the Chinese market and not on other opportunities associated with the forest products industry. I think that I would just have him turn his mind to the work that's been done on the Wood First Act, because I happen to agree with the member opposite that we need to have multiple avenues for the use of B.C.'s forest products.

I have always believed that the two biggest single opportunities — at least in terms of volume and to a lesser degree value as well — are China, certainly on the volume side, and in terms of volume and value, the non-residential sector. To that end, when I was Minister of Forests I created the Wood Enterprise Coalition and provided $1.75 million in funding, and they're doing a tremendous amount of work in terms of advancing the agenda around wood-first construction.

I attended a conference held by Wood WORKS! perhaps three or four weeks ago in Vancouver. They've held them now for about five or six years, I think. They have produced an architect's kit for the use of additional wood in large commercial and institutional buildings. It turned out that at that conference I believe there were about 1,100 or 1,200 architects and engineers. It was incredible the turnout at that particular event given that if you go back four, five or six years, it was like pulling teeth to get eight people out. So certainly the industrial-commercial community has turned their mind to building buildings.

[D. Black in the chair.]

We also commissioned a study on how high you could actually go with wood, especially with the new products that are coming out — cross-laminated timber as well as other products. Although I've yet to receive the report on my desk — I think it may be coming through staff at this point — I saw a speech by Michael Green in Australia where he was suggesting potentially upwards of 30 storeys could be built out of wood. Now, I am an optimistic guy and think that might be a bit on the optimistic side, but I do know there's a building in London, England, that is nine storeys, manufactured out of cross-laminated timber. I would dearly love to see British Columbia exceed that record and look for taller opportunities.

I think there are tremendous opportunities in the commercial-industrial sector. I think those were demonstrated through the Olympics with the Richmond ice oval, with the Vancouver Convention Centre, with the Trout Lake arena, with the Whistler events centre, with
[ Page 6702 ]
all of those wonderful venues that showed the world what B.C. can do with its wood products.

I share the member's passion and interest around expanding the use of forest products and much higher-value uses than what we've traditionally used them for.

B. Simpson: Because of time constraints, I'm going to truncate, with the minister's forbearance, my final couple of questions here. The way that FII is structured, as I understand it — and it's explicit in the documentation — China is the focus. It says it right in the documentation.

[1600]

The way that it's structured, it's about 80 percent taxpayer funded. The leveraging from the federal government of 42 percent; B.C. contributes 38 percent with their funds to FII; 42 percent from Natural Resources Canada; the federal government about 20 percent from the forest industry. Yet as the minister has already indicated, and there are indications in here, some of the FII money actually comes back into industry associations — Council of Forest Industries, Coast Forest Products Association, etc.

When I look at this, coming out of the industry and the company that I worked for — we were in China very early; we were in Japan early; we were in India early — for the most part, we just saw it as good business that we needed to grow there. At that time there weren't government programs like this to do that.

I look at what FII states, where its market outreach communication is to explain B.C.'s forest practices. I get that. I think that's a legitimate government job, to go and say that we log environmentally, etc.

But market research to unearth potential opportunities and create new market demand, I would argue, is the job of the industry. Marketing resources for general use by the industry, such as publications on wood, etc. — that's the industry's responsibility.

Market development programming in China where, as the minister has already indicated, looking at alternate ways to grow the business…. I guess that if it's a risky venture, which is the argument, where you are trying to get the inroads, you're trying to get that beachhead, there's an opportunity for government to be involved in that. But now FII is going to structure a China board, a FII China subsidiary that has, for the most part, the CEO, who's sitting with the minister, and five, six other board members from the industry, which is going to be underwritten for the most part by taxpayer dollars in that function.

I guess where I'm going to with the minister is: do we still need to be so heavily vested as taxpayers? Have we not formed a beachhead, and isn't it the responsibility of industry now to take advantage of that beachhead, do that work and, with the limited amount of taxpayer dollars that we've got, shift priorities to another emerging industry? The minister knows where I'm going with this — major priorities on the bioeconomy.

A brand-new report today from PricewaterhouseCoopers, and this is the language that I'm reading everywhere. This is from PWC: "Business as usual" — i.e., the normative traditional industry, panels, pulp, lumber — "cannot get us to sustainability or secure economic and social prosperity. These can be achieved only through radical change, starting now."

It strikes me that FII and the tax dollars used there would be better positioned to do the exact same thing that the minister and the government did in China, and that's create the beachhead here in British Columbia. The report goes on to state that what's missing is that leadership. Because of a time sensitivity, that's a lot to say.

My point is: haven't we spent enough taxpayer money developing the Chinese market? Industry should now be taking it over as part of their responsibility to grow it, to secure it, to make sure we have a presence there. Taxpayer money gets spent on a whole new industry, which is a $200 billion industry that the world has yet to really discover and that B.C. could be first on. Can't we shift those dollars over from FII to do that?

Hon. P. Bell: I think the answer to his question is not quite yet, in my view. I think the member opposite makes a good point in that there should be a point in time where the work is largely done and where the bulked-up level of funding that we currently have in the Chinese market — and we've had there for the last three years, as long as I was responsible for the file — could be pulled back and reallocated into other areas. I think it would be risky to back out of the market at this point. I think there's still a need for us to probably be there for another two, maybe three years or so.

To that end I should point to the member opposite that we've created a new funding allocation system within FII. Prior to this year we typically offered funding at a consistent percentage of industry participation across the spectrum of FII programs.

[1605]

This year we created two levels of funding — one for building new markets and one for sustaining existing markets. The company contribution increases significantly as you go to sustaining existing markets. Building new markets we provide 90 percent of the funding; industry, 10 percent. Maintaining existing markets is 50-50 funding.

I think the notion that the member opposite is bringing forward is one that we agree with and, in fact, have moved on already in terms of creating a variety of partnering levels, and perhaps more work needs to be done. I won't suggest that…. This was the first year we did it. Obviously, industry had some concerns because it was a change to them. It is one way of directing fund-
[ Page 6703 ]
ing, perhaps, into newer markets versus maintaining existing markets.

To answer the member's question, I think it would be risky to back out. We've really only had the level of funding there for the last three years that we are living on today, and I think there's more work to do. I think that if we did back out at this point, we could easily be displaced by one of our competitors.

China is a different market than virtually any other market in the world. The Chinese government typically operates under a model where they expect to see industry and government holding hands in endeavours, and that's the model of business that they do in China. Many of the companies are state-owned companies in China. So when we go to China, the ability to go there with a minister of the Crown as well as the CEOs from industry I believe is the appropriate model.

I think we're a couple of years, maybe three, away. But I've already had that discussion with the CEOs. I think most of them agree with me that that's about the timeline we should be on.

I do want to jump over to what the member opposite refers to, which is the bioeconomy. I'll call it green tech for now, but you could use a variety of titles. I share the member's view that green tech, or the bioeconomy, has big upside potential. I think it is early days still in that particular industry, and I think we need a thoughtful, well-reasoned plan to how we could support that industry, where we could invest dollars in a way that will allow that industry to grow.

We've done some of that through the ICE fund already as a government. We've had, I think, two or three levels into the ICE fund of $25 million per time. The phase 2 call for bioenergy and things like that have started to increase the amount of bioenergy that's being produced. I know that's a relatively simply form of the bioeconomy, not the more complex one that the member opposite envisages.

I do think that there's an interest in that. As we are pursuing our various options for economic development in this ministry and as we're considering what our options will be, the bioeconomy, or green tech or clean tech, is one of the ones that we're considering. I think it would be opportune for the member and me to find some time over the next few weeks or month to have more discussions on this. It is one of the areas that this government, Premier Christy Clark, believes has a big upside potential, and we're considering some action in terms of helping support or develop that industry.

B. Simpson: I have to close off my part of the debate, but I do want to put this on the record. I guess I struggle with the fact that risk is being absorbed by government. The very definition of entrepreneurship is to take that risk, and then you get the benefits from that. The minister's comments about holding hands…. You can go on a date and hold hands; you don't have to pay the tab. I think industry has an obligation now that the beachhead has been formed.

The reason I want to get it on the record is because I do believe that early adopters are going to win in this biotechnology. It feels to me that it is a field that is just about to flame up. The FPInnovations report points out that Europe is heavily vested. They are the largest investors. They will subsidize it. They will make it happen. My fear is that by continuing to put our limited resources into China instead of asking the industry now to pick up the slack there, diverting that now, we will no longer be early adopters. We'll be in a position where we'll be behind what I think is going to happen very rapidly.

[1610]

I take the minister's point, and we've had ongoing conversations. One of the things that I've asked, as the minister is well aware, and I've asked the opposition leader as well…. I think an easy way for us — and the FII funds are there as well as other opportunities — is to hold a leader's summit or a Premier's summit of some kind in this province on this particular new emerging economy and simply ask the experts to give us advice as to whether our priorities are right or not and maybe use the FII sooner than the minister envisages.

I won't make the minister go on the record about that, but I did want to say I don't agree with the minister about the time frame. I do think we need to put some resources in sooner rather than later to this. If the minister cares to comment…. If not, I'll sit down and let the opposition critic take over.

Hon. P. Bell: Just to be clear, I didn't want the member opposite to think that I don't believe we need to start investing in the green tech, clean tech industry now or shortly. It's simply that I think we need to continue to invest in China for another two or three years perhaps in order to solidify that market before we can reduce our impact.

As the member pointed out in some very early comments, there are thousands and thousands of people in this province working as a result of the China market, many of them in the member opposite's riding. So while I appreciate his ideology in not wanting to provide funding to industry, the forest industry was in a very, very tough state.

I know the member is on the record on many occasions suggesting that the province should be doing more to help support the forest industry, not less. I'd refer him back to some of his earlier comments. But with that, we are in a raging agreement on the need to move forward on a green tech economy.

J. Kwan: Great. Then I wonder if the minister can provide this House, just following on that thread of discussion, or provide me with their workplan. The minister
[ Page 6704 ]
talked about the new emerging opportunities in China, most notably the green tech area, and that there is now going to be a second stream of funding coming from FII targeted towards that.

So there's the existing budget for the existing initiatives that have been started, and then there's the new emerging area. What is the workplan then, I guess, for both of them? I'd be interested in knowing, projecting three years out, consistent with the service plan that's a three-year service plan. What are the goals and targets? Where are the areas of concentration that the government wants to go in, in both of these areas, and what is the government hoping to achieve?

I know this is far too much detail for today's purposes. Of course, we're also pressed for time as well, but I'd be very interested in getting that information from the minister's staff.

Hon. P. Bell: I just want to correct the member opposite a little bit. I think the member opposite intimated that I had said we would take money out of FII to fund green tech initiatives. I may have misunderstood, but that may or may not be the case. I don't know that.

What I do know is we are looking at the opportunities around green technology right now to determine whether or not there is the opportunity that the member for Cariboo North believes exists and, if there is, how we might fund those. But there is money in other ministries, as well, that can help support that. So it wouldn't necessarily be FII that would be the driver of that, although it may be. FII could be one of the drivers.

In terms of the requested information, it is all available in the service plan for FII. So the current plan as we have it today is in the service plan.

What I said to the member for Cariboo North and what I will say again is that I believe, as we have entered into this new ministry, it is a consolidation of a number of ministries. It has different elements that have come to it, and one of the things that I am interested in is looking at economic development through a different lens and identifying key sectors that we can take some of the lessons we learn from FII, in terms of how we were able to move the forest industry forward, and apply those lessons to other industries.

That may or may not include places like China. It may be a domestic product that we're looking at building or creating opportunities around. So it isn't necessarily following the exact same model, but the principles that we developed through the Forestry Innovation Investment program…. How can we apply those to perhaps an industry like green tech?

[1615]

Green tech could become a stand-alone feature, something that we look at. Again, I'm not presupposing that that will be the outcome, but currently we are looking at all of the industrial sectors in British Columbia to determine what might be the right areas for us to focus our efforts on. That work is ongoing, and we'll certainly be able to provide more information in months to come.

J. Kwan: In the latest service plan that the minister has provided, it does actually talk about key sectors of growth, trying to identify what those key sectors might be and to support the creation of high-value jobs in British Columbia. Of course, these goals are goals that we all support.

The question, of course, is: what sectors has the minister identified to be the sectors to invest in, and what sort of support would be provided by the government?

Presumably, whether it is this minister who is taking the lead on that in collaboration with other ministries or not, the minister would be able to pull together, though, from the various ministries across government and to provide for that blueprint, I would argue, so that British Columbians can have an understanding on what this vision is that the government is looking at and how are they going to support it. How are they going to generate the results that they say they want? Then, also to have the breakout on the budget as these initiatives are going to be implemented.

I'm wondering if there is a workplan of sorts that will lay this out so we can have a sense of what it is that the government is looking at.

Hon. P. Bell: This is new work that is going on right now and has just started to take place since I have taken responsibility for the portfolio. Again, the portfolio is quite new. It involves elements from many different ministries. Now that I've had responsibility for the file for about seven weeks, we are really trying to consolidate our thought.

The point of putting in the service plan — that the member is referring to — the lines about identifying key sectors and trying to develop strategies around growing those sectors is because I do believe that's the right approach to economic development. We're looking at the things that we think we do well in British Columbia, that we can out-compete the international community on and that we can use as levers to help grow our economy at a much faster rate than what we're used to growing it.

The intent of the work that is going on right now is to identify those sectors. That work, I expect, will conclude as we move into the summer this year and will be publicly announced.

The process that we're going through is that staff internally, within the ministry, are doing the analysis, and then we will be reviewing at a cabinet level, at various committee levels, the outcomes of that work. It's not been provided to me yet. I haven't seen any staff recommendations to date. I do anticipate over the coming weeks to start seeing that information, but it is very early on.
[ Page 6705 ]

What I wanted to do in the service plan and why I asked those lines to be included in the service plan was to make it clear that we are thinking differently about economic development in the province right now, that we're looking at ways of creating good, solid family-supporting jobs. I didn't want to enter a new year and a new service plan and a new budget without letting people know that we are considering a different approach to the way that we can grow the economy.

I'm sorry that I can't provide any more information to the member, just because I haven't received anything to date. But certainly, I'm more than prepared to work with the member and provide information subject to the timing that will be necessary for me to take this to cabinet and so on.

I know the member opposite understands the levels of confidentiality that have to be applied at various points, but I'm happy to provide the member opposite with information as I am able to.

[1620]

J. Kwan: I think, in other words, a short way of the minister saying that would be: "Stay tuned. There will be announcements." Of course, I will stay tuned and will be looking at this and looking forward to working with the minister in getting the detailed information, because I think that this is important. I think there are opportunities there, opportunities to be had.

The question becomes, in terms of taxpayer accountability: are we utilizing the taxpayers' resources in a way that will best benefit an economic return for British Columbians; that adds value from our natural resources to British Columbians in terms of job creation, and then also bridging into new arenas?

I think China is looking to us for…. Aside from the raw material — which, I know, everybody hungers for…. Beyond that, the question for us becomes: how can we create the jobs here in British Columbia, in its optimal state, in terms of those opportunities? What China, I know, is also looking for is new technologies. We have the technological know-how. We have the opportunities here to develop that so that we can market what we've got and to yield that economic return. So there are lots of opportunities there.

I think we are in agreement. The question is: how do we do it? And how do we best do it? Do we do it in a way that is transparent, open and accountable in terms of a return for British Columbia?

I know I'm going to wrap this area up because there's just a load of other stuff I have to get on to, and time is running out. But I'll be interested in getting at a later time from the minister's staff…. When the minister goes on these missions, he talked about actually bringing CEOs over and so on and so forth. I'll be interested in knowing what the process is that the government engages in to select the CEOs that the minister will then ultimately go on a mission with — and then, of course, to promote whatever company with these trade missions in other jurisdictions.

I think the minister is right. The Chinese government does look at government relationships and so on. It is a different model of functioning. But at the same time, how do we do it in such a way that will ensure there are no biases and that for the folks who have opportunities, it's equal and open to everyone?

Hon. P. Bell: Just very briefly, in terms of attendees on the missions, all are welcome. We extend that offer to anyone in the forest industry. But occasionally we'll have civic officials who will want to come along as well. Anyone attending the trade missions picks up their cost of their travel and meals and hotels and everything else associated with it.

I suppose one could argue that there is some cost borne by FII in the sense that we do the organizing and make sure we have translators and that sort of thing, but by and large, the cost is borne. We've had very small operators come with us on some of these trips. It's different for them in terms of what they get out of the trip versus a larger operator, but I think, really, the success behind these large trade missions has been a very focused effort, and they've been successful on that basis.

I just want to touch on one thing that the member opposite said and make sure this is on the record. One of the keys, I believe, to a successful trading initiative with the Chinese is understanding how we both win in that relationship.

I think it would be improper for the Chinese to argue that they should only receive round logs from our province, because that's really ultimately probably all they want. They would like to add as much value on their side of the ocean as they possibly could. I think it would be wrong for us to try and sell a fully finished chair into China. It would be very difficult for us to compete in that marketplace. I'm sure the member opposite knows the wage rates that people are prepared to work for in China. We wouldn't be able to compete. We simply wouldn't have any success.

The key, I believe, in developing a partnership with the Chinese is what they call héxié, and héxié is a harmonious relationship, or it's the word for "harmonious" in Chinese. I think that's the real key: finding the balance point between what China needs and what British Columbia needs and having the level of relationship, or héxié, that works for both parties.

I'm also joined now by Shom Sen, who is also an assistant deputy minister in the ministry responsible for trade and all kinds of good things, like investment and innovation.

[1625]
[ Page 6706 ]

J. Kwan: Either the minister needs to polish up on his Chinese, or I need to polish up on my Chinese, because I have no idea what he just said. In any event, that's neither here nor there.

I'm going to follow up with the minister's staff some more on this, but for now I'm going to table this issue because I've just realized that I only have 21 minutes to do the rest of the areas that I want to cover. Then I have the critic for small business, who's here, who wanted to deal with small business issues.

I can go on for days on this, because it is an area of high interest and importance, I think, for British Columbians. But for now I'm going to table this, and I will follow up with the minister to set up further meetings with his staff, and I'll look forward to receiving the materials that they are going to pass on to me.

I want to bridge this now into the area, broadly, the minister calls the Asia-Pacific initiative, and I'd like to discuss with the minister about that. Now, with the Asia-Pacific initiative, there is the…. Maybe the minister can just give me a quick three-minute response about what the government is doing at the moment and where the government thinks that they will go in the future in terms of the general trade opportunities that the government sees that's available to British Columbia.

We have a number of different trading partners. China, of course, is the emerging market, and I am proud to say that it was the New Democrat government that really initiated the bond with China and began to build that. It dates actually way back to Dave Barrett when he first brought the first Canadian delegation ever in Canada to China at a time when China was not open to the western communities. He actually saw the opportunities in bridging that and began that back in 1975.

Subsequently, of course, subsequent Premiers picked it up as well, and it really actually caught on fire, I would argue, when the former Premier, Mike Harcourt, took it on and then took the opportunity to twin the province of British Columbia with the Guangdong province and then also as well for the cities, the city of Vancouver with Guangzhou city.

That's yielded a lot of return, and subsequent Premiers, as I said, have sort of taken up on that, and now we see this administration picking up on what had been started. So those are all good efforts.

So that said, with respect to the vision for the future, with China being the emerging market — we have other markets as well in Europe, in India, in Korea, in Taiwan and so on and so forth — can the minister just give us a three-minute understanding on what is the vision, what is the direction, and where will the areas of investments and targets be for the government in terms of those trade opportunities?

Hon. P. Bell: I would actually argue that in a very subtle way, the NDP actually have a greater responsibility for the Chinese market than even going back to Dave Barrett in 1972 because, of course, the most significant individual historically in China is Dr. Norman Bethune, who went to China in about 1934, if memory serves me correctly.

Although I always hesitate to give the NDP credit for anything, I will note that Dr. Norman Bethune was a member of the Canadian Communist Party, and I know that is the predecessor of the New Democratic Party. So I will continue to give the NDP credit for its predecessor, the Canadian Communist Party.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Bell: All in jest. We use Norman Bethune's name as a positive thing, and I will note that the current mayor of Vancouver is related to Dr. Norman Bethune. So there are many things — well, not many, but a few things — that we have to be thankful to the NDP, whose predecessor was the Canadian Communist Party.

However, I've used up at least two minutes of the three minutes that the member allotted me, and I'll try and be coherent for the final minute. Actually, I think it's going to sound a bit like my previous response, so I apologize for that.

[1630]

One of the things that we did in the new construction of this ministry as well as our government is to bring all of the foreign trade initiatives underneath a single umbrella, which is contained within Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

One of the things that we are looking at right now…. Again, I apologize. As the member opposite said…. I think the comment she used earlier was: "Stay tuned."

But I am looking at all of the international trade offices that we have right now. To my count, as I went through all of them, there are about 20 offices around the world either through Tourism B.C., through the initiatives that we have in terms of our foreign trade offices or through FII.

In China there are, according to my calculations, six offices — three with FII and three through the previous ministry of tourism, technology and innovation; a couple in India; two in Japan; one in Korea; one in Germany; one in England; and one in California.

So we're looking at all of those. The key is going to be — again, to step back to what I said in my previous response — to look at what the core industries are that we're going to focus our efforts on if that is a strategy that we want to pursue. That work, of course, is ongoing.

Once we understand that here are the core industries that we think we have an opportunity to promote and grow, then the next question becomes: where do we need to be in order to accomplish that?

I'm unable to direct the member opposite and say: "I expect we're going to have a presence in Bangalore, in
[ Page 6707 ]
Tokyo, in Beijing." I can't do that today. But I will commit to advising the member as we move through that process and the thinking. I know that's not a great answer for her, but it is the only answer I can provide because it's the truth. That's the work that we are doing at this point.

So I appreciate the member's question. I know I went over my three minutes in my rambling response, and I'll try and keep the next one tighter.

J. Kwan: I am tempted to enter into a debate with the minister about communism and then, of course, around the CCF-NDP and what they did in terms of that. There's a long history aside from the trade issue that the CCF-NDP had a record of, which I'm very proud of. At a time when it wasn't popular for any politician of any political stripe to advocate and fight for the very basic rights that we all enjoy today for the ethnic minority community, it was the CCF-NDP who did that — a big reason why I am a proud New Democrat today.

But I am going to save that for another day, for another discussion, because now I only have 14 minutes to get the rest of this work done. So maybe I'll engage in further discussion with the staff around this, with the minister around the Asia-Pacific initiative and the trade offices and the representatives and the work that they're doing and how the government measures success in terms of return and so on.

I do recall, actually, a former minister in a different iteration, under a different title. He used to tell me that how the trade representatives did their work was actually sometimes in a car, sometimes on a plane, sometimes out of their home, and made these connections somehow to yield the benefit to British Columbia. I found that to be, frankly, strange. I don't know how people can find these connections in somebody's car and in their home and on the plane and so on.

So things, it seems like, have shifted out a little bit, have changed a little bit, and perhaps the government has been more strategic in terms of that investment. I'll be interested in engaging in further discussion with the minister's staff at a later time around that to further explore this area.

I want to ask the minister this question around the Asia-Pacific Business Centre, which was set up on Robson Street. I have the basic information around this centre, but I'd like to know the breakout again in terms of the budget for this centre, if the minister can provide that to me.

Part of the job, of course, is to build these relationships, to provide information around investment opportunities for companies bilaterally and so on. So I'm wondering again: aside from first contact of people coming to this centre to get the information, how else is the minister measuring the value of this centre? Is there any follow-up in terms of these contacts that will yield an actual return by way of an actual investment or agreement that's been signed, which deliver opportunities for British Columbia?

[1635]

Hon. P. Bell: The actual setup of the facility, the original cost of the facility was about $1.4 million. We have staff at this existing facility but also at the World Trade Centre, as well, that provide services associated with the Asia-Pacific initiative.

A good example, actually, of a project…. A specific example of a project that came to fruition recently as a result of the efforts of this particular division of the ministry was the DaimlerChrysler deal on the fuel cell engine construction process that was announced — $50 million for Burnaby, British Columbia — maybe about a month ago, a month and a bit ago.

In the spirit of knowing that we're time-constrained and that I was too rambling in a previous statement, I will guess and respond to what I think the member's next question might be by saying I'd be happy to provide her with a list of the accomplishments of the centre in terms of what investments have been made in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Yes, that's exactly where I would like to go and then to perhaps engage again with the minister's staff around it, as well. For me the first point of contact is important, of course, but then beyond that, in terms of what the actual delivery at the end of the day is, which says: "Here are these opportunities that came out of this first point of contact." Presumably that's the kind of work that the ministry does in terms of tracking and doing it as a performance measure piece.

I'm going to move on from this and sort of go into a little bit, very quickly, the venture capital tax credit programs that the government had put in place. Maybe I'll just put this forward. It's not so much to ask questions today, because we simply don't have time, but to simply put on a marker here.

I'd like to explore a variety of areas in terms of the tax credit programs that the government has in place, the venture capital tax programs. So I'd like to put a marker in here. If the minister could be agreeable to having his staff available so I can explore this area with his staff, I would appreciate it.

Then I'd like to move on to another critical area that's been brought to my attention, and that is the Canada-EU trade agreement — CETA, in other words. Provinces were asked to table offers to the federal government by March 28 for negotiations with the EU that will start in May. This was the opportunity for the provincial governments to request any exemptions from this trade agreement.

The EU is requesting full access to procurement by subnational governments, and this would eliminate the right to specify local priorities when public money is being invested in goods, services or capital projects.
[ Page 6708 ]
The UBCM, as the minister knows, along with the B.C. School Trustees Association have passed resolutions requesting that their members be excluded from CETA.

I'm wondering whether or not that has been done and if the minister can give me a quick, brief update on the status of CETA. I know there was a federal election that sort of stalled things, but this actually occurred before the election was called, so there should be some opportunity by way of an update.

[1640]

Hon. P. Bell: The CETA negotiations are ongoing. Round 7 took place in April. British Columbia does have a presence. We've been consulting with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. But frankly, B.C.'s interests lie more to the west than they do to the east. Certainly, our encouragement with our federal partner is to look at creating trading relationships with China, Korea, Japan, other Asian countries — India.

We are at the table. We are involved. We've been listening to the comments. In fact, I had a conference call with the minister from Quebec on this issue about three weeks ago or so. We are consulting. Our interests, however, are more focused to the west than they are to the east.

J. Kwan: But I'm wondering. Has the provincial government made any submissions on behalf of British Columbia to the federal government around exemptions?

Hon. P. Bell: I can tell the member opposite that we have tabled the concerns specifically of the municipal governments with our federal government, who is the lead negotiator.

J. Kwan: Just from UBCM? Or is it the B.C. School Trustees Association as well?

Hon. P. Bell: At this point, only UBCM. I will take the B.C. School Trustees' issues under advisement.

J. Kwan: Why didn't the government table those concerns at the time?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not aware that there's been a formal presentation to government at this point by the B.C. School Trustees Association. I could be corrected on that, given that I've been in the portfolio for seven weeks, but I'm not aware that there's been a presentation.

What I offered to the member opposite previously was that I would take that under advisement, pursue trying to better understand the B.C. School Trustees Association's comments and needs, and then decide whether or not we need to move forward with a specific request as well.

J. Kwan: I think that I'll be very specific around some of the issues that have been brought to my attention by way of concerns. That would be the areas of transparency and openness around this. People actually want to know the negotiation process that is in place right now: what is being negotiated; what exemptions are being talked about; and what areas of concerns have been articulated on behalf of us, British Columbia, to our federal government around this agreement.

I know that a number of sectors have raised these issues. They're worried about it, and rightfully so that they're worried about it. They're wanting to make sure that there is openness and transparency.

They want to know that…. For example, the Council of Canadians raised the issue of water rights. They have raised the issues of transit, energy, health care services — as examples. There are issues around pharmaceutical drug patent extensions that would have implications related to this. I can go on with a big, long list of this, but people are concerned about it. I know that CUPE, for example, also has an interest in this issue.

I know that we're out of time, but this is something that I think the minister can quickly commit to, and that is to commit to openness and accountability in this process.

Will the minister commit today that this information that should be on the public record will be made available to the public and that any exemptions being asked for before the agreement is signed off and before the matter is submitted to the federal government be made known to the public so that we're aware of what the British Columbia government is doing on our behalf?

[1645]

Hon. P. Bell: What I can commit to the member opposite — she listed a variety of different groups — is that any advice that we receive from those groups will be taken into account. But any international negotiation, by the nature of what it is, is between federal governments, not provincial governments. The advice that we provide to the Canadian government may or may not be accepted, and that is the role that we all have in this world, sitting in this Legislature instead of the Canadian Parliament.

The member opposite, I know, is the new-found owner of a large number of seats in the province of Quebec. I'm certain that she'll be able to talk to her federal leader to encourage him to deal with some of these issues as well.

J. Kwan: No doubt. I have faith in our federal counterpart, who will for sure pursue these issues. In fact, during the election some questions were asked of them, and they put it very much on the public record, in terms of what their intentions are, for everyone to see.

I'm not worried about our federal NDP counterparts, but I'm a little bit worried about the federal
[ Page 6709 ]
Liberal counterparts, for this member's direction, and then also very much worried about the Conservative government's direction on this, because so far they actually didn't answer the survey that was put out during the election on the public record about the issue. They just ignored it.

I'm very much worried about it. But I know that the Premier had pledged that she would work cooperatively with the federal government. In the spirit of this cooperation, I would also expect, though, that she would live up to the objective of transparency, openness and accountability that she's repeatedly stated that she would aspire towards.

On that front, while I appreciate that the minister says that he cannot control what the federal government does on these matters, will he commit, though, that the information, the request which the provincial government will put forward to the federal government, will be made available on the public record so that the community in British Columbia, people in British Columbia, will know exactly what it is that the provincial government is asking of the federal government with respect to this agreement?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite was in government for a period of time and was a cabinet minister and, I would think, would understand that by the nature of negotiations, oftentimes there is information that you don't want to disclose, especially to those that you're negotiating with. So I'm unable to make, I think, the level of commitment that the member opposite is asking for.

What I can assure the member is that if there are groups that are interested in talking to British Columbia about our positions, we will make sure that we do that, and that in the event of information that we do present to the federal government, where it can appropriately be disclosed to the parties that would have a concern, we'll also do that. But I do need to make sure that the member understands that when you're in a negotiation of the nature that we're in, there are times when not all information would be appropriately disclosed in that negotiation.

J. Kwan: Maybe I can get this commitment from the minister, then. For the folks who have contacted me, and there are a great number of them — some of them are particularly those with an organization — would the minister agree to having a meeting with them?

I could set up a meeting with all these folks here so they can have a discussion with the minister and at the minimum, if nothing else, raise the issues directly to the minister's attention in the hopes that the minister will represent their point of view at these negotiations.

Hon. P. Bell: I'd be happy to do that.

J. Kwan: Well, we're making progress. I like it.

Now I've completely run out of time and, in fact, overspent the time that I was allotted. There are many areas which I have not yet even been able to canvass.

[1650]

Just by way of an example, I was wanting to get into the B.C. Innovation Council, some of the major agencies, boards and commissions that the minister is responsible for. There are other areas of which I provided a list to the minister, and I don't think I've touched on even half of the items that I wanted to sort of go into.

In light of the fact that we've now run out of time, I would like to follow up on the minister's offer to meet with his staff to canvass these areas in detail, just as we would, I guess, in the estimates process, although in a meeting setting with his staff.

If the minister would agree to that, I will then hand the floor over to my colleague, who has some quick questions to ask, and then we'll go into the main piece as we wrap up this set of estimates in the area of small business.

S. Fraser: Madam Chair, it's good to see you in the chair.

Hello again to the minister and your staff, a different staff this time.

I wanted to touch bases very, very quickly. I have made a request to government to set up a meeting. I was actually steered to Jobs, Tourism and Innovation as the appropriate ministry at this point in time, and I've got to say that it is, because this is an issue that's going to seem like déjà vu to the minister, but jobs and innovation is what it's all about.

It's the proposal from Voith, the company out of Germany, fibre technology. I know the minister, in his previous role as Minister of Forests, commissioned FPInnovations, and they confirmed that, indeed, there's a technology potentially available that could return B.C. to being the world leader in the pulp and paper industry.

The opportunity still may exist. I have a request in to the minister. I put it in a couple of weeks ago. I know he and his staff have been busy preparing for estimates, so I understand that this can take a while.

While I have the minister here and while I have the floor, I was just wondering if I could get a confirmation that we could have such a meeting, and I could update the minister on the potential opportunity that does exist, again with Voith, that could turn our pulp and paper industry around for the good for jobs in the province.

Hon. P. Bell: In the spirit of expediting the estimates process, I will agree to that meeting.

D. Routley: I just would like to correct a few facts in a question that I asked earlier to the minister, and they were related to the Island Coastal Economic Trust and the E&N Railway.
[ Page 6710 ]

In fact, the trust has received applications for improvements to the railway but those have not been funded. But I do, however, appreciate the minister's invitation to discuss the issue over coffee, and I do appreciate his interest in and appreciation of the railway's importance to the island. If the minister is still willing, we'll have a coffee and discuss the E&N Railway.

Hon. P. Bell: My dance calendar continues to fill up. I'd be happy to.

J. Brar: Madam Chair, first of all, my sincere and official congratulations to you on your new role, and I'm very certain that you will do very well in that role.

My role is to ask questions in this estimates debate regarding a small business piece. I just want to put on the record that small business used to be a stand-alone ministry but not any more. Small business did not even make the title of the ministry this time somehow.

On page 18 of the service plan, there is a reference to small business which basically states under objective 2.3: "Create a business climate that supports small business and encourages economic development." I would like to ask a question related to that area.

[1655]

I would like to start with the impact of HST on the small business community. The impact of HST on the small business community is huge. This government has failed to address that issue and completely failed to consult with the small business community before implementing the HST onto them.

The HST, as we know, has created winners and losers, and the winners are very clear. Those people are friends of the B.C. Liberal Party and big business and the corporations, because it's a tax shift of $2 billion from the big businesses to the consumers of B.C. and the small business community.

Just to put on the record, the big businesses save a lot of money out of HST. Tax savings are estimated at $880 million for the construction industry, $140 million for the manufacturing, $210 million for the transportation industry, $140 million for the forestry sector, and $80 million for mining and oil and gas.

Then there's a list of losers, which is the long one. The first people are the consumers, the people of B.C., because now they have to pay 7 percent additional tax on a range of new goods and services that were previously PST-exempt.

I would like to come back to the small business community. It is very important to note that small businesses that provide domestic services are big losers as well. These are the businesses that will now have to charge 7 percent additional tax. Examples include restaurants; accommodation and tourism operators; beauty, health and fitness services like salons and gyms; education services like language and music lessons; contractors; landscapers and many more.

I'm going to come to the question. Small business lost the PST commission, and that provided $2,400 monthly to each retailer in return for them acting as the government tax collectors. The amount had been doubled by Premier Campbell as part of his ten-point plan to respond to the global financial crisis just nine months before the HST was announced.

So my question to the minister is this. Can the minister tell us how much annual commission was given to the small business community to collect PST?

Hon. P. Bell: I remember, actually, that one of the early meetings I did over the HST after it was announced, but before it was implemented, was with the Prince George Chamber of Commerce. They had expressed some concerns initially about it and wanted more information.

So I sat down with them, and one of the individuals at that meeting actually owned a small computer store. She was very concerned about the HST and said that she wasn't supportive of it. I didn't actually know what business she had at the time. So I asked her, and she explained that it was this small computer store. I asked her who her primary customers were. She said, well, she dealt mainly with car dealerships. That was her usual customer base.

So I said: "Well, actually, I think HST is probably a great news story for you because your computers just got 7 percent cheaper. Because although you'll have to charge HST in place of PST, which would be the same price as previously paid under the old system, the car dealership will be able to use that HST as an input tax credit. The car dealership will likely refresh their computers more frequently, be in a position to purchase higher grade models and ensure that they are able to maintain the level of technology."

Once she discovered that, she immediately changed her mind and was very supportive. That's just one personal example I can provide of a local small business in Prince George. I think they employ three or four people, a very good example of a company. That is an absolute real-life story because I recall the discussion like it was yesterday.

[1700]

The member opposite asked the question about the commission paid to small businesses under the previous PST system, and I actually have some personal experience with this. The member opposite will know that I still continue to have an interest in a few restaurants. When I was actually physically involved in the restaurants, one of the things that used to drive my wife absolutely nuts was the paperwork involved in filling out the PST submission form each month. Although she got a commission — I forget what it was; it was like
[ Page 6711 ]
15 bucks or something that she got — I think it meant she was making $3 an hour for the amount of work that it actually took to fill out the form and make sure it was accurately submitted.

I will admit that my wife is studious. She makes sure that everything is done impeccably and has proven that consistently over the blissful 33 years of marriage that we've shared together.

The point is that the commission rate that was provided to small businesses was not a source of income. It was payment for a cost that we were imposing. Typically they weren't being paid very well for the cost that was associated with it.

Now that we've moved to the harmonized sales tax system, my wife does exactly the same work as she did previously for the GST. So there was no incremental work that was imposed on her. In fact, she was relieved of the issue of having to fill out the PST documents on a regular basis and submitting them for a very small amount of money.

While we do not have the information with us here, I'm sure that the Minister of Finance, during his estimates, would be able to provide the amount of money that was provided to small business as a PST commission, as the member opposite refers to it. I don't think that is the correct title.

There are many stories about HST, and if the member would like to spend the next hour talking about them, I'd be happy to do that.

J. Brar: Thanks for sharing the story of your wife.

My question was very simple: the amount of money which was paid to the small business people for collecting PST. I would appreciate the minister keeping on time — we have a very limited time window because we have a very short session; we don't have the regular time to get into those kinds of discussions — to be precise and to be specific to the question.

So the minister doesn't know how much money actually was paid to the small business community. My understanding is, and the minister can confirm or later check, that the amount paid to the small business community was between $40 million and $50 million. That was the amount paid to the small business community to collect the PST.

My question to the minister will be: was there any consultation that took place with the small business community before bringing in HST about this impact?

Hon. P. Bell: I think I heard $50 million was identified by the member opposite in terms of the amount of money that was provided to small businesses. I'm not sure if I heard that number correctly.

J. Brar: From $40 million to $50 million.

Hon. P. Bell: So I did hear it correctly, $40 million to $50 million. I do know that the analysis indicates that the savings to small business as a result of not having to administer the PST is about $150 million. That would confirm what my wife told me, which is that she was getting paid about $3 an hour for the work that the PST system was costing her. In fact, I think there's a pretty good return on investment for small business in that area, so I think it is more than defendable.

The member opposite should know — he's been a member of the House now for, I think, about seven or eight years perhaps — that tax policy is something that always has to be held in confidence prior to implementation. If the member opposite wants to discuss the consultation for tax policy, that would be more appropriately done under the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

J. Brar: I think one of the roles this minister has, and this is part of the service plan, is to consult with the business community, the small business community. That's his specific role, part of this service plan.

I'm asking this specific question. Did you do your job asking the small business community about this huge tax policy change, which is to the HST from the PST? If there was no consultation, the minister can say so. But I think it was your job, Minister, to talk to the business community under your role because that is part of your role under this ministry.

[1705]

I would like to give one more opportunity to the minister as to whether there were any specific consultations with the small business community before implementing the HST or not.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite, I guess, is perhaps a slow learner and hasn't figured out who does what job in government. The Finance Minister clearly has responsibility for tax policy. I stated that in my previous comments. The member opposite tries to somehow suggest that that's my responsibility. That's not the case.

What I can tell the member is the Small Business Roundtable continuously brought up the issue of moving to a harmonized sales tax system. But tax policy is the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance would be the agency that would be best equipped and most appropriately designated to consult on that policy.

J. Brar: Now at least we have a little confession there that the Small Business Roundtable continuously talked about this, and that's part of the ministry under the minister — right?

So there is $40 million to $50 million that was paid to the small business community under the PST system. As soon as the HST was introduced, that money
[ Page 6712 ]
was withdrawn. I would like to ask the minister: how was this tax a revenue-neutral tax from a small business point of view? You were paying them $40 million, $50 million under the PST system, but that money is not being paid any more under the HST system.

Hon. P. Bell: I have offered the greatest of latitude to all members of the opposition through this estimates process. That question directly relates to the Minister of Finance and would be most appropriately asked of that minister.

J. Brar: Once again, okay, I would like to basically read from today's newspaper. The minister has been talking about the benefits of the HST to the small business community. This is today's newspaper, Madam Speaker. This is in the Vancouver Sun, and it states: "Nearly nine out of ten restaurants in B.C. have seen sales drop since the introduction of the HST and new drinking and driving penalties, according to a survey done by the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association."

Nine out of ten restaurants — 90 percent of restaurants — have experienced a drop in sales as a result of the HST. That was the survey done by one of the largest small business communities in the province. I would like to ask the minister what his response is to this survey. Does the minister agree or disagree with these findings?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite refers to some comments by Mark von Schellwitz, I believe, of the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association. His comments specifically were that since the application of two new policies — one is the HST; the other is the .05 drinking regulations — in his view, 90 percent of restaurants have seen some sort of revenue decline.

I can also suggest to the member opposite that he review the independent panel report that was released yesterday. There's a graph in that report — I forget what page, but I think it was around page 11 or 12 or 13 — that shows that in fact restaurant sales year over year as a result of HST relative to 2010 are level.

J. Brar: I would like to verbally add one more stat that I have when it comes to the independent panel. The independent panel stated very clearly again…. This is today's newspaper. It says that particularly the number of jobs which were projected by this government was 113,000 jobs, but now they are saying the number of jobs out of this could be only 24,000 jobs. This is a huge variation between these two, the prediction of the government and the prediction of the independent panel.

Anyway, moving from that, Madam Speaker, I would like to move on to a new line of questioning under small business again, and that will be the problem of cash flow as a result of the HST. I don't know whether the minister will be interested in responding to this question or not.

[1710]

The introduction of the HST has created huge cash flow problems for many small business communities. Under the PST system most business inputs were exempt at the point of sale. In other words, they were not required to pay the PST when they used to buy their inventory. For example, a bar or restaurant would go to a liquor distribution branch with their liquor licence and purchase their liquor PST-free.

Now they have to pay 12 percent HST up front, at the beginning, and will not receive that money back until perhaps a year later when they file their taxes and claim their input tax credits. That has created a huge problem for many small businesses, because they don't have extra money.

I would like to ask if the minister has done a study or has, again, consulted the small business community on the impact of HST on the cash flow problem of the small business community.

Hon. P. Bell: You know, I find the member's analysis almost unbelievable, having been in business personally for 22 years myself and many more years working corporately.

HST for the vast majority of businesses will have the exact opposite impact because they will be collecting HST on sales. That HST on sales goes into their bank account. Most businesses…. The restaurant business, the one that I've been involved in, typically operates on terms of anywhere from two to four weeks prior to having to pay their core suppliers, and their employees typically two to three weeks, depending on their payroll cycles, as funds accumulate in their account and are only paid out monthly.

The member opposite perhaps needs to go to some of his economist friends in the NDP and figure that out because, if anything, the vast majority of businesses will be further ahead with the HST from a cash flow perspective.

J. Brar: Thanks for the lesson from the minister. This is what the small business community is saying, and the minister is saying there's no impact.

I think it's very clear that under the PST system — and the minister should say if I'm wrong — when they used to go and buy stuff, it was PST-exempt at the point of sale. But now they have to pay HST at the beginning, at the point of sale, which they will get back after a year, almost. Many small businesses cannot afford to pay that at the beginning, particularly the restaurant industry, because they buy a lot of stuff, and the HST amount is huge for them.

The minister certainly does not see it that way. The minister sees the impact of HST in his own way.
[ Page 6713 ]
There's a huge list of small businesses in the community which are opposed to the HST. They're saying that this is hard for them, since the HST has been imposed on them.

My question to the minister is simple. Has he consulted — because that's part of his role — or had any consultation with the small business community on the impact of cash flow, if any, on them during the last year?

Hon. P. Bell: As the member opposite knows, I believe, we started the Small Business Roundtable in 2005. That continues on today and is a very good contributor and a sounding board for this ministry and government in the small business community. I'd be happy to provide the member opposite with a list of the members of the Small Business Roundtable. It also goes out and consults broadly in the public to get the perspectives of individual businesses in small communities around the province. It's an initiative that we're proud of and that we think has provided us with good, sound advice.

Consistently, prior to the implementation of the HST, one of the themes that we heard from the Small Business Roundtable was that one of the biggest things we could do to help support small business was the shift to a harmonized sales tax. While there can be differences of opinion — I understand that, being someone who continues to have an interest in restaurants — on whether or not that works for all businesses, the Small Business Roundtable members continue to support the model.

[1715]

The contacts I have in the small business community continue to suggest that although there are warts — and we look to fix those warts; we look to see what we can do to improve the tax and make sure that it works for people — by and large, it is doing what it is intended to do and helping support B.C.'s growth.

It's something that we support, something that we believe makes a tremendous amount of sense. I do know and understand what the opposition member's position is on the harmonized sales tax. While I respectfully disagree with his view on the tax, I do think he certainly is not reflecting the feelings of many of the individuals in the small business community.

J. Brar: The minister has the right to disagree with my position, but I want to tell you that this has been the position of the Liberal Party. This is the Liberal Party who said to the people of British Columbia that they had no plans to impose HST before the election. But as soon as the elections were over, they in fact announced the HST. It was later revealed that the government was considering the HST in the months leading to the 2009 elections. That was clear from those documents.

But more interestingly, it's not news that the minister does not agree with me. The members of this party do not agree with their own statements next day. Let me read Madam Christy Clark when she was a radio host. I would like to read, and this is what she said about the HST: "It is an insult to British Columbians for the government to, first of all, have brought in this tax in what most of us regard as a very, very sneaky way." This is what Madam Clark said when she was on CKNW on July 28, 2010.

Another quote. Madam Clark said: "It seems impossible the tax wasn't contemplated before the spring ballot. I just don't think it is possible that that could be the case." CBC news, August 13, 2009.

Another quote: "If it goes to a referendum, it will almost certainly fail." Declared by Christy Clark on August 8 to kick off her leadership campaign, as written by Vaughn Palmer just today.

Those were the views of Madam Christy Clark when she was a radio host. As soon as she became the Premier and the leader of the Liberal Party, she started talking like Gordon Campbell. She was in favour of HST.

It's no wonder that they don't want to agree with me. They don't agree with their own statements when they change the next day. This is a flip-flop by Premier Clark on the HST, not one time but many times. That's what I have seen.

I will go on to basically ask questions about the Small Business Roundtable, which is part of the ministry as well. I would specifically like to ask the minister: how many Small Business Roundtable consultations were conducted during the last fiscal year?

Hon. P. Bell: Nine.

J. Brar: So this is very clear in front of you. This minister just said a few minutes ago that there were ongoing consultations with the small business community about the HST. The HST was introduced last year, announced last year, and now the minister is telling me that the Small Business Roundtable — the purpose of which is basically to consult the small business community — did not take place at all. That's what….

Hon. P. Bell: Nine.

J. Brar: You said nine or none?

Hon. P. Bell: Nine.

J. Brar: Okay. My mistake, then. Nine. I appreciate that. If that happened, then I would like to ask…. Sorry for my comments. I would like to ask the minister, then: was there any discussion in those consultations about the impact of HST? If that was the case, what were those discussions, if the minister can tell us?

[1720]
[ Page 6714 ]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm sorry the member opposite heard "none" and not "nine." So just to make sure the Hansard record is clear, it was nine, which is between eight and ten.

Anyway, to answer the member opposite's question, HST did come up from time to time. It didn't dominate the conversations at the round table. I, of course, have recently gained responsibility for the portfolio, so I'm basing this on information provided to me by staff.

I'm advised that some of the top items that did come up at round tables were things like training initiatives, the regulatory environment involving three levels of government — so not necessarily specifically focused at the province but overlap. The need to have a competitive tax regime was one of the key elements — making sure that we had competitive taxes available.

Then, from my understanding, from there it fell down to more local issues. So if it was in Quesnel, probably pine beetle would have come up. If it was in Coquitlam, it might have been another issue.

The top three issues, I think, were training, the regulatory environment that's associated with having three levels of government that small businesses have to work with and the importance of having a competitive tax regime at all levels of government.

J. Brar: I appreciate the answer, and I understand that the minister took this file only probably a month ago, but the ministry was there before.

I would like to ask if there were any specific directions, because this is a huge tax-shift policy, given by the minister — which is the previous minister, of course — to the Small Business Roundtable to have consultation with the small business community about the impact of HST. Were there any directions provided by the minister or not?

Hon. P. Bell: As I previously stated, consultations with regards to the HST, regardless of what sector — whether it was any or all of the small business sector, forest sector, mining sector, all of the different sectors — were the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, and questions of that nature would best be answered in that estimates period.

J. Brar: I have this Small Business Roundtable annual report, which is in front of me, and there's no reference at all to HST in this one. This is quite a long report. There's absolutely no reference at all. So I would ask the minister — I am sure that there will be some sort of minutes taken at the Small Business Roundtable — if the minister can agree today to table those minutes of those meetings. If there is any reference, that must be part of the minutes and the record of the Small Business Roundtable.

[1725]

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite is again wrong. It could be that he just didn't have time to actually read the Small Business Roundtable report, but he will note on page 15 that there are specific mentions of HST. It could be just that he didn't perhaps get to the end of the report, but it is there. The minutes for the Small Business Roundtable through that period of time in which the HST was being brought forward have already been tabled.

J. Brar: Page 15 of the report: 2010 or 2011? Are you talking about the report of October 2010 or 2011?

Hon. P. Bell: The report I'm referring to is the one dated October 2010.

J. Brar: I will come back to that. Probably I need to look at that.

Just to continue on that. On page 15 of the Small Business Roundtable annual report there is also an issue of credit card practice. There was a recommendation made under that annual report to the minister by the Small Business Roundtable "to advocate on behalf of small business and encourage the federal government to ensure credit card practices are fair to small businesses." So I would like to ask the minister if there was any follow-up done or if there are any plans to do any follow-up on that one.

Hon. P. Bell: Sorry, we were just looking for the actual reference in the document. We didn't see it on page 15 so it could be our pages are numbered differently than the member opposite's document.

But the answer to the question is: yes, we have been dealing with the federal government on the issue.

J. Brar: I heard the minister saying that yes, some steps have been taken. Can the minister elaborate a bit on that?

Hon. P. Bell: I am advised that in fact my previous answer was incorrect, that there was no approach to the federal government. The reason for that was because we were aware that the federal government was already dealing with the issue to do with credit card fairness. The issue was not dealt with, but we were aware that it was in the process of being dealt with at the federal government level so it wasn't necessary for us to move forward on it.

J. Brar: Again keeping on time. I appreciate the short answers by the minister, finally. The other is also part of the annual report. It's a relatively simple question.

[1730]

There's a reference made in the fifth annual report of the Small Business Roundtable, which we are talking about. It states on page 15 — the page number may be wrong: "By April 2012 the tax will be eliminated." This
[ Page 6715 ]
means, basically, the small business tax will be completely eliminated.

Keeping in mind the uncertainty around the HST, for which there will be a pending referendum…. The people of B.C. may decide to scrap the HST. This would mean that this government might have to give back about $1.6 billion to the federal government, which they received to sign the agreement. So keeping in mind those realities or possibilities, I just want to ask: how certain is the minister that the small business tax will be eliminated by 2012?

Hon. P. Bell: Unlike the member opposite, we do believe that we need to have the lowest small business taxes. I know the member opposite's leader has a different position on that and, as I understand it, has prescribed a model that would lead to increasing small business taxes in the order of 80 percent or so. But the Finance Minister has been clear on this issue in all of his public commentary — that we will be moving to no small business tax by 2012.

J. Brar: I didn't ask a question about the corporate tax, but the minister certainly wanted to reference that. I want to put on the record, as well, that the corporations have been given a huge, huge tax cut as compared to small business communities. There's no match when it comes to that.

Then, talk about the HST. It's a tax shift from the wealthy big corporations to the consumers and a lot of the small business community. If the minister doesn't want to agree with that, that's his choice. The restaurant industry is an example.

The question I asked about the tax cut. The minister is saying the Minister of Finance is very clear about that. I was reading the service plan of the Ministry of Finance as well. The Minister of Finance, I want to put on the record, chooses his words very carefully. What I read in the service plan — I want to quote that. The Minister of Finance states in the service plan of the Ministry of Finance: "We also plan to reduce the small business tax rate to zero by April 2012."

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The word used is "plan," so that does not make it certain. That's why I asked the minister responsible for this ministry if that is certain and if there's any rethinking going on about this tax, if that's the case under the new realities.

Hon. P. Bell: It sounds pretty clear to me that the minister intends to move forward and reduce the tax to zero. I do know that the member opposite says that we haven't done as much for small business, on tax, as we have on corporations. Actually, in an NDP world perhaps you can have negative tax and go to minus 1 or minus 2 percent.

I do know that his leader is specifically advocating for a 4½ percent tax rate. The member opposite may not have heard that. It could be that he missed that caucus meeting, but my understanding is the opposition leader is pretty clearly on the record of increasing small business tax back to 4½ percent.

This government is going to zero percent, and that is our commitment. The member opposite seems to be struggling with that concept, but I think that if he pretends to suggest to the small business world or the rest of the business world that the NDP are their friends, they will not be fooled by those statements.

[1735]

J. Brar: Go and ask the restaurant industry. Go and ask the construction industry what they think about this government — you know? This is a $2 billion tax shift, and this is the report today. Nine out of ten businesses lost their sales because of the HST. This is today's newspaper.

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, through the Chair, please.

J. Brar: So go and ask them. The small business tax under the NDP was the lowest in the country. You still have to go — lowest in the country.

Interjections.

J. Brar: If the Finance Minister is questioning that, he can stand up and say I'm wrong. It was the lowest in the country at that time, but what is happening here is this. The tax is going down, but on the other side there is an indirect tax put on the people, including the small business community. The HST is a prime example. It's $2 billion given to big corporations, and it is being shifted to the small business community and the consumers of B.C. I think the minister understands that.

I will probably continue my line of questioning to…. This one program called Junior Achievement of B.C. is part of this ministry. I would like to ask the minister: how much funding is allocated this fiscal year to deliver the Junior Achievement B.C. program to the school districts? If the minister can provide some details on that.

Hon. P. Bell: We did recently receive a funding request from Junior Achievement, and we are now considering that request.

J. Brar: I would take it that there's no funding allocation for this fiscal year at this point in time, and it may be
[ Page 6716 ]
in the application process. My understanding is that this funding is provided to school districts as per the annual report of the round table, so I'm not aware if there's any application process for that or if this funding is given to school boards by the minister's office.

So if there's an application process, can the minister tell us how much time the process will take, and is there any consideration to increase the funding or reduce the funding to this program this fiscal year?

Hon. P. Bell: I can advise the member that there was no funding provided to this organization in either '09-10 or in '10-11. But we have recently received an application, and we are considering that application at this time.

J. Brar: How much time will it take to basically process the application?

[1740]

Hon. P. Bell: There is not a formalized process. The application is in the form of a letter of request. It's not a regular funded program or program that has specific timelines around it. Staff are speaking with Junior Achievement, looking to see if it does meet some of the goals or objectives of the ministry and, if it does, what funding envelope that would be funded out of. So I'm unable at this point in time to provide the member with an idea of when it may be either considered or, alternatively, denied.

J. Brar: Thanks for the answer. I will follow up, maybe later on, on that one.

There's another program, part of the ministry. It's the workplace training-for-innovation pilot program, which is also part of the ministry. This program is designated to provide eligible employers with funding for employee training and has been well received by the small business community, as per the report.

I would like to ask the minister: how much funding, again, is allocated for this fiscal year for the workplace training-for-innovation pilot program, if there is any?

Hon. P. Bell: I'd just ask that the member repeat the name of the program he's referring to.

J. Brar: It's called workplace training-for-innovation pilot program.

Hon. P. Bell: The assistant deputy minister who has responsibility for that particular initiative isn't here at this time, so I would suggest to the member that we'd be prepared to provide him an answer to that question in writing.

J. Brar: Thanks for the answer again. I will expect that the answer will be given later on, on this particular question.

We received from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business…. This is a kind of survey conducted by them. A large number of their membership has responded to the survey.

One of the questions on this survey is the question that small businesses pay, on average, three times what a resident pays. It will soon be five times more without a cap. That's one of the things on this survey. I think the Canadian Federation of Independent Business probably must have provided a copy to the minister's office as well.

They are asking for some actions from the government on this issue, and I will repeat that their main concern is that small businesses pay, on average, three times what a resident pays. We're talking about property tax. It will soon be five times more without a cap.

I understand it's a civic responsibility, but they are certainly looking for some help from the provincial government, if there's any. So I would like to ask the minister if the minister has received this copy of the survey and if the minister planned to do anything on this question.

[1745]

Hon. P. Bell: I think I just heard another policy position from the NDP, which is that in fact the provincial government should mandate caps to municipal taxation for businesses. I don't know whether the member opposite wants to expand that same commitment to industry, but I'll make sure we add that to the very small list of policy commitments that we've found from the NDP. It's interesting, and I'm sure communities will want to know that the critic is advocating for a cap to be imposed upon municipalities, on their small business tax rates.

I will, for the member opposite, read into the record our Premier Christy Clark's commitment on municipal taxation.

"Municipal governments play a vital role in creating a sense of community and ensuring families have the services and amenities they need to flourish. We need to look at the competition between commercial, industrial and residential taxation — the role local government is playing — and find ways to make sure the taxpayer is being well-served.

"Our government will: create an Office of the Municipal Auditor General; fund the office as part of the Auditor General's office — the office will provide advice on financial decisions and provide a measure of accountability; review the municipal taxation formula; and work with the Union of B.C. Municipalities to ensure that municipalities are properly funded and communities can provide the services that British Columbians want from local government."

J. Brar: I would like to conclude by saying thanks to the minister for the interesting answers. This is a long survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They gave us the copies to ask you questions, and I hope you got the copy as well. I would certainly expect the answers to some of the questions where the staff was not available or the information was not available to the minister at this point in time.
[ Page 6717 ]

With that, I would like to say thanks to the minister and thanks to the staff members for the answers. I would now hand it back to my colleagues for the next line of questions.

J. Kwan: I'm going to ask the minister, actually, some questions around the small business sector. I wonder if the minister could tell us if he's seen the latest report or survey done by the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association around the impacts of the HST, the impacts of the liquor licensing changes that took place for the restaurant businesses.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite forgets that I've been in the industry for a long time. I don't mean the political industry; I mean the restaurant industry. So I am aware of the study. I have not physically seen a copy of it. I know that staff have a copy of it. I look forward to spending my weekend looking through it, but I've seen Mark von Schellwitz's comments as they relate to it.

As someone who has a financial interest in the industry, I'm aware of all of the circumstances, and there are some very positive stories out there as well.

J. Kwan: I haven't seen the report in its full detail. I just received it a little while ago. Looking through it, some 87 percent of the businesses actually said that sales had dropped since the HST was implemented back in July. Now, of course, they also say that the dropped rate of decline in terms of businesses for them is at about 15 percent. Then where there are liquor licence establishments, it's at about a 21 percent decline because of the government's policy change around liquor licensing.

I think there are tremendous impacts here. I know that the minister and the government like to talk about positive stories. But of course, for a lot of these small businesses — and many of them are in the restaurant sector, as the minister knows — the impacts are tremendous.

I won't plug the franchise which the minister, I think, owns, but we'll talk about that another time.

[1750]

Now, I'm interested in this. We've canvassed the HST issue at length, but I want to ask the minister this question. What work was done around the Small Business Roundtable with respect to the policy change that was brought in place relating to the liquor issue?

Hon. P. Bell: That was before my time in this portfolio, so I don't think that in the time remaining I'll be able to answer the question. But I think the member could feel free to bring that issue up under the Solicitor General. I know there would be time set aside for that.

I will say just very quickly, with regards to the B.C. Restaurant Association report, that it's important to note that they were referring to two policy decisions — both .05 and HST. The sales reduction reference is pertaining to both of those areas. That is not similar to the data that we have seen from other avenues, which indicate, actually, the sales are about level to what the Canadian industry would be compared to last year at this time.

J. Kwan: I see the Speaker is in the House, so I am going to wrap up with this last comment and question to the minister. I fully understand that we don't have time to fully canvass this area, and I also understand this was not the minister at the time when the .05 policy was brought in play.

That said, though, there is the Small Business Roundtable. One would have assumed that with a government that likes to tout their consultative approaches, that work would have been done with the small business sector, particularly in the restaurant business industries. So I wonder if the minister could provide that information to us in full — around what consultation work was done, who was consulted and what the response was with respect to the .05 policy change.

I'd love to enter into debate about the impacts of the HST for the restaurant and foodservices sector, but we don't have time for that. I think the survey speaks for itself, and yes, it is a combined implication of both the HST and the .05 alcohol policy change. That said, though, it is hitting the restaurant and food services industry hard. There's no doubt about it, but we'll save that debate for another day.

Hon. P. Bell: Noting the time and the urgency on some people's part to make ferries and so on, I will take the opportunity to advise the Solicitor General of the member opposite's keen interest in this issue. Between the Solicitor General and myself, we will ensure that the member gets the answer to her question.

Vote 33: ministry operations, $236,513,000 — approved.

Hon. P. Bell: With that, I would like to move that we rise, report completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 6718 ]

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

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

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

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

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to join the estimates debates for the Ministry of Agriculture. I'm the opposition critic for fisheries, so I wanted to ask the minister, obviously, some questions about aquaculture and related issues.

I just wanted to start with…. I heard the minister speak recently in the House today about the shellfish issue. He's a strong proponent of our shellfish industry, and that's excellent. I did want to ask him for a little clarification around that issue with regard to a proposed coal mine — Raven coal mine as it's called. Does the minister think that there is any possibility for damage to the shellfish industry if that proposal were to go ahead?

Hon. D. McRae: Sorry about this, but I was remiss. I forgot to introduce again my staff who are here with me today. We have Wes Shoemaker. We have Grant Parnell, Lindsay Kislock and, again, Denise Bragg. Thank you all very much for joining us today.

You know, right now we're in the pre-environmental assessment stage in regards to Compliance Coal, Raven coal. It's incredibly thorough. They've already taken in over 700 community questions from local government and taxpayers that they are responding to.

At this stage I don't want to prejudge the outcome and whether they're going to choose to go into the environmental assessment phase. But I think the whole idea of the environmental assessment stage, which I think is very comprehensive, is to determine if there is a risk to the environment. That's, again, an area that's not within the Ministry of Agriculture. I'm not the best to answer that.

At this stage I'm very pleased that the community of Comox Valley and beyond has been able to actually put forward their concerns and questions, and they're in the process of receiving answers. One thing I'm very proud about the Comox Valley is that the citizens are very, very much engaged.

We value Baynes Sound — incredibly so. It is absolutely a jewel in this province. At the same time, you know what? We don't actually have, in government, the ability to say no to specific projects before they're even before us.

For that reason, I'm just going to let the process go forward, and I trust that the proposer of the coal mine is going to do everything in their power to listen to the concerns of the community, address them accordingly.

[1440]

If it goes to the environmental assessment phase, well, that's something that perhaps you should talk about with the Minister of Environment.

M. Sather: That's excellent — 700 community questions. Obviously, the minister does live in a community that is very engaged in issues that are important to them, like this obviously is. Does the minister have — and I realize that it's not his portfolio but just to finish off — any idea of a ballpark figure, if it goes to the environmental assessment, of when that might be?

Hon. D. McRae: The short answer is, of course, no. It's at the stage of when the proponent feels, I guess, that they've met a certain test, that they can make the decision to go to that next stage — but again, an area that's not in my ministry.

I like the fact that whether it is aquaculture or other investment in our province, obviously it's really important that we do have jobs.

This is a prime example. In the Comox Valley just recently…. I don't want to talk about the benefits of big-box retailers, but Costco is coming to our community. When they're coming, obviously they need to hire. So they had a job fair. Well, my understanding is that the jobs pay between $11 and $17 an hour. Over 1,000 people lined up on a Saturday, because there's an interest for employment.

At the same time, I'm not saying employment comes at any cost. But the reality is that I'm heartened in British Columbia and around the province that people have the ability to put forward ideas that they think are going to basically create employment for families in this province.

As for whether this process is going to be approved or not, you know what? Your ability to look into the future is just as good as mine. I don't want to, again, prejudge the process.
[ Page 6719 ]

M. Sather: So not about this project but in general…. The minister talked about having to balance the interests of…. Well, in effect, we're talking that it can be two industries. This is not a conservation issue per se alone. It's obviously…. All of them are. I mean, any kind — not just this one, but any one.

So how does the minister deal with that? He talked about balancing, okay, a proposal for a development versus, in the case of what we're talking about here, the shellfish industry. How does he then balance those kinds of competing interests?

Obviously, he has a strong interest in job creation — that's good — but he also has a responsibility to protect the shellfish industry. Just curious to know how he goes about balancing that out and fulfilling his duties at the same time?

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, the member opposite knows that I am both the MLA for Comox Valley but also a member of the executive council and Minister of Agriculture. The reality is…. Let's look at the importance of aquaculture to the Comox Valley. The dollar value — whether it's $24 million or $28 million, put it in that range. That is sustainable jobs and a sustainable resource. If it's managed effectively, those jobs and that resource will be there for perpetuity. That is obviously a hugely important thing.

The Comox Valley, in the past, was known for coal. You might have heard of the village of Cumberland. There was a strong tradition of coal mining in the community. But you know what? I would say equally in the last 15 years that when you think of Comox Valley, you think of the aquaculture industry.

I don't want to do anything as Minister of Agriculture that would imperil that industry. It is absolutely essential. It is fundamental in terms of creating employment. For those reasons, if there's a concern raised by a constituent, I don't play favourites. I do my best. When people are concerned about the coal mine or they like the coal mine, and there's basically an answer they need, I do my very best to answer it.

If there are people they wish to talk to, I do my best to try to organize those meetings. Some are out of my control. The reality is, I'm not playing favourites here. I want people to have the best information possible to make those decisions and make sure that their concerns are heard.

[1445]

Again, I'll fall back on that the community has been incredibly engaging in this issue. It's important to them, by all means. I'm looking forward to seeing the answers to those 700-plus questions that have been forwarded.

I don't want anybody to have any illusions. The aquaculture industry in Baynes Sound is absolutely essential to the Comox Valley in this province. It is just a jewel of an industry.

M. Sather: Well, I appreciate the minister's commitment and desire that people in his constituency, as it turns out, have the best possibility to get the best information.

Now, it was brought up before about an independent expert review panel with public hearings as one way to do that. You know, it's a less contentious environment here than it is in the House when we're doing question period. I just wondered, on that specific issue, then, if the minister had an opinion on that.

Hon. D. McRae: That issue has been raised to me by some constituents. I've made requests for information from the Ministry of Environment, but I'm not too familiar with the independent panel review. It's not my ministry, obviously. I haven't received back a formal answer to that, but I'm looking into it. Again, I look into it as an MLA, but it's the Minister of Environment, obviously, who makes that decision.

M. Sather: Moving to another area, the minister will be aware that there's been lots of controversy in British Columbia around fish farms. There've been issues brought up over the years with regard to sea lice on fish and what effect that might have on our fish; sea lice as it relates to their propagation, I guess you could say, in fish farms; and also around issues of some pretty significant viruses that may be in fish farms as well.

I just wondered. In his role in his ministry to market — in this case, salmon — how do issues like this affect the ability of the minister and the government to market salmon both within and beyond our borders?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the member opposite obviously knows that fish health is under the purview of the DFO, so when it comes to this ministry, we don't have direct say on that one. It's a federal issue. I'm sure you're aware of that and are doing your investigations there.

I guess the key underlying message we want to leave with you for reassurance is that we're so devoted to having a healthy, sustainable industry. That's absolutely key. And like you also mentioned, basically the role of our ministry under the rules that we have now is market and innovation.

[1450]

You know, it's important that we promote the industry, by all means. It's our biggest agriculture export in this province. It is absolutely essential, and it's something that we are world-famous for. We have a world-renowned product. I'm proud of it, and it's something that I want to make sure is sustainable.

M. Sather: These questions must come up when, obviously, the industry is marketing throughout the world or that part of the world that is interested in our product. So when they would get, I expect, some blow back, if you want, or some opposition from some quar-
[ Page 6720 ]
ters about sustainable practices, let's say at fish farms, is the ministry able to assist them in any way? Or how do you handle that?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, fish health falls under the federal government. But I can assure the member opposite that, in either my capacity as MLA or minister — and, I'm sure, the staffers in the Ministry of Agriculture or any government ministry — if there's an issue raised, we wouldn't leave it in our silo. We would share that information with the federal government.

You know, we can't tell them how to act and what to act on, but we're not going to have a scenario where our knowledge is going to be held in a secret lockbox in a corner and not shared.

I was recently up in the member for North Island's riding looking at a fish farm, and I was very, very impressed just how committed the farm I was at was to basically protecting fish health when I was there. I don't want to call it security, but I thought the health safeguards were phenomenal. They took it very seriously. When I took one step without getting my feet wet in the dip basket there, they didn't let me put my foot down. They were very, very cognizant that fish health is hugely important to them, just like it is to all members of this ministry.

The Chair: Well, I'm sure that the minister and member are both very concerned about this area. I'd hope that we could pull back to the question before this committee, and I know that the member will do that.

M. Sather: What fish farm did the minister have the good luck to visit?

Hon. D. McRae: Can I get back to you on the name of it? It was Conville Bay off the east coast of Quadra Island. I know that the member to the right was born on Quadra Island and probably knows her bays better than I do. My apologies — it was about a month ago. But if you really wish to know the company and the farm that I visited, I'm more than willing to provide that. I think it would be rude of me to sit here with my BlackBerry and go looking to make sure that I…. But I could, if you would like, and if the Chair would like.

M. Sather: Back to marketing, specifically, though. Does the aquaculture industry ask the ministry for support in marketing?

[1455]

Hon. D. McRae: A couple of issues. Just the other day I was in a meeting and I didn't have the opportunity, but Mary Ellen Walling was visiting my office and talking to some of my staff about what we can do in terms of having a relationship and being effective partners in promoting B.C. product, not just in this province but around the world, for the benefit of families and jobs in this province.

The other thing we're proud of is that we work with industry in regards to eco-certification. You're probably familiar with the Marine Stewardship Council, MSC, which is world-recognized and, again, helps us brand British Columbia and British Columbia product in an incredibly powerful way.

Furthermore, we also have our ever-popular — and I think the member opposite just recently received one — British Columbia Seafood Industry Year in Review, a very, very popular document with the industry. We have it on good authority that when they are out marketing B.C. product, this is something they take with them everywhere they go, and it's a very valuable resource.

Again, we're committed to working with the aquaculture industry and making sure that those jobs and best practices are there.

The Chair: While I'm sure it's a fine document, Minister, I'd remind that the use of props in the House is not allowed.

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies. I was just pretty excited.

M. Sather: I am glad the minister brought up marine eco-certification. I was going to ask him about that later. Then you mentioned Mary Ann Walling from the fish farmers association.

Is the ministry able to help with that or give some information about how they go about getting that certification or making linkages for them? What can the ministry do? What do they do?

[1500]

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, you probably know that ministry staff are involved with the stewardship council in promoting B.C. product. A staffer, Barron Carswell, is currently, as we speak, working incredibly long hours in Brussels promoting B.C. seafood and our brand not just to the North American market but to the world market. The idea is, of course, to grow the industry and allow, basically, more individuals to work and to promote British Columbia product on the world stage. I'm very proud of it.

M. Sather: That sounds interesting. I think that's the gentleman that I read about that tried out the sardines but didn't think that much of them. But that's okay. It's an acquired taste, I'm sure. Maybe I'll get to ask the minister about that later.

Specifically, though, on the marine certification, eco-certification, is there anything that the ministry is doing, or perhaps the gentleman that the minister mentioned is doing when he's over there, to assist in that regard for the industry?
[ Page 6721 ]

Hon. D. McRae: Barron Carswell's role as he is in Brussels right now is basically to promote B.C. seafood. Of course, the MSC eco-certification is just a huge aspect of promoting our quality product and giving our customers and our future customers the certainty that what they're buying is not only good-tasting but also good for the environment.

M. Sather: The minister has mentioned the sustainability issue, also, in his visit to the fish farm and found that it was, in his view, very sustainable. I hope that's correct.

One of the things that…. I know that there's been a transmission of power in terms of some of the roles around management of fish farms more to the federal government, but there are a lot of health records outstanding for fish farms. I wonder if the minister would commit to making those public.

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, the member opposite knows that fish health is now with the DFO. But, you know, before my time…. I'm also proud that the ministry, when we were responsible, produced reports on fish health up to 2009, and those reports are even still available on the website.

[1505]

But as for accessing information on fish health with the federal government, I'm still busy learning this ministry, and I have yet to learn their challenging DFO world.

M. Sather: Well, my colleague wondered if the farm you visited was Cyrus Rocks or Cypress Rocks, owned by Marine Harvest?

Hon. D. McRae: As I think about it and get reminded by staff to my right, it was a farm owned by Grieg Seafood, but it was a farm that they actually leased from Marine Harvest on the west coast. Again, if you are desperate to know the name, it's not a hidden thing.

I had a great time. And do you know what? Considering the horrible spring we had, we had one of the nicest days anyone could ask for to go out on the boat for that day. My adopted grandfather used to run a crew boat. As a kid I've seen bad weather, like I'm sure the members opposite have, on the coast there, and I appreciate every good day. Throwing up is not fun when you're a minister, and so far I am 1-for-1 for not.

Is "throwing up" something I'm allowed to say as a minister, into the Hansard?

The Chair: It's in your hands, Minister.

M. Sather: Well, I probably haven't experienced as much of that rough weather, hailing from Alberta as a youth, but I did do some fishing out on the Queen Charlottes when I was young and didn't get seasick, although I felt a little nauseous a time or two.

Hon. D. McRae: It's common.

M. Sather: Yeah.

So how much money, then, does the provincial government spend on marketing salmon?

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: At this stage the ministry hasn't asked us to play a significant role in the marketing world. At this time, very fiscally prudent, we have no actual physical marketing budget per se to actually sell the industry. That's more within their purview.

But we do actually provide supports like staff and their expertise. An example is we have, again, ministry employee Barron Carswell, who is travelling, as well, to help promote. We have some minor supports, like our favourite 2009 B.C. Seafood Industry Year in Review document, which we can use. At this stage the industry has not asked for dollars, but you know, they seem very comfortable with the relationship we have.

M. Sather: Sorry, I missed what the minister said about who is doing the marketing then. Which arm of government?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm proud to say that they're doing the marketing. We just provide supports, like I said, in terms of staff, sometimes sending staff to travel. We provide, again, support, but no, there's no funding from an arm of government for specifically marketing the product.

M. Sather: How much does the government spend, then, for that kind of staff support?

[1510]

Hon. D. McRae: After extensive consultation with my colleagues behind me…. Because we proportion parts of jobs here and there, it is basically approximately $300,000 a year in terms of staff, travel and, again, the documents. However, if the member opposite would like a more exact number, we're more than willing to oblige. It would just take a bit of time to just make sure that we're very exact. We don't want to hide the number by any means. So if that's something you wish to have, it can be provided. Just give us a couple of days.

M. Sather: So of that roughly $300,000 of staff support, how much of that would be committed to supporting the fish farm industry versus how much would be supporting the wild salmon?
[ Page 6722 ]

Hon. D. McRae: I guess the best answer we can give is that it changes from year to year. I also want to make sure that the member opposite knows that the seafood industry is obviously much more than just the fish farm industry — for example, hake and sockeye. You mentioned sardines earlier. Albacore tuna is another popular one, and, I would argue, one of the ugly — "ugly" is such an ugly word, so I'll say not pretty — sablefish. Again, they're examples of wild product out there that we're promoting.

We mentioned earlier Barron Carswell — whose name I make sure I never want to say wrong for the record — who is in Brussels right now. He is working on the wild salmon file. We learned — not me but my staff — talking to Mary Ellen Walling yesterday that the fish farm industry is at the same conference.

You know, I would hope that if they had a question, his expertise could provide some assistance, that he would step up as just a person promoting seafood from this province and share that information there. But again, it's not allocated specifically all the time to this one particular area. It's promoting B.C. seafood.

M. Sather: What specifically, then, is Mr. Carswell doing on the wild salmon file there in Brussels?

[1515]

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Carswell, as he is in Brussels right now, is promoting the B.C. seafood industry and representing British Columbia at a trade show called the European seafood exhibition. I'm sure the member opposite knows that it's not just a big seafood exhibition; it is the largest seafood exhibition in the world, dealing with customers not just from Europe, I'm sure, but from all continents. Probably Antarctica doesn't send many people; we'll assume that they're not a big buyer.

When he's there, he's meeting with buyers, obviously, consumers and his industry colleagues. But he's basically there to promote B.C. seafood, not just to Europe but to the world.

M. Sather: Would Mr. Carswell's expenses over there be part of the $300,000 that the minister mentioned before?

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to take a long time to answer that question: yes.

M. Sather: Did Mr. Carswell by any chance travel there with Ms. Walling?

Hon. D. McRae: Mr. Carswell is there right now. Ms. Walling was in my office yesterday. I would assume not.

M. Sather: I thought the minister had said that Ms. Walling was there also.

Hon. D. McRae: No. She was in my office yesterday.

M. Sather: Okay. So we didn't get a specific answer on how much is spent marketing fish farms, but I'd like to know for the record anyway. I'll ask the question again: how much is spent marketing foreign-owned fish farms in British Columbia?

Hon. D. McRae: Just for clarity, I think yesterday…. Again, it wasn't a conversation that I had; it was second-hand. We had a conversation that we did have a staff rep in Brussels. I guess that conversation also was shared with Ms. Walling, who didn't know that person was there at the time. But I guess she shared with staff that there were at least…. I think it was four fish farm companies from this province over in Brussels as well, but they were sort of in their own different little worlds. I'm sure at the trade show B.C. people will gravitate towards each other and find out they're there. Ms. Walling didn't know there was a connection, and we didn't know either.

Just for clarity to this specific question, we don't spend any money marketing fish farms, whether they're foreign or domestically owned. We just provide supports to promote B.C. seafood in a general manner. Like we said earlier, basically it requires the needs of the industry as they move forward, and it changes from year to year.

M. Sather: Well, it seems to me that that's a moot point. If the ministry is providing support to assist the industry, then that's assisting them in marketing, as far as I can see.

Just to ask it one more time though: can the minister not give a breakdown of how much of this support is provided to the fish farm industry in dollars?

[1520]

Hon. D. McRae: Just to reiterate, we gave an approximation at the start of this line of questioning. We spend approximately $300,000 on staff, travel, related expenses and the fancy brochure to my left, amongst other things.

Again, we don't provide any dollars to the fish farm industry. Our staff promotes B.C. seafood as an industry, whether it be wild fish or aquaculture.

One thing the ministry doesn't do today, nor has it done in the past, is break down dollars by specific fish species. But we do help market, basically, over 100 fish, shellfish, marine plants and the like around not just this province but beyond, and just, to this stage, with the $300,000. It's just not broken down by fish at this stage.

M. Sather: I want to go on to another area. There's an issue that has gotten a lot of people in British Columbia, those that are out there fishing, concerned.
[ Page 6723 ]

The recreational fishermen and the lodge owners are very concerned about the federal government's 12 percent allotment that they've given them for halibut. It's causing it to be very difficult to plan. Also, with the catch limit, they don't know…. You know, you book a holiday for the summer, and you don't know if it's…. At a certain point, and I don't know when that point is, the season will be ended. It can spoil your whole holiday — and your prepaid holiday at that. They have a lot of concerns about that.

The quota is also being held by people, in some cases, that don't even fish. They had a huge meeting in Pitt Meadows in my constituency about this and in other areas of the province, and they feel like this public resource, which they feel is theirs, is being privatized, in effect, in this respect.

One of the questions that came up in the meeting I attended was: what is the value of the recreational fishery in British Columbia? If the minister could provide that answer.

Hon. D. McRae: Is this for a specific product? I think, as you were going on that line of questioning, it was very halibut-specific. You didn't say halibut and if you're wanting halibut only or if you wish all species.

M. Sather: All species.

[1525]

Hon. D. McRae: As much as I like to fish recreationally, unfortunately we tried to get the answer for you even though it's not within our ministry. You know, obviously, we're involved with, again, marketing and innovation.

I suggest two things. One, I hate to put work on my colleagues, but the Minister of Jobs — who will be coming up, I'm sure, if not already, in the big House — may be someone who would have that specific answer. Obviously, the DFO would be able to provide that information, I'm sure, very easily.

However, if you would like this ministry and our staff to provide it, I'm sure we can provide it. We just don't have it in our documentation because recreational fisheries is not under the Ministry of Agriculture.

M. Sather: Just one more question, though, on that issue. I mean, it is an important issue. I'm sure…. Well, I would expect, perhaps, that the minister has been approached and maybe even attended some meetings about that in his constituency or thereabouts. So I just wanted to know what his view of that debate around the halibut fishing is.

Hon. D. McRae: Fortunately, living on the coast, yes, halibut is obviously something that is not just tasty but is hugely important. My understanding is that there are approximately 300 commercial halibut fishers. There are a substantial number of sport fishermen and women. I don't know where you're from and what you call them, but we sort of, in a positive manner, call them the tin boaters who like to go out and get their halibut. Even though we call them tin boaters, they often drive about in 26-foot fibreglass boats.

Obviously, the commercial side. I've watched with interest and had meetings with interest with both sides of the debate in my office because, obviously, it's important. The commercial individuals…. I'm not going to talk about how they acquired their quota, but they've made substantial investments over their period of time, by all means, and I think that's well recognized — in their boats and such. It's a very, very dangerous job and provides employment opportunities up and down the coast.

At the same time, the tourist benefit that the sport fishery provides this province is absolutely unbelievable. I don't know if you've ever fished for halibut. My father is actually one of the well-known worst fishermen on the coast, and that's why halibut is so nice, because if you actually know where to fish for halibut and you don't overfish at that particular time, you know how to go out there and get them quite easily.

So when I've had individuals in my office, very clearly what I say to them is: when it comes to allocation, this is a federal responsibility. It is not a provincial responsibility. From an MLA perspective, I want to see a situation where the commercial side of it is very viable. But at the same time the sport fishing, which provides tons of jobs, and the recreation side, which provides tons of enjoyment and food fish and just pleasure fish, is there.

I encouraged my colleague, the MP — I guess I can say his name because he's not in our House — John Duncan, who is also a member of cabinet, to look into this issue, and I know that he has. I know it's not an easy file, but I think that, again, it's having that balance, and that balance is not for this provincial government to determine. It is a federal issue.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister about transgenic salmon. Those are the genetically modified salmon that the firm AquaBounty is promoting. As I understand it, the creatures are injected with some DNA of west coast chinook and of bottom-dwelling ocean pout, whatever that is. It doesn't sound like anything I'd want to eat.

Interjection.

M. Sather: Is that what it is? Okay.

[1530]

You know, people call them, perhaps in the derogatory sense, Frankenfish and the like. I just wanted to know if the minister could tell me: are they permitted for consumption in British Columbia?
[ Page 6724 ]

Hon. D. McRae: One of my political dreams was to actually stand in an official capacity and get to say the word "Frankenfish." Thank you. Now I've pretty much met my political criteria, and I can go home and retire.

However, when it comes to GMO fish, or Frankenfish as I like to call them — and yourself, as well — again, it falls under the purview of either DFO or Health Canada. Our understanding is that industry in B.C. and this government do not support GMO fish.

M. Sather: That's what I understood, too. I'm glad to have that confirmed.

The ministry's service plan does say that the ministry is responsible for "some management of commercial fisheries." What is this ministry's responsibility for management of the commercial fishery?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the member opposite knows that the province has no authority on the boats. What we are responsible for is commercial fish inspection. Once the fish have landed, the B.C. government inspects the processing facilities for food safety and quality to ensure that B.C. product remains at the highest standard possible.

[1535]

M. Sather: Well, just going back for a minute, referring to the brochure, which we cannot display, can the minister tell us how many of those were produced and at what cost?

Hon. D. McRae: As proud as we are of the brochure, we don't have those specific numbers and the cost in front of us today. However, if the member would like, we will get that information to you very quickly.

M. Sather: Is it fair to say, though, that it's included in the $300,000?

Hon. D. McRae: I've been assured by staff, since the information is on the web and we expect most people to access it via the web, that the run of the unnamed brochures is rather small and not a significant portion of budget.

However, like I said earlier, if the member opposite wishes to have the exact dollars, we'll do our best to provide that as soon as possible.

M. Sather: Back to the commercial fishery. When I was looking on the website, some of the best information I found was a little bit dated, a couple years old. It was when the Ministry of Environment had responsibility. So some of this information came from there. In talking about the value in terms of the proportion of GDP, it said that there was — and this is for 2005, the last figures I could see; it was a report in 2009 — a 28 percent drop in the commercial fishery GDP and a 25 percent drop in fish processing.

I just wondered what has happened since that time with regard to those.

Hon. D. McRae: The data that the member opposite refers to is data that we've gleaned from other sources, either the DFO or perhaps, at this stage, other B.C. government ministries. If the member opposite would like us to dig up some web links for the ministry or the federal government that actually produce that data, we can provide. Also, I would think a very quick Google search would provide the exact same information, if you want it faster than we can provide.

M. Sather: Well, this is good information that was provided on the provincial website which is now the purview of this ministry. I think it would be valuable if the ministry would continue to provide that kind of information. It's pretty pertinent to ministry debate.

One of the other things that I read was that fish and seafood product exports were over a billion dollars in 2005. So we're looking at over a billion dollars for fish and seafood product exports from our province. I'd just like to get some indication anyway, if the ministry doesn't have figures — or maybe they do in this case — of what we are looking at now, some six years later.

[1540]

Hon. D. McRae: To the member opposite: I don't know if you received it yesterday, but we sent out a press release yesterday afternoon, I think it was, saying that in 2009, to over 70 countries, we exported $900 million worth of product. Obviously, that makes aquaculture the biggest agricultural export in this province.

M. Sather: That was 2009? So $900 million in 2009 and $1 billion in 2005. So we've had a bit of a drop there. Can the minister give some explanation as to why the exports have dropped in value?

Hon. D. McRae: You know, we haven't done the analysis as to particularly why there was a drop. I'm sure the member opposite remembers that in 2009 we were in the midst of the greatest economic recession in the last 70 years, and seafood being, obviously, a premium product might have had an impact on that.

The other thing is, and I'm sure the member knows as well, that the Canadian dollar, over the last several years, has been steadily inching upwards. Today I think I saw it as $1.04 — right? — or maybe gone to $1.03, which might have some play on to it. But the analysis hasn't been done yet.

M. Sather: Looking at the value of the international export of fishery products in the commercial fishery and
[ Page 6725 ]
in the aquaculture industry — again I'm using the 2005 figures — it was $678 million in the commercial and $210 million in the aquaculture industry. What is it today? If you don't have the figures, can the minister tell me whether the ratio is roughly the same? We're looking at 678 versus 210 back then.

Hon. D. McRae: Like I said, the press release went out yesterday. The analysis hasn't been done — the breakdown. But this is not something that we, you know, are trying to not show the member. We'd like to provide that information, hopefully sooner than later, but again, $900 million is still incredibly significant, and we're very proud of that number.

However, if the member opposite has any suggestions how we can grow that industry, either the aquaculture side or the commercial side, I'm always more than willing to listen. It's obviously important to the coastal fishery, which is part of my riding and many, many ridings in British Columbia. So if you have any positive solutions on how we can continue to grow it and make it more, I'm more than willing to listen, and my door is always open.

M. Sather: Just looking at that figure, and again the ratio is what I'm interested in, it looks to me like wild fish account for a much greater proportion of our balance of trade than farmed fish. Would that be accurate?

Hon. D. McRae: I hate to say this. I'm a social studies teacher by trade, not a biology teacher, but my grade 4 education that I had in Tsolum School in 1983 reminds me that fish go in cycles.

[1545]

I'm sure the member opposite knows that just like in his riding, salmon are a significant portion of our commercial fishery, and in some years, just by nature, there are far more salmon spawning in the streams and the runs are much larger than other years.

While, again, we haven't done the analysis, we haven't yet figured a way to make sure that the salmon return on a consistent basis every year. We always want to have as many salmon return as possible, because it's good for the commercial side, it's good for the recreational side, and it's good for the river health as well.

Unfortunately, salmon spawning is not under my ministry as well. It's a DFO issue. But it has a cyclical nature, and some years…. It wasn't too long ago that we had a record return on the Fraser, and there was another year where we had a devastating return. This goes through cycles, so that would obviously reflect the value of the commercial catch as well, I'm sure.

M. Sather: I hear what the minister is saying. I'm not sure, though…. I don't remember, for one thing — the minister might — about the 2005 fishery, the wild fishery. We know it was really a huge fishery in sockeye last year.

I'm just trying to get a sense of proportions here, then. So assuming that since we had such a huge sockeye fishery last year, the proportion would be that much more and the value of exports would be that much more heavily weighted in favour of the wild salmon…. Would the minister think that's correct?

Hon. D. McRae: As I stated earlier, the press release we sent out yesterday with the latest data we had was for 2009. But just to read into the record — again, it's something we're proud of, but it's not under our purview: "The 2010 Fraser River sockeye salmon return was the largest since 1913, with an estimated 34 million run size. Conservation goals were met and exceeded during the 2010 season, resulting in the opening of the fishery for the first time in four years to commercial, recreational and First Nations sectors."

The organization that I think you would really like to talk to, to get the most up-to-date information and the organization responsible for really gathering a lot of the data that you're looking for directly — fish counts and such — is DFO. We'll do our best to provide you with that information. I don't want to, basically, guess and be wrong, because I've found that in politics when you guess and are wrong, it actually doesn't help you.

For that reason, either you'll have to wait until we can do the analysis and get the data to you, or perhaps visit the DFO website or talk to a DFO employee. We're willing to assist in that manner to connect you with the right individual to get you the data you seem to want.

M. Sather: The huge sockeye fishery that we had last year. The province must be keeping track, I would think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the province not interested in the value of the export of those fish? Is that being figured out? It sounds like…. You said it was a DFO issue, but surely the ministry is trying to account for the value of that fishery, at least in terms of the export portion of it.

Hon. D. McRae: I committed to the member to get the information to the member, whether it's our information or not. Obviously, it is important to have the data to work from. You know what? Having data never hurts any decision-making process by any level of government.

However, like I said earlier, we're dealing with the 2009 stats. We haven't had the broken-down analysis yet. I'm sure it's available and out there. Again, we are committed to getting that information to you as quickly as possible.

M. Sather: Well, 2009 is two years ago, so it takes a lot of time, I guess. It brings me back to that meeting I attended about the halibut issue, where the fishermen
[ Page 6726 ]
were astounded when the DFO could not provide a value for the sport fishery of halibut.

[1550]

I said, "Well, look, I'm sure the province can give us that information," because the DFO was then asking: "Well, does the province know what the value of the fishery is?" So here I am today, less confident than I was that night about that — that the province can actually provide the value of the fishery. That's kind of disconcerting.

I see the minister is getting some information there, so maybe he has a further comment.

Hon. D. McRae: Dare I say it, but your questioning line is slippery like a fish. We started off with commercial fishing in general, and then we quickly jumped over to halibut, which I'm a big fan of. They taste incredibly good, and they sort of follow that theme of the sablefish, the pout, as incredibly ugly.

For the record, if I could read in some halibut stats to you which we do have for 2010. The total allowable catch for B.C. is 7.65 million pounds, a 2 percent increase from the 2010 catch limit due to improvements in stock conditions. This would allow a commercial harvest of 6.73 million pounds and a recreational harvest of 918,000 pounds, from which the recreational catch overage in 2010 of 112,000 pounds must be subtracted.

Obviously, the halibut fishery — for the commercial level, the recreation level and the tourism element with guides — is a multifaceted, important industry to this province, and it would be in everybody's best interests to have all elements doing as best they can for the residents and the visitors of British Columbia.

M. Sather: Thanks to the minister for his response.

I just want to move on now to a sunrise fishery, I guess it is. That's the sardine fishery, which has really come to the fore in the last few years, with the first fishery allowed in 2009, I believe.

I'm not quite clear, though, what's happening in regard to the processing. Where are the fish being processed? Well, let's start with that. Can the minister tell me where those fish are being processed?

Hon. D. McRae: We have the ever-popular 2009 stats as our most recent data in front of us. I know you're excited about 2009. You'll be heartened to know that in 2009, 14,000 of the 15,000 tonnes — at any measure, a tonne of sardines is a whole bunch of sardines — harvested in British Columbia were processed through plants either in Port Hardy, Ucluelet or Zeballos.

[1555]

I have been to all those communities and know how important it is to have, basically, a vibrant fishing industry in this province, in terms of the harvest and the catch and the processing, because those areas have obviously dealt with some financial hardship in the past, and they need employment. I'm glad that you're taking as keen an interest in the growing sardine industry as I.

M. Sather: I noticed in…. I think it was a release from the government or an article I saw. It talked about third-party observers for the sardine catch, and I wonder if the minister can just tell me where they do these observations. What are their duties?

Hon. D. McRae: Third-party observers, again, are a DFO matter. They're not our employees, but they are on both the boat and the dock to ensure that it is sardines that are being caught. Again, I think it would be best to pursue this line of questioning with the DFO and the federal government in terms of these employees.

M. Sather: I'm curious. I know that a lot of the sardines are exported to countries like Malaysia and so on. Previously, as I understand it, a large proportion of that fishery was used for baitfish.

Can the minister tell me a little bit about…. I think when it goes to Malaysia, those folks are eating them. Good for them. But is there still a whole lot of that fishery that's used for baitfish, or is it now pretty much all a food fishery?

Hon. D. McRae: I have to fall back on my youth and my younger days of fishing. When I was a kid…. Maybe you fished in this manner as well. You would actually have the little plastic fishing lure. You'd take the cut fish, you would put it into the lure, attach it, and you'd put it into the boat. Fish were hungry, they ate your lure, and you got fish.

When I fish now, there's lots of…. Let me promote, by the way. It will be over the top here, but in the Comox Valley we have a very, very popular and successful business. They create Buzz Bombs and Zzingers. They are incredibly useful lures that are very good, and they actually catch fish.

I think oftentimes that using dead fish maybe is a practice still being used by some purists. However, when I fished recently, we haven't bothered to go to that extra effort and use the sardines. We just go to the sporting goods store, and we buy the lure. When the fish are there, we're pretty successful.

Again, I'm pretty proud that the Comox Valley has one of the most successful lure production facilities in North America. They're incredibly well known both here and in other places in the world.

I'm sure the member opposite knows that 83 percent of sardine exports are to countries that are smaller markets for B.C. seafood. But four that are of note are Malaysia, which I think you mentioned; the Ukraine, which surprised me, but power to them; South Korea; and Thailand.
[ Page 6727 ]

Again, if the member opposite can help us expand that market…. You seem to have an incredibly keen interest in the sardine world. If you have any expertise you wish to share with us, by all means please stop by the office.

[1600]

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. Congratulations again. We've e-mailed a couple of times on a few issues.

Continuing the fish issue here, I'm just wondering if there are any initiatives from the government or your ministry going towards closed containment throughout the province with finfish aquaculture.

[1605]

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. D. McRae: Why, hello. Every time I stand up there seems to be someone new there. But good to see you.

I'm sure that the member opposite knows that the DFO, the federal government, has responsibility for this issue. We do not have dollars for research of closed containment within this ministry.

The member opposite may be familiar with the federal program, Tides Canada, which we have an understanding that there's approximately $5 million available for research in this area. But again, this is a federal program and not one that we have intimate dealings with. So I'm sure you could find information about, again, Tides Canada.

What we do is provide encouragement for best practice and the sharing of information and innovation within the industry. But like I said at the start, we don't have dollars for research of closed containment, and it is a DFO responsibility.

G. Coons: Again, we look at what is going on with the open-net fish farming and aquaculture. Although it's a federal issue, we have B.C. technology on closed containment. There's a headline here from two years ago: "China Scoops B.C. Fish Farm Technology."

I think a stance by the minister and the government to say: "Hey, we're going to lead the technology for finfish aquaculture…." Aquaculture is a vital component of the province. It has to coexist with our wild fisheries. How do we want to do that? One way is to use B.C. technology with Agrimarine, which had their on-land system set up in Cedar, outside Nanaimo, and I visited that. Then they went up to Middle Bay, doing their closed containment up there.

I was hoping that we'd be seeing some innovation and governance money that might be supporting it, because in my constituency, Lax Kw'alaams — which is Port Simpson, a First Nations village that has a fish plant — is looking at trying to get closed containment in the region. I would hope that, as we move forward, we can sit down and discuss that and look at initiatives, or we can work together on that.

My second question…. It's just a follow-up to the Bella Coola Valley flooding and agriculture, Minister. I'm not too sure if you've the right staff here. I know we communicated about getting a briefing. But I'm just wondering if you had any other knowledge or input about the package for flood relief for the devastating agriculture damage that was done in the Bella Coola Valley?

[1610]

Hon. D. McRae: In response to the first question, you were talking about closed containment in a First Nations community in your riding. Again, whether it's in the ocean or on land, it's still a DFO responsibility.

In response to your second question, thank you very much for the letter. I was very pleased that we were able to respond so quickly. My understanding is that we requested the information to the office. It got there today. If you happen to be in town tomorrow — I will not be in town — and if you wanted to stop by my office or call the office and talk to staff there, if they're available and the information is there, I'm sure they'd talk to you.

If not, I'd very much be pleased to talk with you when we get back next week and to get a resolution to this issue as quickly as possible. I know that the farmers in your region were definitely struck with some real hardship there with the flooding. I think it would be very nice if they can work within the existing programs to find some assistance.

L. Popham: I guess I'm going to get back to your service plan, the minister's service plan, and talk about the general direction of the ministry right now and how it pertains to maybe a bit of a difference in our philosophies on agriculture. It also pertains to the amount of money that is being spent in certain directions in the ministry.

As I read through the service plan, I see that there's quite a bit of discussion around innovation and creating new markets. The direction seems to be going towards a more international market for our products in B.C. The concern that I have is that I feel as though the domestic market has been abandoned. I don't think we've done enough to take advantage of the four million hungry people here in British Columbia. I think that when you look at four million people that possibly eat three or more times a day, this is a market that's in place.

One of my concerns is that when we abandon the domestic market, I think we abandon local farmers, we abandon local small-scale and medium-scale farmers, and we start to centralize our food production and depend on our larger industrial models for agriculture.

So that being said, there's another reason why I don't support the move towards a more international market.
[ Page 6728 ]
I think it's very volatile, and it puts our growers into an unstable situation. As we've seen with the economic collapse over the last few years, this is something that could happen again, and if we're set up to do trade and to market internationally, that's the market that's going to collapse. So if we're not developing a strong domestic market, I think that we're setting ourselves up for a big problem in the future.

That being said, there is messaging around supporting domestic agriculture and local growers, but I think the weight of the service plan is focused on a different market.

The other concern I have with going to an international market, to have a focus there, is that it really flies in the face of the climate change requirements we have to reduce emissions in this province. Those are legislative changes that we have to make. Forty percent of emissions are caused by transporting food around our globe, so for me that becomes a problem. If we have the ability to produce food and sell our food here in the province, then I think that we should be doing that for economic reasons but also for environmental reasons.

The concern around climate change is being addressed as far as moving our growers to be able to adapt better in this service plan, but I don't think it's addressing climate change at the level of reducing our emissions altogether or in a way that we need to do to be able to adapt as a society to climate change.

[1615]

I guess I'd like an explanation, then, on what the minister thinks the direction of the ministry is and if my assumptions are correct.

Hon. D. McRae: A whole bunch of questions there, so I'll try to touch on some of them, if I may. If it's not good enough, I'm sure we can visit this again in a few minutes.

You obviously, like myself, are very concerned about the environment. I'm just not sure if I'm hearing you correctly. You didn't say it specifically, but are you saying that you're a big supporter of the carbon tax, but you want us to take it further than it is right now in terms of making sure that people do as much as they can to reduce their carbon footprint? I wasn't sure. Maybe you can clarify that at a later stage.

The other thing is…. I think for any market or any industry it's important to diversify. We saw an example of that with the forest industry not too long ago. We enjoyed for many, many decades just how vibrant the U.S. market was. When the U.S. market went away, it takes time for the forest industry to react accordingly.

The other key thing is that if you diversify, you have the ability to basically avoid some of the economic cycles that happen in life.

For those reasons, I think we're seeing a scenario where the producers are wanting two things. One, they definitely want us to expand the local market. I think we're doing some work around that, and I'm very proud of that. You might have seen on the news not too long ago…. As one of the first acts as minister — in recognizing that I myself, and I know yourself as well, support farmers markets — I was able to grant them $75,000 to expand their capacity as a general organization and grow farmers markets.

We have almost a hundred of them in the province. When you think back to 15 years ago, a farmers market was almost like an endangered species. Now they're a prize in every community. Communities are desperate to promote them and grow them, and that is something that I was proud, as Agriculture Minister, to do.

The other thing is that we're seeing a scenario where, basically, major retailers are showing pride in B.C. product. I like to see it on Vancouver Island. You might be familiar with Rage's greenhouse facility, producing 200,000 cucumbers from Port Alberni, selling to over 50 stores.

They are producing pretty much at maximum capacity, and that is in response to some of their concerns. This high Canadian dollar, which is basically making foreign product a bit more competitive — what to be brought in — is a stress to them. Even still, they react accordingly.

[1620]

I was very pleased to visit their farm, see their operation and hear some of their challenges but also to basically enjoy their successes in actually bringing locally grown product to Vancouver Island. My remembrance was that everything they grow they actually sell on the Island. They're very proud of their marketing and how they sell. It's nice to see that. I know my daughter is a huge fan of their product as well.

The other thing is that, just talking about foreign markets, sometimes our desire to go to foreign markets is at the request of industry. Through the Ranching Task Force, the cattlemen asked us to help them expand their industry. Obviously, like yourself, we find the ranching industry is absolutely important to this province.

They felt that their industry would be better served not just selling their product within the province but, also, being able to sell their product in foreign markets. So just last year the then Minister of Agriculture was able to take a trade mission trip to Asia, visiting Japan and China, at the request of the industry, to promote the product. He was happy to do so, and the industry was happy to have him there.

At the same time, you probably are very well aware that we have some product in oversupply. Two prime examples were blueberries. We had more than the domestic market could actually consume. As much as we like blueberries, there was just a surplus of them, and so we're looking for ways to expand that product because it is something that is wanted especially by some
[ Page 6729 ]
Asian markets. If we could encourage it, it's good for us domestically, but it's also good for their nutrition outside of the province. At the same time we were there we also encouraged cherries, and that's another market that we're looking to expand.

Since I'm off on a tangent now, as well, I'm going to keep on going. One of the things I learned — as an MLA, not as a minister — is about the world of artisan distilling, which I think is a pretty amazing value-added agriculture product. I had the opportunity last year to go up to Pemberton and see the Schramm Vodka distillery. Well, what a surprise. We have the Chair; it's in her riding.

I was so pleased to see when I was up there. They were taking what were traditionally organic potatoes out of the Pemberton Valley, a locally grown product, and because they were — excuse my grade ignorance — a B-grade organic potato, there was no market for them. They didn't look pretty enough, or they were too big or small, and they were putting them basically into landfill and going to waste.

Well, the Schramm Vodka distillery takes those 200,000 pounds of organic potatoes, and instead of wasting them, they convert them into a high-value, value-added agricultural product. When I was in Whistler and in Pemberton, and I've seen in other places, it is a very, very well-received product.

They sell beyond British Columbia, as well, and they would love to expand their capacity to increase their B.C. market share, of course, but they're not going to just sit there and say: "We're just going to sell in British Columbia." To be a vibrant industry and with the investment that they need to make in that industry, just like lots of farming industries have to do, they want to make sure that their market is not confined just to one area.

So I'm committed to having a multifaceted approach and, basically, definitely grow the domestic market. You're bang on. The Canadian dollar is where it is today, and where it's going to be tomorrow, well, we're not sure. But we know that the product that we grow in this province is phenomenal, and it has good quality nutrition. We want to encourage that, and we also want to share that good quality product with the world. For those reasons, we're going to continue to go down both strands there and especially if the industry asks.

While I'm standing, I was thinking that if the members around the table would be so interested, perhaps a five-minute break might be in order.

The Chair: Yes. I was actually just going to say there's been a request, so I'm very happy to recess the meeting for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:24 p.m. to 4:32 p.m.

[J. Rustad in the chair.]

The Chair: Welcome back to Vote 14, the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture.

L. Popham: We left off with the minister answering my last question. Within that answer came some questions towards me, so I'm going to answer those questions but will be using them to ask the minister some questions as well.

The minister mentioned the carbon tax and if I thought that it should be higher. I think that was in response to my claims about emissions and food production. I am in support of the carbon tax, absolutely.

It brings up a very interesting scenario, because the agriculture industry in B.C. is actually having trouble because of the carbon tax. That's because it has created an unfair playing field. We have greenhouse growers who are growing our domestic products. The same products are being imported by other countries which do not get a carbon tax on them.

I am in support of a carbon tax, but as far as agriculture goes, we have to look at the bigger picture. Should we be having some sort of carbon tax on the products that are imported, that are coming from miles? Or should we say to ourselves: "You know what? We want to encourage our domestic market, so maybe, as far as greenhouse growers or agriculture goes, there might be a different look at the way the carbon tax should look."

I am in support of it, but I do think that there are ways to handle it with agriculture that would support our domestic market, which is not happening right now.

Another interesting point was made about the minister's support for local agriculture. Within the last hour the minister also commented about how glad he was that a big-box store had come to Comox by the name of Costco. Costco is very known to supply cheap imported food, cheap imported produce. So as far as being a friend of agriculture, Costco is not. In fact, it threatens smaller suppliers and producers and privately owned smaller stores in the minister's community, as well as in mine.

Also, it's been on the record that the official opposition is opposed to open-net fish farming. They also sell farmed salmon, so I'm not sure why the Minister of Agriculture would be so supportive of a big-box store, which I don't think, actually, is supportive of agriculture at all in B.C., at least sustainable agriculture.

Getting back to questions for the minister, the farmers market support that he announced is excellent. I'm glad to see that. I might be corrected. I think it was $75,000 to farmers markets. I'd like to know how that money is allocated around the province within the farmers markets associations.

[1635]

Hon. D. McRae: A very interesting back-and-forth here. First of all, the member opposite talks about per-
[ Page 6730 ]
haps we can put some form of carbon tax — I guess it would be like a duty — on imported agricultural goods, and that does worry me a lot. I would hate to have a province of 4.5 million people that's twice the size of France get into a trade-war scenario. I don't think that's something I would like to do.

I have talked about the carbon tax with many, many producers. I've talked about the carbon tax with BCAC. They were one of the first industry groups that came to see me in my capacity as Minister of Agriculture, and I thought they are an incredibly interesting group with a lot of good ideas, and they're out to, basically, really grow agriculture in this province. So I was very pleased with…. They raised concerns, but they also recognized some of the areas that are really positive in the province. I think we're lucky to have an advocacy group like that.

The other thing is we talked about the Rage's greenhouse in Port Alberni the other day and my visit there. Yes, the carbon tax was a concern to the owner, and I listened, but even with the high Canadian dollar, at $1.05, and even with the carbon tax, he is still doing such a good job producing 200,000 cucumbers a year, selling them on Vancouver Island to over 50 retailers. Yes, it is a challenge for him, and it is a cost that he doesn't have the ability to recover, per se, but at the same time, his business is good and it's thriving. I'm proud to see that there are agricultural producers like Rage's greenhouses.

For a bit of clarity on big boxes, I think I tried to say that I didn't want to come across as being a…. I didn't have a position on big box, but I did have with the Costco analogy. The story I was using was…. It was just talking about 1,000 people lining up on a Saturday to actually go to a job fair. That was purely in response to…. You know, obviously there is a need or a desire for increased employment in the Comox Valley. The member opposite may not know, but my wife had for 15 years…. She did not own a big box. She owned, in fact, a very small store on 5th Street and was an independent producer.

In the Comox Valley, and I know you've been there to visit, 5th Street is an absolute jewel in the Comox Valley, and is the envy of many, many small towns in British Columbia, where you see such a diverse range of independent retailers. It is something that is not only something that we cherish, but people actually make the effort to come to the Comox Valley to visit those stores.

As for the Costco purchasing elements, that's something I do not wish to go into today.

The $75,000 that I was able to give to the farmers market association…. The best part about that grant was that it was an unconditional grant to the farmers market association for them to basically grow their organization, expand their capacity. It's amazing what they've been able to do to this stage, and I'm looking forward to seeing what they will do with the dollars I was able to help provide.

You know, when you go to, again, the Comox Valley Farmers Market, which I try to attend a lot…. In fact, I was there just two weeks ago. You know, it is all B.C. product. There are no crafts. It is about agriculture. It is about promoting product that is grown and raised, but also value-added agriculture there, which I think is just absolutely phenomenal. On top of that, you can also enjoy some local talent. Since I'm sure there are, if not thousands, at least dozens of people watching us right now and perhaps later on tonight on TV, if I could encourage them to come to the Comox Valley and visit the Comox Valley Farmers Market….

[1640]

As Minister of Agriculture, I would be remiss to have them say: "Well, if you can't come to the Comox Valley, please support your local farmers market." They produce and provide an amazing service in communities across this province.

L. Popham: Well, it's an interesting comment from the minister regarding wanting to start a trade war due to carbon tax, but what I was implying was that it's an unfair playing field to have a carbon tax on our growers when imported food doesn't, if you're looking at it through a lens of climate change, which I don't think the current government is right now. I think that's been abandoned, and I think that we can see that with the outreach to the international market.

As far as promoting beef, I'll get back to the comment about the cattle association. The cattle association has been failing for years, mostly because it's been abandoned by the government as far as creating a domestic market. If you look at the government's own self-sufficiency report, you can see that we consume more beef than we produce, and so as a businessperson, I would look at that scenario and I would recreate a plan that instils our domestic market.

But you can look at other things like that, too, as far as blueberries and cherries. I would like to know from the minister: how many pounds or pints of blueberries are imported into our province right now from other countries?

Hon. D. McRae: Fresh or frozen? If it's fresh…. Obviously, there are no fresh blueberries this time of year. Frozen — I don't know if we actually keep that. It's a tough time to be growing. It's been a wicked spring.

Just a couple of things. One of the things…. We mentioned earlier when we were talking about fishing how, just in 2010, the sockeye run was the biggest in 87, 97, 98 years. This is obviously the nature of agriculture. Just like fishing, it can be cyclical, and there are certain years where there is an absolutely amazing glut in the market.

You know, my understanding is that with the blueberry industry several years ago the price per pound was
[ Page 6731 ]
very, very advantageous for the grower. Many, many individuals in a free-market economy decided, "You know what? I want to grow blueberries," and so they did. They had some amazing years and produced a huge amount of blueberries, and we had a dearth of blueberries.

Instead of letting them go to waste…. You know, in British Columbia, when you actually do harvest blueberries — I guess we'll use the August time — you know what? People are buying en masse. But the reality is that we don't want product to go to waste. It's just the same in cherries. I told the story about the artisan distiller who uses the potatoes. Well, there are opportunities down the road, I've been told, where we actually had to end up throwing into compost and waste cherries that are perfectly good. We just have too many for what the market will bear.

Sometimes we just have a scenario where we have not enough product, but sometimes we have too much, and British Columbia's 4.5 million people sometimes don't have the capacity to consume certain products to the degree that the farmers would like us to buy. So by growing those markets, not only do they have the ability to sell domestically, but they also have the ability to sell on the international market.

While I'm a high school teacher by trade, I do recognize that in farming, some years are far more profitable than others. I think we need to do everything we can in agriculture to make sure that when the growing is good, they're making dollars, and if there happens to be a rough year, that will be something that will sustain them through those rough years.

Having a local farmer actually having too much product and then being able to sell it — that's a problem I would love to be hearing from the BCAC. But that's…. I guess we'll leave it there.

L. Popham: Wow, that just opens up so many more questions for me actually — and stories I can tell as well.

You were bringing up the artisan distillers. Being someone who sleeps 20 feet from a large still in my backyard — a legal one — I am very well aware of the artisan distillers association and the potential that's there, but unfortunately, the way that the tax system works right now, it is almost impossible for artisan distillers to make a living, so maybe the minister could help us out there.

[1645]

Moving back to blueberries, my question was: how many blueberries are imported into our province? I don't care if it's fresh or frozen, and I'm not talking about fresh at this time of year. But we may be getting some blueberries from somewhere like Chile at this time of year.

Hon. D. McRae: As much as we would like to be able to provide you with the exact amount, that's something that the ministry…. That's data the ministry doesn't collect. It can come in, in such a variety of ways. If it were to come in through another province and then get transferred interprovincially to British Columbia, that would be one way, I suppose.

But at this stage the ministry uses its resources in such a manner not to go after what the import rate would be. But it also does allow me to go off and…. Right now, obviously, you can't buy strawberries, either, from British Columbia, but you can buy fresh strawberries, and they're from California.

It comes down to: if people are, if the market is demanding product that is out of B.C. season, as much as we would like to encourage people to buy locally, buying fruit…. Apples are available, by all means. They've been in cold storage for a long period of time. But sometimes consumers wish to have a wider variety. So right now we have strawberries on our shelves in grocery stores around the province, and no, they're not from British Columbia by any means, if they're fresh.

But it also heartens me to remind people, as the Minister of Agriculture, that if you ever have the opportunity to taste a pretty California strawberry compared to a British Columbia strawberry, you'll find the B.C. strawberry tastes and is far more nutritious than those import products.

At the end of the day — which is a very popular political statement we use, our old cliché — if the market is demanding that people want a certain product in an out-of-season time of year, we don't have the capacity to both measure what they bring in nor to prevent them from bringing it in.

L. Popham: Thanks to the minister. It seems awfully curious to me that the Ministry of Agriculture wouldn't track what's coming in as imports into our province when we're trying to develop an international market to supply others. You would think that we would know what we're trying to supply ourselves and what's being consumed here.

But that does bring me back to an issue of a glut in the market for something such as blueberries, for example. We used to have a very healthy extension service program within the ministry that would advise people on crops to plant, trends, perhaps overplanting of crops. That funding has dwindled away over the years, and I know, as a certified organic grower myself, that organic growing is one of the fastest developing markets in B.C. — the types of agriculture that are being done.

Just last fall the only organic extension officer was cut from the budget. So I guess my question is: is that coming back? Because the service plan implies that we are all about sustainable growing practices, and it would be a shame to cut that very vital service for any more time than it already has been cut for.

[1650]
[ Page 6732 ]

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to the organic extension officer, this was a position funded for a three-year period in partnership with the organic industry with the understanding by all parties, both the organic sector and the Ministry of Agriculture, that it would become sort of self-sustaining and industry-supported by that time. That obviously did not come to fruition, but that was the understanding by the industry — that they would basically grow that interim position into becoming a permanent one and that it wouldn't be relying on ministry support to that degree.

However, I do want to remind the member opposite that we have sector specialists, and we still do have an industry organic sector specialist who is the lead for those types of questions through the ministry.

L. Popham: The organic extension officer that was working in partnership with the ministry funding and COABC was a critical service for organic farmers. This was somebody who knew the farmers face to face. She knew the farms. She visited the farms. It was a service that was critical to them. For new farmers coming onto the scene, she was basically, you know, a tutor for organic farming.

I believe $76,000 was the cost. I believe that the value that the ministry probably got from that service as far as encouraging farming was incredible. So is there a plan to bring that extension officer back?

Hon. D. McRae: I just want to remind the member opposite that we have an industry sector specialist who is more than willing to work with the organic industry. I've had many, many meetings so far as Minister of Agriculture, and one I would very much relish to have is a meeting with COABC.

I can't remember whether they've requested me at this stage, but my door is open not just to that industry but to as many agriculture industry organizations as possible that can be willing to, at this stage when we're in session, come to Victoria. I'm very curious to meet with them and hear about their industry and what they're doing to grow their industry and perhaps to hear what they think we could do to assist.

L. Popham: Is the industry sector specialist a position that was in place as well as the organic extension officer?

[1655]

Hon. D. McRae: We created the sector specialist position after the organic extension officer position concluded, but just in case it's going to require further follow-up, their area of expertise is not just organic. They have other sectors that they are responsible for, but they did not exist during the term of the organic extension officer.

L. Popham: Well, I think that's a problem, because I think that when someone has a specialty in organic growing, that's something that…. The organic industry or sector — it's not small. It requires someone who's a full-time person that's dedicated to that sector.

So I guess my question is: how many sectors is this industry sector specialist responsible for? How much does it cost to have that person in place? And how many of those people do we have working in the province?

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to the organic industry, my sense is that you're right. It's not small, and it is actually growing. I think it has the potential to grow more. I'm hoping that the COABC will take the time and effort to come and talk about what the sector specialist is that we have right now and how that role is perceived and how that's helping their sector flourish and grow farther.

But in response to your question, we have 9.5 sector specialists. In particular, the specialists I think that you're referring to at this stage are not only responsible for organics but are also responsible for field vegetables.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

L. Popham: How much does that position cost?

Hon. D. McRae: Hello again, Chair.

[1700]

If it's okay, I'll give an approximate amount, because it also includes benefits and such. We're working from the number of approximately $100,000 for that particular position. However, if the member would like absolute numbers, I'm sure we could provide those. But I'm sure we'll be very close to that approximate $100,000 range.

L. Popham: Thank you for that information. It would seem to me that the organic extension officer position that was cut…. It seems obvious that it was because of a financial decision. I don't think the decision was made for the betterment of agriculture in British Columbia. In fact, I think it's a detriment, and I think we've had a huge loss.

If this industry sector specialist is responsible for the organic industry plus all field vegetables in British Columbia, I think that's too much. I think that's too much, and I think that it would be better to have a sector specialist that was specifically dedicated to organics and then maybe one that was specifically dedicated to field vegetables. It seems like it was a really bad decision by this ministry.

I think that if you went and had a meeting with the director or the chair of COABC, you would find that they are giving you the same argument. The person that the minister should be speaking with is Rochelle, who was the organic extension officer. She can tell you herself how busy she was and how meaningful that position was in that industry. They really are shocked, and you know, there's no way for them to recover at this point.
[ Page 6733 ]

I would like to know how busy the industry sector specialist is and if there's any data being kept as far as how many calls for organics and how many calls for conventional farming.

Hon. D. McRae: I just want to remind the member opposite that the organic extension officer was a position going into an agreement with the ministry and the industry to fund the position for three years with the understanding by both parties, both the ministry and the organics industry, that it would be self-sustaining within three years.

By all means, I do not doubt for a second that the person within that position didn't work incredibly diligently and was very passionate about her job, but in British Columbia we have 250 agriculture sectors and, you know, they would all like to have their own sector specialists. We did treat the organic industry as special for a period of time, but the reality is that we just do not have the resources to have a person targeted for every specific sector in this province.

L. Popham: The 9.5 industry sector specialists — are they specifically dedicated to certain sectors as well, or is anybody singularly put into a sector of agriculture?

[1705]

Hon. D. McRae: For the member opposite, just to give you a list of not the actual employees' names but the areas that they're responsible for. Of the 9½, we have a sector specialist in beef, bison and specialty livestock; a sector specialist in seafood and aquaculture; a sector specialist in pork and dairy; a sector specialist in poultry; a sector specialist in floriculture and nursery; a sector specialist in tree fruit; a sector specialist in organics and field vegetables; a sector specialist in berries; a sector specialist in apiculture; and a half-time position in greens and oilseeds. There you go.

L. Popham: The officer that's responsible for the organic sector — do any of the other positions overlap with that? So if you have organic poultry, do you have to call the organic specialist or do you call the poultry person first?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm proud to say that the specialists do not work in a silo where they refuse to talk to each other. They do work together, and when there is overlap, they're more than willing to work with each other to promote and enhance agriculture in the province.

L. Popham: Do these specialists do farm visits?

Hon. D. McRae: The sector specialists — their primary role is to work with the industry organizations. However, they do have the ability…. I know, particularly, one of the inspectors who does visit farms when necessary, but their primary focus is to work with the industry organizations.

L. Popham: So these officers are not dedicated to individual farmers?

Hon. D. McRae: We encourage farmers to work with their industry associations whenever possible, but as well, they are entitled and able to contact the sector specialists if they feel so necessary.

L. Popham: That's interesting. It seems as though the industry sector specialists are not quite as accessible as the idea of an organic extension officer or an extension officer of any sort that the ministry used to have. That's concerning.

If I'm doing the math right, we are spending about a million dollars on these positions, and they are accessible to the organizations with agriculture but not necessarily the farmers. That's hard for me to understand as a farmer — that we wouldn't have those extension services offered to individual farmers, conventional or organic.

[1710]

That's one of the things, as I've toured around the province for two years, that farmers miss. Given the case of climate change and adaptability to climate change in agriculture, which is huge…. We already see that. The seasons — we can't predict what they're going to be as easily. That's something that I think would be an excellent position to have, a climate change adaptability specialist for agriculture. I don't know if we have that, but these are positions that farmers should be able to call in and request to come to their farm.

As far as budget cuts go and being more efficient, this is the wrong direction. We now are running into the case where the ministry is so bare bones that it's becoming an administration. There's a huge roadblock between farmers and the ministry that's supposed to represent farming in British Columbia. I have a big problem with that.

In the minister's service plan, it starts out talking about some of the difficulties as far as making commitments because of tough economic times, but "we focus on delivering our ministry's critical services."

Extension services are critical to agriculture. I don't think you're going to have to travel very far as Minister of Agriculture to hear that message coming from everybody in agriculture that I've been involved with and that I've met along my road as the critic for the last two years. I hope that the minister will listen to those farmers when they tell you that they need that service back in place.

Getting back to farmers markets…. I think that this question probably falls under a different ministry, but I think it's something that the minister would be well aware of as the minister and as somebody who has such an interest in farmers markets. There was a farmers
[ Page 6734 ]
market coupon program for low-income families that was offered. It really was an excellent program that supported local farming and low-income families at the same time. I'm wondering if the minister knows if that's coming back.

Hon. D. McRae: In regards to the farmers market coupon program, that wasn't an initiative that was under this ministry. It was a Ministry of Health initiative. I encourage the member, if she wishes to follow up on that, to perhaps have the opportunity to talk to the minister there.

One of the things, too, we were thinking here is…. I had the opportunity, not too long ago, to watch one of our sector specialists deal directly with farmers. I was in a room with 12 or 14 farmers, and they had direct access to the specialists and were able to basically not only express their concerns but to say what they were also looking for and looking from the ministry in terms of helping to promote their industry and enhance their industry.

[1715]

I know firsthand from being in the room that the sector specialists are actually being accessible to farmers. Of course, in a perfect world we would have immediate access all the time. I think it's also very heartening in British Columbia to know that we have the industry associations — which provide valuable support and are a great sort of communal advocacy group that allow the concerns of farmers, which are often not one-offs but are often actually wider in scope and nature — to bring forward those interests. So they're not just hearing from one specific farmer. If there's an issue, it's wide-ranging, and so we know that government resources and staff are being used in the best means possible.

L. Popham: The minister raises a good point. It's good to know that they were accessible in that room, but having farmers go through their advocacy group such as COABC…. It would seem to me that COABC thought it was best to have an extension officer available to them for their farmers to use.

Getting together in a room for a meeting is great, and I think that all farming groups do that from time to time over the year, whether it's in an AGM…. But calling someone up on the phone, having a chat, getting an appointment booked to come to the farm…. In a way, that probably works better for smaller to medium-scale farms, which are one of the types of farming that is really increasing in B.C. and that I believe that we want to see increase in B.C.

We're going to run out of time, which is too bad. But one thing I wanted to…. I'm going to go through just some really quick questions. If you need to get back to me at a certain point so that I could just get these questions on record with you, that's fine. You can just let me know. You can write to me or have a meeting with me at any point.

I would like to know how much money in this budget is dedicated to First Nations agricultural development.

Hon. D. McRae: We seem to also go back and forth with the organic side. I am very much looking forward to having a meeting with the COABC and hearing their perspective, because again, when we go back to the organic extension officer, which was obviously before my time…. Ministry staff must have found it did have some importance, because they agreed that it was to be a three-year period with both sides, ministry and the organic association or organic industry, understanding that after that three-year period lapsed, it would be a self-sustaining position.

I'm hoping that when I do have a meeting with the COABC, perhaps they can explain from their perspective, at least, why the position was not able to actually grow into a self-sustaining position and if it was something that maybe they needed more support with or maybe there were just circumstances beyond everybody's control. But it's curious because, again, there was an agreement that everybody knew the end date and the end result for it, so there should be no surprises there. Of course, I would have loved to have seen it become self-sustaining, and I'm curious to hear their perspective as to why it didn't.

The second aspect was about First Nations. There are three First Nations agrologists, one FTE provincially supported and two FTEs supported by the Growing Forward agreement. From the Ministry of Agriculture, the total budget program, including travel, is $60,000. Obviously, there are dollars coming from the federal government to those positions as well.

[1720]

L. Popham: My next set of questions is around genetically modified seed. I'm just wondering if the ministry is tracking the amount of genetically modified seed that's coming into the province and keeping track of what's being planted in the province and where.

Hon. D. McRae: In acknowledgement of how much time…. If we were to sit there and pull the answer out, perhaps you wouldn't have the opportunity to ask the other questions that you still wish to ask, so if it's okay with the member opposite, we will get the answer to you. Instead of wasting valuable time and our limited resources, could we take a pass on this one and get back to you in near future?

L. Popham: Absolutely.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you.
[ Page 6735 ]

L. Popham: I'm going to switch topics again and talk about the B.C. sled dog inquiry. I don't know if you need different staff. You're okay?

The sled dog tragedy, I think, shocked everybody in B.C. It's not the type of story you want to wake up to, and there was a lot of frustration and anger and sadness around that.

The task force and inquiry that came from that I think was done in very good time. I think that the dedication to bringing forward some of the strongest animal cruelty legislation is a step in the right direction.

That being said, I've got some questions around the funding for the BCSPCA. This is really to get my own understanding of it as well. Is the BCSPCA required by legislation to carry out prevention and investigation services by the province of B.C.?

Hon. D. McRae: Like the member opposite, I was absolutely horrified and dismayed when I learned of this horrible incident involving those animals. If we had more time, I actually have a good personal story about how sled dogs are responsible for my family to be here. But in the interest of time, I'll tell you that story in the hallway.

Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, they are the agency authorized and responsible for these kinds of investigations, so you are correct.

L. Popham: How much funding is given to the BCSPCA to fulfil this legislated responsibility?

[1725]

Hon. D. McRae: Up to this year the BCSPCA received $250,000 a year in gaming grants for the spay and neuter program. I guess over the period of this program we were able to give $3.7 million to the BCSPCA for the good work that they do in this province. I was also pleased, as Minister of Agriculture this year, to delegate $100,000 to the BCSPCA for their efforts in this investigation.

One piece I also wanted to bring up…. I'm sure the member opposite is also very aware that we also offer the BCSPCA nominal rents of a dollar a year on Crown land. For example, the SPCA has facilities on Crown land in Quesnel, Cranbrook and Parksville.

L. Popham: Specifically, the animal cruelty investigations that the BCSPCA is legislated to do — it's my understanding that costs $2.5 million a year to fulfil. How much of that specific line item does the province contribute?

Hon. D. McRae: Just for clarity, I'm sure it's not a big deal, but I think the member opposite used the number of $2.5 million for investigation. We work from the figure of $2.3 million for animal cruelty investigations. If we can work together, maybe we'll get some clarity.

We also contributed, like I mentioned earlier, $100,000 this year to assist with animal investigations. I'm sure the member opposite was very happy to see the Premier commit to providing ongoing funding to the BCSPCA in a press announcement that I had the opportunity, with the Minister of Environment at the same time, to attend.

[1730]

I believe it was in early April and probably the largest press conference that the Minister of Agriculture will ever get to attend. All I got to do was emcee, but that was okay.

I understand, as well, that the BCSPCA has made the choice to not be as reliant on gaming grants. They've chosen instead to increase their class A lottery option which, if the member opposite isn't familiar with it, is very similar to the hospital home lottery system. I think the BCSPCA obviously has a very good reputation and a very good support base, so I look forward to them becoming even more self-reliant on their good name and basically allow individuals to make the decision to purchase and perhaps win a nice home as well.

L. Popham: Well, it could be $2.3 million. We can just say that's what it is. I'll give you that one.

So the $100,000 was a one-time commitment to carry out the task force on investigation. I don't think that's an annual amount, as far as I understand. That's for this year only. I do know about the lottery, and I know that disqualifies them from getting gaming grants.

There still seems to be quite a big gap in what it costs them to investigate and do their cruelty investigations. It seems curious to me that the rest of the requirement would be made up by donations by the public, as far as I can see. I guess I'm wondering: are there any other jurisdictions that structure the funding for legislative responsibilities by donation?

[1735]

Hon. D. McRae: After extensive consultation with my colleagues, we feel that the funding model is variable depending on the jurisdiction. There's no set way that other provinces are doing it. Some have various funding models that they apply, and it works for them. For the past X number of years the funding model, I think, has worked decently for British Columbia in its relationship with the BCSPCA.

I'm sure the member opposite knows that this ministry has a good relationship with the BCSPCA. We're in contact, especially with the head of the BCSPCA, Craig Daniell, who actually at this time I would like to say thank you to, very much — for an individual who has obviously a very busy schedule and a big organization to run. His efforts on the Sled Dog Task Force with Barbara Steele and the minister, now of Environment, were efforts that were so appreciated not just by this
[ Page 6736 ]
ministry or by this government but by the citizens of British Columbia.

Sometimes we don't get along in the political world here, but I think it's fair to say that the work coming out of that task force was top-notch, and it's going to be of benefit to animals and our citizens in this province for years to come.

But from that, we have that good relationship with the BCSPCA and with Craig Daniell. We basically want to continue having those dialogues and look for ways that we can support the organization and the good work they do.

L. Popham: I'm going to switch now to promotion of our products. I probably have how many minutes left — ten, 20?

Promotion of our products. So what I'd like to know is: how much are we spending to promote our products globally, and how much are we spending domestically?

Hon. D. McRae: There are approximately four FTEs that promote B.C. agriculture both domestically and internationally. Some examples we could use are farmers markets and the Asia-Pacific trade mission. But as well, the employees of the Ministry of Agriculture, like many, many ministries within this government…. It's so hard to quantify either a percentage of time or a dollar amount, because depending on the resources needed by individuals or dependent on the resources needed by an industry organization and the expertise or the questions or supports they may need, it's just not something that we track on a specific basis.

One thing I'm really proud of is that the ministry staff are more than willing…. They're very passionate about their job, and they will step up and use their skills and services to support industry organizations and farmers in their ability to try to basically grow B.C. agriculture, both domestically…. But to put a dollar amount would be, I'm sure, almost impossible. You'd have to basically look at the calls that a staffer might make every day or take every day. They could range in a huge range of questions.

So my apologies, but I just think that we'd probably have to devote more staffers just to track it than it would be to actually grow the industry.

[1740]

L. Popham: When I was going through the agriculture plan, I did get an update on what has been completed. One of the things that I noticed had been left out due to tough economic times was a marketing program for our local products within our province. I'm wondering if there's a plan to bring that back within the next year or two.

Hon. D. McRae: Thank you to the member opposite for allowing me to summarize the action items. In the service plan there are 69 action items. I'm proud to say that 29 are in progress, 32 are completed — which gives a percentage of 89 percent of the action items that are at that stage — seven are ones that we haven't started and one we're no longer pursuing. I'm very proud to say that the Ministry of Agriculture has, like I said, completed or is in the process of completing 89 percent of the action items that we have laid out within our service plan.

I believe that the member opposite is talking about the plan that was to contribute a million dollars a year to promote local agriculture products and develop a B.C. brand. While the dollars are not available this year — obviously due, like the member opposite said, to the tough economic times — we're hoping that the Minister of Finance will find dollars available. We will continue to bring forward that request, and if the dollars become available, we would hope to go forward on that program.

L. Popham: This will be my final question. I also want to say at this point that it's been a pleasure doing estimates with the new Minister of Agriculture. Thank you very much. It's been great to have a conversation.

At this point I guess my question is to the minister as a new minister. Now you've had time to review the budget for agriculture. You've had time to go out and meet some of the stakeholders. Does the Minister of Agriculture feel that the current budget is sufficient to properly support agriculture in B.C.?

[1745]

Hon. D. McRae: Like I'm sure every minister would say, you could always use more resources, so I will continue to advocate for more. But it's also the balance that government has to achieve.

I'd like to take this time, as well, to say how impressed I am with the work done by this ministry and its staff. I was told I would be impressed by the calibre of the individuals and their talents that they bring to the government and agriculture in this province. I can say that to a person they are true to their word. They're absolutely phenomenal, and I think we're very lucky in the ministry to have a staff as phenomenal as we do.

We're committed to partnering with industry and other governments to leverage dollars as best we can. I'm sure the member opposite is familiar with Growing Forward, which allowed the government of British Columbia and Ministry of Agriculture, working with the federal government, to basically bring $558 million between 2008 and 2013 into this province to support agriculture.

Right now the negotiations are ongoing for Growing Forward 2, which will basically evolve beyond Growing Forward. So we're hoping that we'll see the half a billion dollars that we can use to invest in agriculture — encourage innovation, encourage marketing, basically
[ Page 6737 ]
encouraging agriculture to see over the last…. So by the time Growing Forward 2 is lapsed, that will be a ten-year program with over a billion dollars to support agriculture, which would be, obviously, the most dollars ever put into agriculture by any government in the history of British Columbia.

I'm proud to be the minister of this great ministry. I look forward to serving the people of British Columbia today and far into the future and leaving a legacy of strong farming for this province.

As we wrap it up with the last question here, I'd like to thank the member opposite. I can honestly say that this is the most enjoyable estimates I have ever done as well. I think it's a pleasure to work with someone who is so keen on agriculture and so passionate about it.

I'm sure that you know, as I've mentioned before, the door…. I would say it's always open, but sometimes people are inside already. But the door is open, and please, if you feel there are issues that you would like to talk to me about, I am always more than willing to talk to you or your colleagues about what we can do as a province to support agriculture, because at the end it's what we want to see. We want to see agriculture flourish. And you know what? Sometimes things are more important than politics, and agriculture is one of them.

I'd like to also take this time to say to my support staff around me: thank you so very much, both behind here and in the back there. You've done a phenomenal job. I don't think in my life I have ever talked this much and this long, and without actually having someone tell me to shut up.

The Chair: I'm about to. [Laughter.]

Hon. D. McRae: So taking the cue from the Chair, who is looking so fine in his robes…. Do I have to do something with the vote at the end?

The Chair: No. Hearing no further questions, I'll now call Vote 14.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $52,297,000 — approved.

The Chair: While I'm frightened to, I'll recognize the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. D. McRae: You used to be my friend.

I move Vote 15.

Vote 15: Agricultural Land Commission, $1,974,000 — approved.

Hon. D. McRae: Chair, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Agriculture, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

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

ISSN 1499-2175