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)

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 3

[ Page 7743 ]

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

MEL COUVELIER

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with sadness to inform the House of the passing of our colleague and friend Mel Couvelier. Mel was MLA for Saanich North and the Islands from 1986 to 1991 and was Minister of Finance during those years.

Mel had many successes in both private and elected life. He was an alderman and mayor of Saanich. He was the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, president of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities and president of the Liberal Party of B.C.

[1335]

He was committed to community service his entire life and still sat on the board of the Horticultural Centre of the Pacific, which he helped found in the 1980s, at the time of his death.

Mel leaves behind his much-loved wife, Millie; their sons, Rod and Rick; daughter, Melissa; and their families. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you, on behalf of all members of this House, send condolences to Mel's family.

Hon. C. Clark: I also rise today to mark the passing of Mel Couvelier. He was a distinguished member of this Legislature and a distinguished citizen as well as a distinguished Finance Minister.

Provincial politics was one stop in a lifetime, though, for Mel Couvelier of political and public service. He was on the municipality of Saanich. He was a longtime mayor. He did countless good works until his passing. Most importantly, all of his life he demonstrated the value of public engagement. He demonstrated that you can bring people together in a noble way.

Mel Couvelier was a gentleman. I had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Couvelier a month after I became Premier. He came to visit me in my office here. He told me he was honoured to come meet with me when, in fact, it was me who was honoured to meet with him. He generously spent that time with me a few weeks ago, offering me the three best pieces of advice I've gotten since I became Premier.

I will miss his advice. I believe all British Columbians will miss his contributions. He was a great British Columbian. He cared deeply about this province, and he gave us all we could ever have asked of him.

A. Dix: I'd just like to join, on behalf of the official opposition, in the remarks made by the Premier. Mel Couvelier was a remarkable guy. He was a great spirit in our province. I think it reflects how much he meant, in the sort of partisan nature of B.C. politics, that he was appointed, in fact, by the NDP government to important posts after he left the provincial cabinet with the Social Credit Party. He was respected all over British Columbia, and all of us will miss him.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: I have one introduction to make. A dear friend and constituent is here visiting Victoria, first time in the Legislature of British Columbia. We had lunch with him today in the legislative dining room. He's an old crony of an officer of the Legislature, a former RCMP colleague of our Sergeant-at-Arms, so it was wonderful to sit in and listen. They were regaling me as an observer with some past stories of their time together in the RCMP.

Now he's here. Peter Boddy is here visiting us from Richmond-Steveston. He's a great friend, and professionally, he's moved on from the RCMP and currently is employed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS. Would the House please give a warm welcome to Peter Boddy.

D. Routley: Isn't the best part of our job to welcome school groups here? I know that it is the best part of my experience here. You get to speak with these young people about what happens here, and I always tell them what Mr. MacMinn told a high school student that I brought. He said: "We teach you in school to work cooperatively and productively. This isn't that kind of place." And he says: "There's anger and passion in this chamber for a good reason, so that there isn't riot in our streets." So I remind them of that and then ask them to forgive what they're about to witness in question period.

That being said, I'd like the House to help me welcome the students from Ecole Davis Road in Ladysmith, along with their teacher and some parents.

I have one other introduction. Yesterday I had the pleasure of introducing my CAs. Our constituency assistants do their work most productively by building relationships. They do it within government and throughout the province. They even do it with tourists in the building.

[1340]

Yesterday my constituency assistant Patty McNamara met Diane and Ricardo Bembella. They're visiting us from Santa Barbara. Diane is a nurse, and Ricardo is an accountant. They were impressed by the building and the difference in our systems. I'd like the House to help us welcome our visitors from Santa Barbara, the Bembellas.

Hon. I. Chong: I am pleased to, first and foremost, welcome a former colleague of ours back to the Legislature.
[ Page 7744 ]
She's on the floor of the House here. Olga Ilich served as MLA for Richmond Centre from 2005 to 2009. She served, as well, as the Minister of Tourism, Culture and the Arts and Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. I know from time to time she does come back and visit. Being that this is our last week here, I think she wanted to observe how question period has changed for the better since her departure.

During her time in retirement, though, she has continued to contribute to her community while still engaged in business life. I understand she has volunteered on a number of boards, and those that she is most passionate about are in the arts and culture field. I would ask the House to please make her very welcome.

V. Huntington: It is a pleasure to introduce today a good, longtime friend of mine and one of Victoria's and indeed Canada's distinguished authors, poets and educators. Will the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Doug Beardsley to this place.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today we have Colin Smith, professional engineer. Recently Colin was awarded the meritorious service award among all the engineering organizations in Canada — Engineers Canada. On a long and distinguished resumé he can note he was president of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C., president of Engineers Canada, former head of Forest Renewal B.C., former head of Crown Lands, an ADM of forestry under Claude Richmond, involved as an engineer on the Millennium Line as well as the convention centre, currently serving on the Victoria Airport Authority.

He's a distinguished engineer. He's a distinguished former civil servant, and he's a distinguished British Columbian. Would the House please welcome Colin Smith.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like the House to welcome Kelly Newhook and John Cooke from Victoria's Together Against Poverty Society. Please thank them for their work for our society's most vulnerable, and please make them very welcome to this House.

Hon. D. McRae: This morning I met with the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. They were ably represented by Judy Guichon, Ron Buchanan, Mark Grafton, John Kochel and Kevin Boon, and they are here joining us today. So let the House please make them welcome.

L. Popham: I have two visitors in the House today from Saanich South, Greta Wappett and Jean Kapel. Please make them welcome.

P. Pimm: I had the great opportunity this morning of meeting with a delegation from the Canadian Kailuan Dehua Mines Co. Ltd. I would like the House to help me welcome Hua Pei, Nie Baozhong, Vincent Yang and Judy Matkaluk. I apologize for the way I've pronounced those names. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Horgan: It's one of those rare opportunities to gaze up at the gallery and see a familiar face, someone who was in this place working for the former member for Nelson-Creston, the irrepressible Corky Evans. Joining us in the gallery is Anne Fraser. Why in the world she came back is a mystery, but welcome.

J. van Dongen: I am very pleased to introduce Miss Geneviève Tellier. She's a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, and she's here visiting, doing interviews on the functioning of one of our legislative committees. I ask the House to please make her very welcome.

[1345]

B. Simpson: I have the distinct pleasure of introducing Walker Morrow, a 19-year-old political blogger and political columnist for the Vancouver Examiner. He hails from the Cowichan Valley, and he's down here today to find out how the press gallery works — or doesn't. My hope is that they don't corrupt him too much.

He just tweeted thanks to my office, because he showed up in attire that wasn't befitting standing in a scrum, and he thanked my staff for making sure that he was suitably attired. Welcome, Walker, to the gallery.

D. Hayer: I have four special guests, and one sad announcement to make. First, the four special guests. Gurdev Singh Sidhu is the IAS officer and Deputy Minister of Punjab. He's the Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayats in Punjab, India. He is a past deputy commissioner of Ferozepur.

He's with his wife Harbrinder Kaur Sidhu. He's also with his brother, our community leader, Dharam Sidhu, chief engineer at the Vancouver Renaissance Hotel, who holds two professional engineering degrees and helps the community with many events. He's also hosted with my wife Isabelle Hayer.

Tributes

RAMINDER SINGH THIND

D. Hayer: The sad news is that one of the Punjabi journalists, Raminder Singh Thind, passed away on May 29, 2011, due to a heart attack. He was editor of the Vancouver edition of the Parvasi newspaper, a Punjabi newspaper published from Toronto. Raminder had also worked as a host on B.C. radio programs, and he was a great singer and stage player and helped the community.
[ Page 7745 ]

His funeral service will be held on Sunday, June 5 at 12:30 at the Five Rivers Funeral Home in Delta. I would ask the House to send a letter of condolences on behalf of all the MLAs. Also, if any MLAs are able, please attend the funeral services.

Introductions by Members

M. Mungall: I also want to extend a warm welcome to Kelly Newhook. She is a dear friend of both my fiancé and me, and I look forward to celebrating our wedding with her this summer.

Statements

Aboriginal History Month

J. Rustad: June was declared Aboriginal History Month by parliament in 2009, and National Aboriginal Day is marked annually on June 21. The Assembly of First Nations Chief Shawn Atleo today launched an initiative to make June 2011 a month of First Nations advocacy, awareness and action, with the goal being greater understanding between First Nations and all Canadians. I would ask all MLAs to join me in recognizing this here today.

Tributes

RAMINDER SINGH THIND

H. Bains: I would also like to join with my colleague from Surrey-Tynehead to offer our condolences and sympathy to the family of Raminder Thind. He was a very respected journalist. He was a great activist in the community, a good friend, and he will be missed. I would also ask all of the members of the House to please join with me to offer our condolences and sympathy to the family of Raminder Singh Thind.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: It's not often I get to welcome people here from the beautiful riding of Prince George–Mackenzie, but I'm very pleased today to be able to welcome two friends, Mark and Laura Grafton, who are ranchers. They manage the Bar K Ranch just outside of Prince George, and Laura is a faithful Scrabble partner of my wife. Welcome to Mark and Laura.

S. Hammell: I'd like the House to welcome Larry Shaw. He's a member from my constituency and an outstanding member of the Surrey prostate cancer support group that operates out of Surrey Memorial Hospital. They do amazing work in supporting individuals with this cancer, and I'd like the House to make him welcome.

L. Reid: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming Tracy Harper. Not only does she take wonderful care of us here in these buildings, but she's also a glorious photographer — It's You Photography. I know the member for Nanaimo and I will both look wondrous once she has completed her photographs.

[1350]

Tributes

CHEK-TV

Hon. I. Chong: I make the following introduction with some trepidation and caution because I don't want it to be perceived as a personal bias, but today I would like to acknowledge one of our local news stations, CHEK news, which celebrated the recognition and perseverance of the hard work of all the employees who managed to keep this station alive. Today they celebrated at noon.

I was joined by my colleagues the MLAs for Victoria–Beacon Hill and Esquimalt–Royal Roads to say that their hard work has really paid off. They've now purchased their building. It means they will be a viable operation here in greater Victoria. So I just wanted, on behalf of everyone here, to send out congratulations to all the employees who are also owners of their own news studio.

Introductions by Members

D. Donaldson: Visiting the precinct today as part of the Beef Day celebrations that we just enjoyed is an old friend of mine, Harold Aljam, president of the First Nations Agricultural Association. I'd ask the members to welcome him here today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes — again.

J. Rustad: I can't resist, Mr. Speaker, with the great beef that we've had.

A couple of people have come down from Nechako Lakes, as well, who haven't been introduced yet. Along with John Kotchel, his good wife came down, Karen Kotchel, as well as Larry Garnet. I'd like the House to please make them welcome as well.

Mr. Speaker: If by chance your MLA failed to introduce you, welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M211 — Species at Risk
Protection Act, 2011

R. Fleming presented a bill intituled Species at Risk Protection Act, 2011.
[ Page 7746 ]

R. Fleming: I move that the act be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Fleming: Introduction of this bill enables British Columbia to join eight provinces in Canada that currently have stand-alone legislation protecting the critical habitat for endangered species at risk of extinction.

B.C. has far and away most of Canada's biodiversity. We are host to 76 percent of Canada's bird species, 70 percent of freshwater fish species and 60 percent of conifer species. Yet currently our province lacks an explicit legislative framework that ensures B.C.'s unique and rich habitat is not lost forever from human impacts, including climate change, that can be better managed and adapted to.

According to the B.C. government's own data, some 1,600 species of plants and animals in our province are in decline and may be lost because so few have recovery strategies in place. Only 4 percent of B.C.'s species at risk currently are protected by B.C. law and policy. The provincial government is aware from recent reports that the level of endangerment for wildlife includes orca whales.

This bill will fill some of the huge gaps in the narrow jurisdictional protections offered by the federal Species at Risk Act. It will enable independent scientists from respected bodies like the Royal Society of Canada to identify species and recovery plans. The legislation will promote voluntary stewardship activities, and in determining and implementing necessary actions, government will benefit from the best scientific knowledge available and be able to balance long-term protective measures with economic and social considerations.

To create a sustainable B.C., this legislation intends to strengthen the conservation agreements we already have in place, to help our ecosystems adapt to climate change, and to recover and restore the health of species from decline and extirpation.

Our province hosts some of the most varied and intact ecosystems remaining in the world. We need legislative tools to guide our action. This bill offers our province a means to protect species at risk and the rich biodiversity of our province for future generations to come.

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 M211, Species at Risk Protection 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.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members that when introducing bills, it's two minutes.

Bill M212 — Access to Prostate
Screening Act, 2011

S. Hammell presented a bill intituled Access to Prostate Screening Act, 2011.

S. Hammell: I move that the bill be read a first time now.

Motion approved.

S. Hammell: The effects of prostate cancer have a significant negative impact on British Columbians. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. This year alone 3,100 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in British Columbia, and 570 will die from it.

[1355]

In recognition that early detection is a primary element in the fight against prostate cancer, this act aims to promote prostate cancer screening in British Columbia. With early detection and treatment, many lives can be saved.

It is the consensus of medical experts that prescreening should be available for asymptomatic men of a particular age group, accompanied by active surveillance. This act will ensure that the prescreening exams for asymptomatic men in this age group will be covered by the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia. The primary goal of this act is to implement preventative health care in an area that has been severely lacking.

Hon. 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 M212, Access to Prostate Screening 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)

COMMUNITY OF SILVERDALE

M. Dalton: I'm pleased today to talk about a little- known jewel in British Columbia, the community of Silverdale situated by the scenic Silvermere Lake. Silverdale is part of the district of Mission. It was largely settled by Italian families in the 1870s, and some of the pioneering families still reside in the community today. Families like the Donatellis, Gaglardis, Manzers, Horans and Charlocks have seen Silverdale develop from a small fishing, farming and logging community to a growing suburb of the Fraser Valley.

Perhaps one of Silverdale's biggest claims to fame is that it was the site of Canada's first train robbery.
[ Page 7747 ]
On September 10, 1904, 60-year-old Bill Miner, the Gentleman Bandit, led two accomplices in the holdup of CPR No. 1 train. They stole nearly $7,000 worth of gold dust, $914 in cash and a $50,000 bond. It was on this train that Miner is believed to have been the first to use the phrase "Hands up." Also, in keeping with this Gentleman Bandit persona, when leaving the scene of the crime, he was purported to have said: "Good night, boys. Sorry to have troubled you."

Over the years the community has produced some people of note. Eden Donatelli, Olympic and World Cup medalist in speed skating, calls Silverdale home. So, too, did Flying Phil Gaglardi, the Minister of Highways under W.A.C. Bennett and recipient of more than a few speeding tickets.

A few weeks ago Mike Scudder, Mission councillor and president of Silverdale Community Centre, invited me to the 60th anniversary of the building. It was a pleasure talking with many of its longtime residents. I'd like to encourage everyone to come and visit and experience firsthand the beauty of Silverdale.

HIV/AIDS AND DR. PETER CENTRE

S. Chandra Herbert: This Sunday, June 5, marks 30 years after the first reported cases of what is now known as HIV/AIDS. The early years of this horrible disease tested our province, tested our communities and tested British Columbians. It was a time of leadership by example where citizens stepped forward where governments would not. They put their lives on the line as the need was so great and the resources so few.

In the 30 years since, British Columbians have become leaders in the global fight to take on HIV/AIDS with cutting-edge research, treatment, care and support. I stand here to honour one of those leaders, Dr. Peter, and to note the tremendous work of the Dr. Peter Centre in my constituency of Vancouver–West End. It's an organization that leads by example in the fight against HIV/AIDS and for the comfort of those afflicted with it.

The centre is, of course, the legacy of Dr. Peter Jepson-Young, a gay physician who was diagnosed with the disease in 1986. He died in 1992, just four years before the advent of life-saving drug therapies, but his legacy lives on.

One of the province's greatest challenges is, of course, getting HIV treatment to our most vulnerable citizens, whose HIV/AIDS is often on top of longstanding issues of mental illness, addiction, poverty and homelessness. The Dr. Peter Centre takes on this challenge head-on, providing care and support to over 350 British Columbians and providing 24-hour nursing care to over 50 individuals annually.

[1400]

I particularly commend Dr. Peter Centre's work in getting a supervised injection site set up there in their centre 18 months, believe it or not, before Insite even opened. They've shown that it saves lives. They've shown it's good health care.

As Dr. Peter affirmed in his personal affirmation, and the centre demonstrates to this day: "From these elements I have come and to these elements I shall return, but the energy that is me will not be lost."

Dr. Peter, your energy has not been lost. Thank you very much.

WORLD PARTNERSHIP WALK

D. Horne: This past Sunday I joined thousands of others for the 27th annual World Partnership Walk in Stanley Park. The World Partnership Walk, which was founded in British Columbia, has raised more than $60 million since its inception. Now more than 40,000 people participate in walks in ten cities across Canada each year.

The walk is in support of the Aga Khan Foundation's support to eliminate global poverty. Their global projects focus on improvements of core values that recognize and bring real tangible meaning to the saying: give a person a fish, and you feed them for a day; teach a person to fish, and you feed them for a lifetime.

And 100 percent of the funds raised from the walk go directly to international projects that focus on infrastructure, skill development, literacy and entrepreneurship. Special attention is also given to women and girls to ensure that they can succeed and the traditional barriers are lowered, and hopefully, eventually removed.

It takes a huge team of volunteers to organize and deliver such a large annual event, so a special thank you for the tireless efforts of Karim Salemohamed, convener of the Vancouver walk, and Shellina Lakhdir, the regional campaign manager for the British Columbia Aga Khan Foundation. I would also be remiss not to mention Dave Macfarlane, who is one of the walk's key organizers and someone who I've known since my time at McGee in high school.

I invite the rest of the members of the House to join me in applauding their great work.

BELLA BELLA COMMUNITY FESTIVAL
AND ENVIRONMENT

G. Coons: This past May long weekend I was invited to spend my holiday in Bella Bella, a beautiful and remote community in the constituency I represent. Bella Bella is situated on Denny Island, which is in the Great Bear rain forest. The primary reason for spending my time here was to attend a festival hosted by engaged youth in the area.

During my visit I participated in the Gathering Coastal Voices Festival, an event hosted by the Bella Bella Community School and many other partners. The
[ Page 7748 ]
purpose of the festival was to celebrate the beauty and integrity of the region and to create a space where First Nations can discuss their values and perspectives around ocean resources.

The weekend hosted a variety of creative events, such as a film festival, a prayer flag march and musical performances by Phillip and Matt Gallant. Perhaps one of the most impressive performances was by ten-year-old Ta'Kaiya Blaney from the Sliammon First Nation in the Vancouver area. Ta'Kaiya sang her song Shallow Waters, a song written to raise awareness about a proposed oil pipeline planned between the Alberta tar sands and Kitimat.

The screening of SPOIL, a film produced by EP Films and the International League of Conservation Photographers was another event that stirred up discussion amongst attendees. The film tells a story of threats facing the Great Bear rain forest and the efforts of First Nation communities and conservation groups to preserve it.

The Great Bear rain forest remains the world's largest remaining intact coastal temperate rain forest. The forest is not only home to the spirit bear and a host of other diverse creatures but also home to several First Nations communities. There are 27 First Nations whose traditional territory can be found within the Great Bear. Most of these communities are inaccessible by road, and their economy and way of life depends heavily on the region's resources.

I was proud to spend a weekend with the people who live in this region and are generous enough to share their incredible home with myself and others in the province.

ARMY ENGINEERS

R. Sultan: I recently attended the 100th anniversary of the 6 Engineer Squadron, Canadian army, in North Vancouver. Organized by J.P. Fell, these lads marched to war in 1914. Of over 3,600 engineers sent by this unit to France, 210 stayed there in their graves. During World War II, members also died on Juno Beach. They've served in Egypt, Israel, Germany, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Croatia, Bosnia, Afghanistan and even against the Soviets in Siberia.

Army engineers are called sappers. They built the Rideau Canal, thwarting American plans to seize Canada. They built the Cariboo Trail, extending our sovereign reach into territory overrun by American gold seekers. They operated from barracks in Sapperton in New Westminster.

Two weeks ago I watched about 100 of these army engineers march past, rifles ready, preceded by the J.P. Fell Pipe Band. They were smartly followed by army, air force and navy cadets, vintage Bren-gun carriers and artillery tractors.

[1405]

Army engineers build bridges, clear away obstructions and defuse dangers, man-made or natural. Sounds like what's needed in the aftermath of an earthquake or tsunami. Should their services be needed, this squadron stands ready, but our closest Canadian army base of regulars is in Edmonton.

The Canadian army doesn't have a permanent base in B.C. How did this happen? It seems a previous Premier did not much care for things military and acquiesced when the folks in Ottawa shut down Chilliwack.

Should emergencies arise, let us hope that our new government in Ottawa will understand British Columbia's vulnerabilities and our need for permanent field- engineering units right here, both in war and in peace.

We salute the 6 Engineer Squadron for their 100th birthday.

DAN HAMHUIS AND
HOCKEY IN RURAL B.C.

D. Donaldson: Long drives in the dark in blowing snow, hoping you don't run into a moose, just to get your son or daughter to a game in a neighbouring town that, if you're lucky, is only an hour or two away. Kids playing hockey in some rinks where it's colder inside the building than outside — that'd be Hazelton — and young players dreaming of starring in an NHL Stanley Cup. That's not some stereotype from the TV ad on Tim Hortons. That's real life in rural B.C. in the minor hockey world.

The bit about young players dreaming of starring in an NHL Stanley Cup final — well, that's real life too, because Dan Hamhuis will be there when the puck drops tonight in game 1. He's the only B.C.-born player starring for the Vancouver Canucks against the Boston Bruins, born in Smithers in my constituency of Stikine where his parents still live.

Dan's father, Marty, says they were always on the road travelling to games. Late in his Smithers Storm minor hockey days, Hamhuis was injured. His dad says it was a turning point because he missed the major junior hockey draft event as he recovered. Dan persevered. Undrafted, he was listed by the Prince George Cougars of the Western Hockey League, made the team and began playing for them at 15 — so a true product of the B.C. hockey system from minor days through to his major junior career.

Our Stikine MLA offices ran an awareness contest for teens called Don't Let Gangs Score. Dan partnered with us so that his fame as an NHL star could be used to improve life for young people in rural communities. That speaks volumes about his character.

These are intangible future benefits of having ice arenas in small towns, and this is why people in Smithers and Hazelton are working hard to see new facilities built in each of those communities.
[ Page 7749 ]

To the Hammer, as he was known in his younger days, who spent a bit of time on outdoor rinks in Smithers: good luck tonight. You've made a difference.

Go, Canucks, go!

Mr. Speaker: I was just checking to see whether the Minister of Transportation had said that. [Laughter.]

D. Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

D. Barnett: I am very privileged today to have a class from one of the great schools in the community of Williams Lake, Kwaleen Elementary. I have 26 students; their teacher, Mr. Wilson, who has come for four years with students from this school; and eight chaperones. Will the House please help me welcome these students and teachers here today.

Oral Questions

SERVICES FOR
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

A. Dix: My question's to the Premier. Seven years ago, during her brief but eventful tenure as Minister of Children and Family Development, she introduced legislation creating Community Living B.C. She said it will give "British Columbians with developmental disabilities and their families better options and more opportunities in their communities. They'll be able to look forward to a safer, healthier and better quality of life."

However, the government has achieved the opposite and is now proposing $22 million in cuts to the services for people with developmental disabilities. So the question to the Premier is: those families — are they included in her families-first agenda?

[1410]

Hon. C. Clark: First, I should note, although I had the privilege of introducing that legislation as Minister for Children and Families in 2004, it was the hard work with the community that represents families who have a member who may be living with a disability….

It was the member for Surrey–White Rock who spent hours and hours and hours bringing this legislation to life so that people who are living with a disability or who are living with a disability in their family network have support and are able to make many of those decisions themselves. I think he deserves the honour for having introduced CLBC, which has been a dramatic and necessary change in how we deal with, how we connect with and engage with people who are struggling with a disability.

You know, since then the budget for that area of the ministry has gone up every single year. The budget is now $701 million. It went up from last year almost $9 million. It's taken on more clients this year than last, and the budget has continued to increase.

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

A. Dix: The Premier was talking to those families. She knows that they believe hope is fading away. This government, since last fall, has closed 55 group homes in British Columbia — 55. That has an impact on people, surely. Per-client funding has been cut by almost $6,000 since 2006.

My question to the Premier: is she going to do anything about that? Is she going to address the issues that the groups involved and the families involved are expressing every single day? Do they have any place in her families-first agenda?

Hon. C. Clark: I was talking to some folks outside today as we were all enjoying the gifts of the farm families that were provided to us, and someone stopped me and said that he was delighted that for the first time in decades he hears people in government talking about families. It wasn't something that the New Democrats talked about all through the 1990s, because it wasn't something, apparently, that they valued.

I recognize that it is an incredible challenge for any family to have a member that lives with a disability. It's an incredibly challenging place to be, and our government does our best to try and support them. We don't always get it perfectly right, and we need to make sure that we are doing, always, the best that we can.

We will continue to work with the families who face challenges. Part of that is making sure that we're continuing to grow the budget for this area of the ministry. Those needs continue to grow as the client population continues to age and the numbers of people who need help are signed on to the programs.

We need to make sure we're there for those families, and we will make sure we're there for those families.

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

A. Dix: While the Premier talks about families, the actual families involved are seeing their services cut off. While the Premier talks about families, she and her government are closing 55 group homes in British Columbia. While she talks about families, she's cutting per-family funding.
[ Page 7750 ]

The question is — it's a very straightforward question: will she put a stop to the closing of group homes, and will she…?

Interjection.

A. Dix: Oh, I know the Minister of Finance is very interested in this.

Will she end, for example, the government's HST advertising and use some of that money to keep group homes open?

Hon. C. Clark: We are continuing to add new clients…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …to the rolls of people who are helped at CLBC. We're continuing to add almost $9 million to the budget for that area of the ministry, and we're working with those families.

[1415]

There is a substantial difference, though, in the way that our government approaches the provision of services and the way that their government approached it. We believe that the only way you can continue to provide services for the people who need them in British Columbia — and we've continued to grow these budgets for services that families depend on — is if you grow the economy, if you make sure that there are jobs, that there is economic growth and that there is revenue growth.

If the Leader of the Opposition had his way, we would go back to a province where 50,000 people had to leave because they couldn't find jobs — 50,000 people who didn't pay taxes and 50,000 people whose taxes weren't going to support the incredibly important services that people with disabilities depend on us to provide.

I think that our recipe, on this side of the House, for prosperity is the way that we can make sure that families are looked after in the long term.

M. Karagianis: Colleen Matthews has been trying to get orthotics for her adult daughter Melissa. I'm sure the Premier is familiar with this story. It's been in the press.

Ministry staff, who are struggling without adequate resources, have told her that they cannot provide these for Melissa. In fact, a staff member called Colleen to say: "I'm at a loss. The ministry cannot afford to pay unless Melissa has open sores on her feet." Their advice to Colleen was to reapply and make sure that her physician stated on the form that there's a risk of amputation.

Now, Colleen is a very honest woman and is stunned by this message that she should be dishonest in filling out this form. So I'd like to ask the Premier, under families first, if this is an appropriate way to treat a family with a need like this.

Hon. C. Clark: We are putting families first in this government. We are putting families first. We are focusing on job creation, and we are focusing on opening up government and listening to people. So if the member wants to know if we are interested in listening to people, absolutely we are.

I think the thing that we all need to remember in challenging economic times is that if we want to be able to continue the high levels of service and improved service that we provide for people who rely on government, as we should, then we need to make sure we're continuing to grow our economy.

We need to make sure that we are fulfilling both sides of our obligation, growing the economy, growing the amount of revenue to government and, therefore, being able to continue to grow budgets for ministries, as we have done for areas of ministries like CLBC, which has grown by almost $9 million this year over last.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Well, I'm sure Colleen Matthews will be really happy to hear you're listening. She'd actually like you to take action, though.

Caroline Mavridis is another constituent of mine who has two boys, twins, who suffer from Down syndrome. Their services have been cut to the point where she can no longer work outside the house to provide support for them. She knows that in two years when they graduate from school, they will receive a mere 12 hours a week in services. This does not allow her to go out and support her family, and in fact, her boys will be at risk.

Again, to the Premier: I'd like to know how, under her families-first agenda, she addresses the needs of either one of these two constituents of mine.

Hon. C. Clark: We have a deep commitment on this side of the House to doing the absolute best we can for families that depend on government to provide services, and that's why we've seen the budgets from almost all of the service provision ministries grow so much since 2001.

You've certainly seen the Health Ministry budget grow. We have seen the Education budget grow. We have seen the budget for CLBC grow as well, and the member comes up with all of these questions about how we will do these things.

[1420]

My answer, I guess, should be: how would they do any of these things? How is it that the NDP would manage to be able to provide services for the people in British Columbia who so desperately need them when their
[ Page 7751 ]
plan is to shrink the economy, when their plan is to put people all across the province out of work, when their plan is to reduce the amount of revenue that's available to government to pay for these services? Because if that's their plan, I don't think that's the plan British Columbians want.

I think British Columbians want to know we'll grow revenue and be able to continue to provide those very necessary services.

WAIT TIMES FOR
RESIDENTIAL CARE BEDS

K. Conroy: A Williams Lake family has been told that they can expect up to a three-year wait for residential care for their father. John Tuerlings has been in Kamloops Hospital since last October, over three hours away from his family. In March he was designated as a long-term-care patient. They were told in April that he would be moved and again in May that he would be moved, and now probably not until the fall. In reality, there could be up to a three-year wait for a long-term-care bed need for him.

Mr. Tuerling is the unfortunate victim of the B.C. Liberal government that has abandoned its commitment to seniors. This is what happens when a government closes residential beds at a time when needs are growing and does not adequately replace them. What happened to the B.C. Liberals' commitment to ensure seniors were treated with dignity?

Hon. M. de Jong: As always, I am interested in pursuing individual cases to ascertain what the particular circumstances are. But in general — and the member knows this from the lengthy conversation we engaged in just a few days ago in the estimates debate — the average wait time for seniors obtaining residential care in this province over the last ten years has been reduced dramatically. That is as a result of the construction of thousands upon thousands of new beds, new homes, new facilities to care properly for seniors so that they can have a dignified end-of-life situation where they live.

There has been a tremendous amount of work done. There is more work taking place. But as always, I am happy to take information from the member and explore whether an individual case requires additional attention.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: In fact, Mr. Tuerlings' daughter Kimberley has been pleading with anyone who will listen to get service for her father. She's been sending letters to the Minister of Health, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, the member for Cariboo North, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, the member from Kamloops North and hasn't been getting anything. She's trying to figure out how the government could be so callous.

In fact, Kim writes: "I'm sharing this story to encourage the government to make the changes necessary so that other families do not have to feel the disappointment that our family has experienced with the current health care crisis."

My question is simple. When will the Health Minister ensure people like Mr. Tuerlings get the services they deserve and need?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I want to emphasize to the member, to the House and to British Columbians generally that the importance that the government attaches to ensuring that there are proper, comfortable facilities available for seniors as they move towards their end of life is reflected in the fact that there are over 6,000 new beds that have been constructed and a total of over 12,500 that have been refurbished. In an aging demographic, this is obviously an important need that communities across British Columbia have. We have addressed that need in a significant and a dramatic way.

[1425]

There are, I am advised, additional factors that the member hasn't disclosed in this question. But I'm happy to look at the situation, as always, to ensure that the needs of all families and all individuals are properly addressed.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members to keep your questions to the point and answers to the point.

DIVERSION OF WATER
FROM WILLISTON RESERVOIR

B. Simpson: I am uncertain as to which minister to direct this question to. Would the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations or the Minister of Energy please inform this House if approval has been given to Talisman Energy and Canbriam Energy for the diversion and pipeline removal of 7.3 billion litres of water out of the Williston reservoir behind the W.A.C. Bennett dam.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll take the question on notice, and I'll get back to the member.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON
WILLISTON RESERVOIR WATER DIVERSION

B. Simpson: That withdrawal is actually up on webpages. It is the worst-kept secret in the South Peace. The question from that region is: what is the public
[ Page 7752 ]
consultation process for a water withdrawal of that magnitude? Both First Nations and the general public would like to know, from whatever minister that's appropriate for this: what is the process that the public can be engaged in, in the diversion and pipeline withdrawal of 7.3 billion litres per annum from the Williston reservoir behind the W.A.C. Bennett dam?

An Hon. Member: Bring in the Stickman.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to, first of all, assure the House, hon. Speaker, that I charged no royalties for my modelling for the Stickman.

There will be an extensive process of public consultation, discussion and negotiations with First Nations before anything would go ahead.

OVERSIGHT OF OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY IMPACT ON WATER RESOURCES

V. Huntington: I'd like to say that hundreds and hundreds of temporary water licences have been issued in the Peace region by the Oil and Gas Commission with no First Nation consultation, and still more large water-volume licences are today being issued — again, with no public consultation.

Has any ministry conducted a baseline assessment of groundwater and surface water in the Peace region, and does any ministry track the cumulative withdrawal of water from all sources and for all reasons?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am advised that there are some studies ongoing that are going to deal with the volumes of water.

I know that the member and I actually had a debate on radio — or she spoke, she had a visit, and I had a radio shortly after her — on Sunday. We are looking at the water extraction, and I can tell the member that the reusing of water is way more substantial than the member, actually, has said publicly that it is — the recycling of the water.

Actually, the management of waste at all our well sites is quite remarkable. In actual fact, hon. Member, if we could take some of the scientific application of how we handle waste and water recycling at well sites, we could use it domestically in other places in British Columbia for the environment as well.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

V. Huntington: The fact is that the wastewater is being recycled to some extent, but the bulk of it ends up on the surface, and there is no water treatment being handled at this point.

The simple fact is that the government does not have baseline data for water in this region, and no one agency tracks cumulative water demand, let alone reports out on this critical resource.

[1430]

Similarly, the government does not have data for the total toxic wastewater created by the industry, the greenhouse gas implications of shale gas development or the cumulative health and safety impacts of oil and gas development.

I would like to ask the Premier if she will commit today to doing what other jurisdictions have done and take a comprehensive look at the development of this resource by striking a special committee of this Legislature.

Hon. R. Coleman: In British Columbia about ten years ago we had about ten years' supply of natural gas. Today we have over a hundred-year supply of natural gas to help feed our economy — create investment, create jobs, create dollars for health care and education — because of the innovation and the environmentally very friendly and very disciplined work done by our oil and gas sector in British Columbia for the future of the province of British Columbia. I'm actually very proud of the fact that we may be the only jurisdiction that actually understands shale gas at the level we do and the job that we do with it and how we do it environmentally friendly.

As we go forward, we will continue to investigate and to learn more to make sure that we protect the environment while actually at the same time develop a very significant resource for the people of the province of British Columbia.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
WILDFIRE PREVENTION

N. Macdonald: In Golden and other B.C. border communities there are fundraisers to help families displaced by the recent firestorm in Slave Lake, Alberta. As the wildfire season in British Columbia gets underway, we are reminded of how vulnerable our communities are. In early 2004 recommendations on interface fuel management were made to reduce the risk of wildfire to our communities.

To the minister responsible: is it acceptable to the minister that after seven years only 2 percent of the interface area identified for fuel management has been treated?

Hon. S. Thomson: Thank you for the question. It does provide me the opportunity, firstly, to recognize
[ Page 7753 ]
the great work of our firefighters, the men and women of our firefighting service. Over 600 of our firefighters are working in Alberta, working in rotation. We've also just deployed a crew into the Yukon and Alaska to help out our neighbours. This is great work being done by our firefighter service.

We take the issue of wildfire threat very, very seriously. That's why I was very pleased recently to be able to announce $25 million additional support for the community wildfire mitigation program. That's $25 million over two years for communities in British Columbia, in partnership through UBCM.

We'll continue to work very closely with local governments and with First Nations in addressing the wildfire threat to our communities.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Just so members of the House understand, $50 million was spent over seven years to get 2 percent of the work done, and I think all members would understand that an additional $25 million is not going to complete the job.

These are serious issues. We saw similar devastation from wildfire in Kelowna. That was eight years ago. At that time Gary Filmon was requested by the government to promptly provide a report with recommendations intended to mitigate risks to communities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: The government promised that these recommendations would be implemented immediately. The government has a responsibility to protect communities at risk from wildfire. Treatment that has been done to date has not even begun to protect those communities.

To the minister: will he commit to a new strategy and a new sense of urgency to deal with fuel management in the interface forest?

Hon. S. Thomson: Under the community wildfire management program, as the member opposite referenced, $37 million to communities, in partnership with communities. That's leveraged investment in the communities. Mr. Speaker, 240 communities and First Nations have got plans that are in place or are being implemented, with the additional funding, $25 million over two years, working in partnership with local communities, with First Nations. We will continue to work with them in the wildfire management program.

[1435]

In addition, our wildfire management branch works with communities in terms of training. We provided support through the job opportunities fund in partnership with the federal government in terms of providing additional training and support. We provided support for purchase of infrastructure protection devices. We'll continue to work very closely with local governments as we protect families and First Nation communities in British Columbia.

STAFFING LEVELS FOR SHERIFFS

K. Corrigan: We already know that there is a critical shortage of judges, prosecutors and sheriffs in our justice system, yet this past Friday the B.C. Liberal government cut 28 full-time auxiliary sheriffs. An additional 24 deputy sheriffs have had their hours cut down to 75 percent, for a net loss of 34 full-time positions. This is despite warnings by judges that they cannot operate potentially dangerous and volatile courtrooms without security. We know the result will be more cases thrown out of court and that more accused will get off.

My question to the Attorney General: why on earth are dozens of sheriffs being cut from a court system which is already dangerously understaffed?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is referring to auxiliary sheriffs. It's true. A number of changes were announced last week in terms of our staffing complement. Our number one priority remains the safety and security of our courtrooms and our court facilities, but we are also living within a budget — something that might be a novel concept to the members of the opposition, certainly based on my experience when I was here and saw how they operated in the 1990s.

Every single day of the week these members stand up and say: "Just spend more money." It doesn't matter what the issue is; just spend more money. Then they turn around and say they're campaigning to go back to a 12 percent PST-GST, which will not only be worse for consumers but will deprive government revenues of $3 billion in the next couple of years.

Tell me, Mr. Speaker, how they would fund additional services of every kind that they always mention with $3 billion less to spend.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, they were auxiliary sheriffs as well as deputy sheriffs. They were both. Most of those auxiliary sheriffs were hired in January. They received weeks of training, paid for by the taxpayers. Now, after a few short months, that training is completely wasted.

Thirty-four fewer sheriffs, and trials being thrown out. Two courtrooms in Kelowna were shut down because no sheriff was able to provide security or escort prisoners.
[ Page 7754 ]
Another eight families that were waiting to seek access to their children had to wait for court delays because of sheriff shortages.

To the Attorney General: how do these cuts aid our ailing judicial system?

Hon. B. Penner: I dispute the member's characterization that training and education is a waste. I think that's completely inappropriate. What we have informed those staff that the member refers to, and it's a number of them, is that they will not be getting as much work in the future as they were most recently. We will still utilize them when we're able to.

The member hasn't answered the question, which is: how would you hire more sheriffs, spend more on health care, more on education, more on roads, reduce ferry fares, reduce camping fees and do anything else in the public service with $3 billion less to spend? That is what they're campaigning for right now. Right now that's what they're campaigning for, a 12 percent PST and GST, while on this side of the House we want a 10 percent single HST.

[1440]

[End of question period.]

Petitions

G. Hogg: I rise to present a petition signed by 630 residents of Surrey seeking remedies for the severe overcrowding in some of the schools in Surrey.

Tabling Documents

Hon. K. Falcon: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, on all amounts borrowed by government and all amounts loaned to government bodies. These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2009-10.

Proclamation

Beef Day

Hon. D. McRae: In honour of the ranchers present with us today, it is my pleasure to read the following proclamation:

"Whereas B.C.'s grasslands produce some of the world's highest quality cattle; and whereas B.C.'s beef producers are renowned for the way in which their cattle are raised in a healthy environment and ecologically sustainable manner; and whereas B.C. cattle are part of an integrated Canadian beef production system that is the third-largest exporter of beef worldwide and well respected for having a high-quality finished product; and whereas ranching in B.C. has the advantage of proximity to markets and the drive to move ahead in a competitive world; and whereas the ranching industry supports B.C.'s economy through more than $250 million in cattle sales and more than 8,700 jobs; and whereas the Ranching Task Force has a goal to increase the profile of ranching in British Columbia to the public and government; and whereas our Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, has been pleased…to proclaim and declare that June 1, 2011, shall be known as Beef Day in the province of British Columbia."

L. Popham: On behalf of our side of the House, I would like to join the Minister of Agriculture in congratulating our B.C. ranchers on B.C. Beef Day.

The history of this industry is a large part of our B.C. history. The challenges have been great, but as with many sectors in agriculture, our B.C. ranchers are resilient and as tough as nails.

We're encouraged by the initiatives ranchers are taking with programs like FRISP, a program designed to help provincial agriculture producers to protect and enhance water quality, to protect and enhance riparian vegetation, and to prevent and mitigate agricultural impacts on streams and lakes.

Initiatives like this help to maintain and strengthen the sustainability of the B.C. beef industry, and we thank you for that.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Chong: I am here to table a report — the 2010 annual service plan report for B.C. Assessment.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, as a courtesy, I wish to inform the House that tomorrow morning at approximately 10:05 there will be a small, 15-minute addition to the courtesy House business schedule I circulated yesterday. This brief insertion in the schedule will be to discuss Motion 15.

In the House this afternoon we will be doing second reading of Bill 13. We will be doing committee stage of Bill 2, second reading of Bill 15, committee stage of Bill 14 and committee stage of Bill 11, according to the schedule I circulated yesterday.

In section A in the Douglas Fir Committee Room we will be doing the estimates this afternoon for the Office of the Premier, followed by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and, from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m., the conclusion of the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Attorney General, Social Development, and Transportation and Infrastructure.

Point of Order

J. Horgan: I heard the Government House Leader say "courtesy calendar." As I view the Votes and Proceedings from Tuesday, May 31, it has Standing Order 81.1 amending our standing orders and a schedule attached.
[ Page 7755 ]
Nowhere does it say it's a courtesy schedule. In fact, we have been in lockstep with this as a result of the motion passed arbitrarily by the Government House Leader yesterday.

I'm wondering, hon. Chair, if you could clarify for us if this is a calendar that we must follow or one that can be changed at the whim of any member of the Legislature, or just the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I'll take it under advisement.

This House stands in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

M. Farnworth: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: I know that during introductions my colleague the Education Minister and myself noticed a mutual acquaintance who has since left the gallery, but I would like the House to recognize the presence of Mr. Angus Hereford, who's been in the precincts today observing the proceedings.

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes
Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011

Hon. B. Penner: I move that Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, now be read a second time. Bill 13 amends a number of statutes. I summarized this very briefly in first reading. I'll elaborate just a bit more now in second reading.

Minor amendments to the Milk Industry Act will allow for changes to the milk industry standards regulation to facilitate interprovincial and international trade. These amendments will update definitions to current industry standards and amend regulation-making powers to enable assignment of certain responsibilities.

Amendments to the Law and Equity Act will protect the interest that many strata property owners have in their parking spaces and storage lockers. In some strata developments the allocation of parking and storage spaces is based on long-term lease arrangements that could be subject to attack under the common-law rule of certainty. This amendment will exempt leases from that rule, validating the lease arrangements, resolving uncertainty and avoiding costly litigation. The amendment will be retroactive to exempt agreements already in existence and to validate the expectations of the parties who entered into them.

Amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act will allow the courts to transfer the permanent legal custody of a vulnerable child who is living with a trusted family member or friend to that person. This creates an alternative to bringing children into foster care and will provide continuity and permanency for both children and their caregivers. The amendment also includes safeguards to ensure that permanent transfers only occur when they are in the best interests of the child while ensuring that due process is in place before parental rights are severed.

Amendments to the Clean Energy Act will extend the legislated deadline for the submission of B.C. Hydro's first integrated resource plan by one year to 30 months. The panel reviewing B.C. Hydro and the impact of hydro rate increases on British Columbia families will present its recommendations by June 30. This amendment ensures that B.C. Hydro has the time and flexibility to include any new direction from the review in their integrated resource plan. It will also give B.C. Hydro adequate time to consult with industry stakeholders, communities, First Nations and families across the province.

Amendments to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act will expand the types of housing initiatives for which the earnings of the housing endowment fund may be used. This will allow the province to invest in a wider range of affordable-housing solutions for people in greatest need. Earnings from the housing endowment fund will contribute to new supportive housing, including those that are currently being developed in eight communities across the province. The fund has already contributed $25 million to 52 projects across B.C., bringing unique housing solutions to low-income seniors, working families, youth and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Changes to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act will amend the boundary description of Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park to remove 10.5 hectares to allow for the construction of a segment of the northwest transmission line. The western route of the northwest transmission line requires the use of lands in Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park. The Nisga'a Lisims Government supports the western route and has consented to amending the boundary of the park to facilitate construction of the northwest transmission line. For the purposes of section 103 of chapter 3 of the Nisga'a final agreement, this represents British Columbia's agreement to not continue the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park to the extent of the amendment.

A minor amendment to the Environment and Land Use Act will better reflect current practices of appointing non-cabinet MLAs to sit as members on the environment and land use committee.

[1455]
[ Page 7756 ]

This bill also makes a number of amendments to the Forest Act. First, the Forest Act is amended to make large tenure holders ineligible to apply for or hold a woodlot licence. Woodlot licence opportunities are intended for individuals, First Nations and small companies that want to participate in small-scale forestry. The amendment will help maintain the intent of the woodlot licence program as it is expanded.

Further amendments to the Forest Act will provide that a non-lumber producer can only transfer a receiving licence to another non-lumber producer. This will help support the bioenergy, pulp and paper, and value-added industries by providing security of supply for lower-quality fibre needed by the non-lumber sector.

Amendments are made to the Forest Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act, and the Ministry of Forests and Range Act to replace references to decision-makers such as "regional manager or district manager" with "minister." This will enable the minister to delegate powers and duties to officials in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations as needed to optimize decision-making and improve efficiency.

Amendments to the Medicare Protection Act will create authority to require adult British Columbians to re-enrol in the province's Medical Services Plan by updating proof of their identity to a higher level of assurance. These amendments will support the introduction of a more secure photo card, which would replace the current CareCard.

Amendments to the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act will provide for the continued authority of the Speaker under that act between the time a general election is called to when a subsequent parliament elects a new Speaker. This eliminates the need for additional legislation to continue the Speaker through that period.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will provide that golf carts and certain industrial utility vehicles no longer require registration, licensing or insurance through ICBC to operate in parking lots or for incidental highway use in specific situations, such as crossing a public roadway between two areas of a golf course.

Further amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act are made in compliance with the North American Free Trade Agreement. These amendments will establish a designation code for use on the drivers' licences of commercial drivers who are ineligible to drive in the U.S. owing to specific medical conditions, such as epilepsy, insulin-dependent diabetes or certain hearing deficiencies. Other changes to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow holders of foreign drivers' licences to keep their existing licence so that they can practise before taking a B.C. road test. Previously foreign licence holders had to surrender their driver's licence when applying for a B.C. driver's licence.

Finally, this bill contains a number of confirming, validating, housekeeping and consequential amendments.

C. Trevena: I am speaking to Bill 13, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

I'm going to be talking about the section which deals with the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, but I'd like to preface my remarks by talking about the absurd situation which we're in, which is with the calendar that was introduced and that we learned earlier this afternoon was there as a courtesy. It wasn't a change to the standing orders; it is just a courtesy.

It's supposed to close this debate in about one minute, when there are a number of speakers on this side of the House, because this bill affects a number of areas which we are trying to find answers to and to try and ensure that government is acting appropriately. We are really having to watch the clock, which is an absurd situation in a democratic House, in a place where we are, as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, supposed to scrutinize, talk about and discuss matters of legislation.

I think we are being forced, really, into a pretty farcical situation where we are watching the clock rather than having the ability to talk as we would like to talk, which is for a full half-hour on our different subject areas. I want to talk about the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the amendments to it, the things that I think are very positive in it and my cautions. I know I have colleagues who want to talk about the forestry bill, and we have people who would want to talk about other parts of this bill — the Clean Energy Act, which is an amendment to something that was closed by guillotine.

Madam Speaker, I do know that we are, in this nice way, working. We're having a courtesy extra 15 minutes, which is…. I don't know how that's going to affect other bills later on when we are working to such a tight time frame because democracy has been shut down in this place yet again.

[1500]

However, I would like to address my remarks to the amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. On the whole, this side of the House does support the amendment. From our discussions with the people who are involved in child and family services, people who work with the ministry and people who watch the ministry, there is a sense that it does make sense to have this amendment.

Ultimately, people don't want to see children go into the care of the ministry. Hopefully, if this amendment is used appropriately, it will keep the court system out of play and allow families to keep looking after children without having to bring in the courts.

It will create the least disturbance. I think that is why it has been welcomed. It's been welcomed by a number of people. It has been welcomed by the Representative
[ Page 7757 ]
for Children and Youth, who has said that it is a positive move. It's been welcomed by the Federation of Community Social Services. People do see that there is a positive to this.

The way that this amendment works is that, as I understand it…. I'm hoping that if we manage to have courtesy extensions to time allocation, we can have a longer discussion about this in the committee stage. I believe we've given an hour for the whole Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, which is very full. It just covers a number of ministries.

We have found in previous miscellaneous bills, when we do go through the committee stage, things that we have missed just in reading it and missed in discussions with people. We actually pick up some very salient points that are very controversial and very worrying.

So we would hope that we get a lot of time to be able to go through this bill, literally for each ministry, and have a full discussion with the various ministers and their staff to ensure that what we are passing here in this House is done with due consideration and with the thought that should go into creating, discussing, debating and passing legislation — that we are not working against the clock.

Unfortunately, I fear that we are stuck with this very tight time frame. As of five o'clock tomorrow afternoon we are going to be asked to vacate these premises until goodness knows when. It's been — what? — four weeks in the last year. Maybe we'll get a bit longer next year, but I'm not very hopeful, if this government is still in place. I'm more hopeful that we will not have this government in place. Then we can get on with the business of running B.C. in the interests of the people of B.C.

On Bill 13 and its amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. As I say, we are pretty supportive of it. The Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, who I think everybody in this province has huge respect for because of her work, has actually said that she is pleased with it and is quoted as saying: "It begins to really pin down our desire to have children not come into care but…be in safe relationships and strong, good placements."

I think that is really what everybody wants — that children can be in very supportive placements with family wherever possible and have that nurturing.

I know, Madam Speaker, you're very, very concerned yourself about our young people and children and would really welcome any way that we can ensure that they are kept safe in nurturing environments.

I have a few cautions about this. I think that the amendment, which is very fulsome and does add a large section to the Child, Family and Community Service Act and changes the Family Relations Act also…. I do hope that we will have that time to discuss fully in the committee stage what those changes are going to be.

I have a few cautions that I will be raising then and that I'd like to highlight now. One is the extended family program and the government's shift from Child in the Home of a Relative to the extended family program.

[1505]

There is still screening for the extended family program. There is money available for families who are involved in it. But there are, I think, some real concerns about the way it's working and about the way it's not working.

One of the questions that keep coming up is that there are at the moment just 350 children in the extended family program, and there are several thousand in the Child in the Home of a Relative program. There is concern about what is happening to those children, whether they're aging out, whether the families have moved on — just what is happening.

There is the sense, without anybody saying it…. Are children falling through the gaps? Are families falling through the gaps? I hope this bill doesn't allow that to happen and that there is a close watch and a close continuum.

The other concern that is there — and I think is always there when we're looking at families and how we look after vulnerable families and vulnerable children — is the financial support.

There is no question that the best way for children to be looked after is in a supportive, nurturing family. So in many cases what we see is a grandparent taking over the responsibility for the child, has all the love, all the willingness to look after that child or maybe one or two, maybe the siblings, wants to do the best and, therefore, instead of keeping the ministry involved, decides to have guardianship so they have the full responsibility themselves.

Unfortunately, when that happens, the grandparents lose any financial support. We have a vast range of ages of grandparents. I think we've seen in this House the number of people who stand up and say: "We're now grandparents."

Grandparents can start young, but they can also get to be quite old. They are often at an age where they are ready to retire, and they're finding that they're going to have to carry on working to look after their grandchildren, or they are still working themselves, but they have their own financial pressures. Not everybody can afford to continue looking after a second generation, and I think this is very troubling because it does add to the pressures on the families.

The other thing that…. In taking the courts out of the system…. I think people, on the whole, really welcomed this — the fact that the courts will be out of the system — but I think we have to recognize as well that there are times when it's good to have that third eye, the checks and balances and the scrutiny of a judge to ensure that nobody's being overzealous, that everything is working appropriately, and that while the child's rights are being
[ Page 7758 ]
protected and we are looking after the child and doing everything in the best interests of the child, we are also working in the best interests of the parent.

Madam Speaker, I'm going to end my remarks there. I could speak a great deal longer about this. I know other colleagues also want to speak about the bill.

As I say, it talks about many different government ministries. There are many areas that I think we have concern about, and we really would like a courtesy extension of our debate beyond the extra 15 minutes we've had. However, I have the sense that we're not going to get that in this House, which I think sadly…. Unfortunately, there are no children here to watch democracy die in B.C.

N. Macdonald: Just to speak for the short time that's available on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2). Bill 13 has a number of provisions, almost 70, related to forestry. In my capacity as the critic, along with my co-critic from the Cowichan Valley, we need to be looking at this piece of legislation to make sure that these are what the minister has indicated that they are for the most part, which is housekeeping of existing bills.

I think it's important to remember that in my time here since 2005, one of the most controversial measures was hidden in a miscellaneous statutes act, and that's related to IPPs and the removal of local control, as members will know — section 55, Bill 33, the Ashlu river section.

It's important to be able to go through even pieces of legislation that are described as innocuous to make sure they are. The term the member from Cowichan Valley always uses is "jiggery-pokery," which means, of course, looking for things nefarious or misleading in descriptions. This act, however, does seem certainly to be innocuous, and with regard to the forestry sections, it does seem to be pretty clearly, housekeeping for the most part.

[1510]

I just want to thank the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and his staff for setting up a briefing for members of the opposition.

Most of the sections, from section 35 to 107, change specific titles to a minister delegation model. The ministry has been significantly reorganized, and the language seems to be changed to match the reality of that reorganization.

There's also a section which clarifies that a tenure holder cannot go after the woodlot tenures. There's also a section clarifying restricted forest licences.

The amendments certainly seem innocuous and largely housekeeping, but my co-critic and I will put on record the explanations from the minister responsible for the proposed changes during the committee stage, which we should get to either later today or tomorrow.

With that, I'll turn it over to the other critics that deal with this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

L. Krog: Hon. Speaker, I'm conscious of the fact that we will get a whole hour tomorrow to deal with committee stage in this bill — a whole hour. Today we have had basically a little over 15 minutes for the opposition to actually speak in second reading.

There's a line from Shakespeare: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players." If there was ever a farce, it is the suggestion that the amount of time allocated to this bill — or, indeed, many of the pieces of legislation — in this House is adequate. It's truly farcical. That line comes from As You Like It. I can assure the members opposite that this is anything but something that the opposition likes.

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has a job to do within our parliamentary system, and that job is to criticize. It is to question, to advocate and to speak on behalf of British Columbians. It is not to speak on behalf of the government. It is to hold the government to account. To hold its feet to the fire is the cliché most commonly used.

We have a bill before us of 38 pages, nine parts and 137 sections — nine parts reflecting the fact that these all relate to different ministries. It is inconceivable that one could say, even if they had the brains of an Einstein, within such a short period of time, anything intelligent about the importance of this legislation or its impact, nor to raise issues that one would hope would bring attention to what the government is trying to do with this bill.

If what we do in this place has any meaning whatsoever and Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), is to receive the scrutiny it should, then you can't do it in the time allotted. It is a shocking example of a government that has claimed to be open and transparent, to be listening, to care about what British Columbians think.

Indeed, we have listened to the Minister of Finance, on more than one occasion in the last few days, talk about the wonderful consultation process around the HST. Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians consulted by telephone, apparently. Well, hundreds of thousands of British Columbians don't have an opportunity to speak in this place. Only 85 members do.

Only 85 members, and the majority of those are on the other side, and they're not speaking to this bill. They don't care. Their Whip tells them what to do. They get up; they come in; they vote; they go out.

It's the job of the opposition to be critical. It's the job of the opposition to raise issues. It's the job of the opposition to ask the kinds of questions that give voice to the people.
[ Page 7759 ]

It is impossible for us to do it, hon. Speaker. I see I've received the nod. I will take my place with great reluctance in these circumstances, protesting as well as I possibly can the farce that is this process.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the time is now allocated.

[1515]

Second reading of Bill 13 approved on division.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 13 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2011, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 2, intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011.

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 3:17 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Ralston: This is the substantive section amending the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. It proposes an amendment adding a new subsection.

Can the minister explain the purpose of this section? I gather that there has been, and have noted, a major reorganization of government ministries, and some ministries, such as that of the Minister of State for Climate Action, seem to have been subsumed in other ministries. I assume that this is related to those changes in ministerial structure, but could the minister please explain the purpose of the amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: This amendment, Member, is there to enhance ministerial accountability by ensuring the expected effects of any reallocations that are made under Vote 44, which is the capital funding appropriation. Where you have more than one minister that may be responsible within that vote and some reallocation is being done of capital dollars, there is an ability to reallocate in a manner that ensures that you're still going to have appropriate accountabilities with respect to the individual ministers under the BBMAA act.

B. Ralston: The proposed amendment refers to "the minister." I take it, just for clarity, that that's the minister who is assuming responsibility for the subsumed department. In other words, if there's a merger, the minister who takes over is obliged to make public this statement that's required under this proposed amendment. Is that correct?

[1520]

Hon. K. Falcon: That refers to the minister responsible for the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act — in other words, the Minister of Finance.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise which government ministries or secretaries or ministers of state will be affected by this proposed amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: It is the ministers with responsibilities under Vote 44, capital funding, which includes the Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance.

B. Ralston: The reference here is a reallocation of spending authority, which occurs during a fiscal year. That means that the main estimates have not been altered, but that there's simply an alteration in the responsibility for the main estimates, which are unchanged. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: That is correct, Member. It does not change the actual vote. It is just allowing for reallocations within the vote.

B. Ralston: Is there any different application to supplementary estimates? Or is that simply a timing issue, where ordinarily these changes might be made, reported out, and the supplementary estimates would be dealt with by the minister responsible for the reconfigured ministry?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it does not have anything to do with supplementary estimates. This is specific to votes that contain multiministerial responsibilities as, for example, Vote 44 in the capital funding side.

B. Ralston: The legislation or the act itself, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, refers to, in part, in section 4, "achieving collective responsibilities," and then, in section 5, "achieving individual responsibilities."
[ Page 7760 ]

Given that this reallocation recognizes that the configuration of ministries may change and that, indeed, ministers who may have been assigned what this act deems individual responsibilities may disappear or re-emerge in a reconfigured ministry, can the minister advise how this amendment would work in tandem with, particularly, section 5 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act?

[1525]

Hon. K. Falcon: This section, I'm advised, has nothing to do with the reorganization. This is a section that applies uniquely to Vote 44 which, as I say, contains multiministerial responsibilities that allow, within the vote, to have some moving around within the vote to ensure that we can still have ministerial accountability even if there's shifting of dollars within the vote.

With respect to the larger question, I'm advised that with the reorganization that takes place in government, wherever the different pieces of the reorganization go, the obligation follows. In other words, the obligations under the BBMA will follow whichever minister inherits whichever portion of a previous portfolio that would have had accountabilities alongside it.

B. Ralston: Just following up on the minister's response. If there are multiple ministries responsible for Vote 44, and there's a change in the spending by each responsible minister, what…? Given that the intent of the legislation, presumably, is to encourage accountability, how does one ensure accountability if the numbers can be moved?

One could imagine a situation — although I'm not suggesting that this happened or has happened — where accountability might be shifted in order to save a minister who might be in danger of running over the allocated estimates and therefore incurring some responsibility under this act. Of course, there is resort to legislation, and notoriously the government has resorted to separate legislation under the Ministerial Accountability Bases Act to fix up any overruns each year. But in theory, that might arise. So I'm just wondering how this legislation works to prevent such a reallocation.

Hon. K. Falcon: The changes that we're talking about would be changes that would have to be done ahead of time under the direction of Treasury Board. Treasury Board would have to have a plan that's brought to Treasury Board to say: "We want to reallocate or make changes within the vote with respect to the capital spend." It would be Treasury Board that would be making that decision, and then the accountability would follow.

However Treasury Board decided to make a decision based on a predetermined plan, then the accountabilities would still follow. It would not be something where after the fact, which I think is really what the member is getting at, you would try and move things around in the vote to cover off somebody on the capital spending side.

It would have to be something that would be a plan brought forward to Treasury Board and considered by Treasury Board. Treasury Board direction would then follow, which would result in the capital moving within the vote and the accountabilities following the movements that take place within the vote.

B. Ralston: I understand the minister's explanation. That's quite clear. However, the language of the proposed amendment doesn't limit it to something in advance of the fiscal year. It says: "If a reallocation of spending authority in relation to operating expenses occurs during a fiscal year…." So there's no limit. It could occur in the first month of the fiscal year or the 11th month of the fiscal year, given the wording that's there.

[1530]

Again, I appreciate that this may be a hypothesis, but would the minister not agree that despite what he said, there's nothing in the wording of this amendment that would prohibit that sort of step being taken very late in the fiscal year?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member's legal background, actually. It gives him the capability of pointing out these kinds of issues, and correctly. Theoretically, yes, the member would be correct, but I think, practically speaking, that wouldn't be the case.

As chair of Treasury Board, I can certainly assure you that if there is going to be a change within the vote, it will be as a result of a plan being brought forward to Treasury Board. And as chair of Treasury Board, working to ensure that's a plan Treasury Board signs off on, with then subsequent direction being provided to ministers…. It is not the intent, nor will it be the practice, to treat the movement of dollars and the accountabilities within this vote in any other way.

B. Ralston: The proposed amendment also refers to a statement of information in relation to the fiscal year. Where would that be filed? Would that be tabled here in the House, or would that be pursuant to some other statutory reporting mechanism? If one were interested in following this, where would an interested member of the public find it?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. It would be tabled in the House. If the House isn't sitting, it would be tabled with the Clerk. It would also be made available on the Ministry of Finance website.

B. Ralston: Maybe the minister can advise us prospectively. Is it proposed to file such a statement of information, assuming this amendment passes, which I would say is highly likely, for the current fiscal year?
[ Page 7761 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that in fiscal 2010-2011 there was one filed already. I understand that that reallocation was done in September, which was a reallocation from Finance to Education in a schedule F, No. 2, which is the ministerial accountability schedule. It was filed with the Clerk and added to the ministry website.

Section 2 approved.

B. Ralston: We're now dealing with the Carbon Tax Act, and there's a proposed amendment to add some new definitions, one of biomethane and biomethane credit. Section 3 of the bill that's before us says an amendment proposed to subsection 1(1)….

[1535]

The Chair: Member, one moment, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to add section 2.1. Thank you, by the way, for the forbearance of the critic.

Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to add section 2.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day. The amendment clarifies the distinction between the main estimates and revised estimates with respect to the dates that main estimates are required to be presented to the Legislative Assembly.

[SECTION 2.1, by adding the following section:

Budget Transparency and Accountability Act

2.1 Section 6 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, S.B.C. 2000, c. 23, is amended by adding the following subsection:

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply with respect to a replacement of or revision to the main estimates presented after the dates referred to in those subsections.]

On the amendment.

B. Ralston: Can the minister, then, explain further? I have section 6 of the act before me. Can the minister explain the purpose of the amendment? It proposes to amend section 6 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act by adding the following subsection, which is section (3). If my copy of the legislation, which I took from the legislative website earlier today, is accurate, there is already a section (3), so this is an amendment proposed to section (3). Could the minister explain it?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member is aware, the main estimates must be presented on the third Tuesday in February. There are exceptions under 6(2) like, for example, a general election. What this allows is flexibility to undertake what we essentially did this year, which is that we introduced revised estimates on May 3. It allows that to take place, because right now there is under the language of the law just that estimates must be presented on the third Tuesday in February.

So this allows for, essentially, what took place this year.

B. Ralston: Just so I'm clear, then, this is legislation with retrospective effect. In other words, it's designed to make lawful the changes that took place this year given that there was one set of estimates tabled with the budget on February 15, 2011, and another set of estimates tabled with the budget update, if I can put it that way, on May 3. Is that what this is designed to do?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes.

Amendment approved.

Section 2.1 approved.

On section 3.

B. Ralston: I've already posed part of my question, but just to recapitulate, this is dealing with the proposed amendment to the Carbon Tax Act, section 1(1), adding two definitions, "biomethane" and "biomethane credit."

Can the minister explain…? I know he dealt with this very briefly in his very summary remarks at second reading, but perhaps he could expand upon the purpose for adding these definitions of "biomethane" and "biomethane credit," and there's a subsequent amendment that also follows upon adding this definition.

So could he explain the purpose of that?

[1540]

Hon. K. Falcon: As I get my education on biomethane…. The amendments to the definitions are required as part of the clarification of the tax treatment of biomethane. The second part is to allow for the providing of a credit for biomethane purchased under qualifying contracts. These definitions, I understand, I'm advised, are necessary to allow both of those things to take place.

B. Ralston: The definition speaks of "methane produced from biomass" and, I guess, hence biomethane. Can the minister explain the difference, for those who may not understand it, between methane produced from biomass and methane that would, I suppose, be a by-product or a desired product of conventional gas extraction?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll do my best here. Biomethane is, as I am advised, produced from organic waste, which would be a landfill, agricultural waste — that kind of thing. Conventional natural gas from a conventional natural gas well is considered fossil fuel. Although it is almost completely methane, it is considered a fossil fuel.

I don't know if that helps the member, but that's what I'm advised.
[ Page 7762 ]

B. Ralston: If I have the right document here…. I've got the definitions section in part 1 of the Carbon Tax Act. Under the definition of "fuel," (c) says: "methane produced by waste in a landfill."

I'm wondering why the necessity to redefine it as biomethane. Is that simply a more current term? The minister did make reference to methane produced by waste in a landfill, so I'm wondering if "produced from biomass" is simply a broader definition than "produced by waste in a landfill." Is that more encompassing or more restrictive? I'm not sure.

[1545]

Hon. K. Falcon: As I'm advised, apparently the previous description of "methane produced by waste in a landfill" is considered now too narrow. So what we're trying to do is expand that exclusion to include all types of biomethane, not just biomethane that comes from a landfill. As I understand it, biomethane can be produced from other organic wastes, including agricultural waste and others, and we want to make sure that those are captured and that it's not just narrowly defined as waste in a landfill.

B. Ralston: Then defining it as a broader exclusion means in principle that it wouldn't be subject to the tax. Is that right?

Hon. K. Falcon: It would not be taxable unless it was subject to section 13.1. Otherwise it would not be taxable except for the limited exceptions under section 13.1.

B. Ralston: I understand we'll get to section 13.1 as the next proposed amendment.

I had a further question, then. In subparagraph (b) it's repealing paragraph (b) in the definition of "fuel." Paragraph (b) reads "biodiesel and other biofuels" and then reads: "substituting…(b) subject to section 13.1, biomethane." Again, just to understand or attempt to understand — I probably should qualify it — the definition that's being put in place here is that biomethane is a broader definition that includes biodiesel and other biofuels. It's meant to be a more encompassing and, I would assume, clearer definition, subject to the exception that we'll deal with shortly in proposed section 13.1.

Hon. K. Falcon: The Minister of Finance is thinking to himself: why isn't the Minister of Environment answering these questions? Nevertheless, I find myself here dealing with this fascinating subject, and I'm doing my best to keep up.

As best I can understand from the explanation provided me, biomethane means any methane produced from biomass. Now, biodiesel apparently is different. We no longer exempt biodiesel. So biomethane under this definition, meaning methane produced from biomass, is a much broader definition, subject, of course, to section 13.1, with respect to some limited exclusions which will now apply with respect to biomethane.

I hope that was helpful.

[1550]

B. Ralston: I think I'm a little further ahead with that explanation. Biodiesel, then, the minister said, is being added to the definition of fuel and, therefore, would be, in theory, subject to the tax. That's a substantive amendment that appears to operate by virtue of getting rid of the present subsection (b).

Can the minister explain the reasoning behind that? Why is it being decided or why is it being proposed that biodiesel now be no longer exempt from the definition of fuel and be included and, therefore, subject to the tax? There is a definition of "biodiesel" further up, so I don't think you need to go into that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I understand that the biodiesel change was made in Budget '09, so last January. That change has taken care of biodiesel. This is just strictly dealing with biomethane, which is methane produced from biomass.

B. Ralston: There was a famous expression about parliamentary government which once described it as amateurs advised by professionals, so perhaps that applies in this case to both the minister and myself. But I certainly commend the staff person there for providing some assistance on these definitions.

Then is there in the definition of "fuel," under (a)…? Ethanol and methanol are produced from biomass, but they don't appear to be included in the definition of fuel. So are we dealing with a situation where — I suppose we'll deal with this in 13.1 — there's a blended fuel which contains some biomethane and then some conventional gasoline and therefore — section 13.1 — this new definition is designed to deal with what I think is increasingly a reality in fuel that's conventionally available?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that ethanol was dealt with in the budget update in September 2009. So it became taxable, but the carbon tax rate dropped to reflect the renewable fuel content. This section, though, is not dealing with ethanol.

[1555]

We will, I think in section 13.1, be dealing with the whole issue of the blending of biomethane with other conventional fuels.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.
[ Page 7763 ]

B. Ralston: I'll give the minister an opportunity just to continue the response that he was beginning there.

This amendment appears to deal with how the tax is calculated, where there is a mixture of the newly defined biomethane and other fuels. I suppose it would follow the definition of "fuel" set out in the act, obviously.

I'm just wondering the purpose of the section. It appears on first reading that if it can't be discerned what the combined elements are, they are taxed at the same rate as, I suppose, the fuel that contains more carbon. I'm wondering if the minister can explain how this is consistent with the direction of the legislation and what is, I think, increasingly more evident — such mixtures being sold and conventionally available even to ordinary purchasers of gasoline at the gas station.

Hon. K. Falcon: The existing section 13, I am advised, deals with when you know what the blends are. What 13.1 is dealing with is when you're dealing with the unknown blends. You don't know what the blend is between the biomethane and other conventional fuels. In other words, you're not sure what that allocation is.

The new section provides the new rules setting out the application of tax when the fuel and the biomethane are blended but the actual amounts of each are not known. So in a blend of a fuel and a biomethane where the amounts of each are unknown, the biomethane is deemed to be that fuel, and the entire volume is taxable at the tax rate for the fuel. Natural gas and biomethane would be one example.

In a blend of a fuel, natural gas and biomethane, where the amounts of each are unknown, the entire volume is deemed to be natural gas and is taxable at the tax rate for natural gas — for example, gas liquids, natural gas and biomethane.

How's that for an answer?

B. Ralston: Is the purpose of the legislation, then, to discourage retailers or wholesalers from creating such combinations where the respective elements can't be discerned? It would appear that if the biomethane is excluded as a fuel, then it would not be subject to the tax. Yet if it's mixed with natural gas or whatever, then it is subject to the tax.

If you can't discern the difference, is that to discourage people from doing that or to only do it and calculate in a reliable way the respective elements? Is that the purpose of this section?

[1600]

Hon. K. Falcon: This, I'm advised, is to ensure that we provide certainty to fuel sellers and to purchasers so they know what they're paying tax on. I understand the act was silent on what taxation would apply to unknown blends, so this is to try and alleviate that uncertainty that was out there and to provide some certainty, as I say, to both fuel sellers and purchasers.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm looking at the present section 13. It does explain, "If a mixture or blend is composed of one or both of the following combinations…" and sets out several alternatives. It does explain the method by which the tax is to be calculated. It does say in the concluding…. I'm looking at section 13(1)(b), at the very end: "…by multiplying the rate of tax…under the applicable provision of this Act by the amount of that fuel or combustible in the mixture or blend."

So this amendment… That particular section didn't deal with the situation where the seller doesn't know what the combination is. Therefore, they wouldn't be able to calculate the tax. Is that what it's designed to remedy?

Hon. K. Falcon: You can't do that calculation without knowing the amount, which is why that section, section 13, deals only with known blends, because in that case, of course, they know what the blends are, so they can do that calculation.

[D. Black in the chair.]

The issue we're dealing with here under 13.1 is unknown blends. That's where we're trying to provide some clarity so that sellers and purchasers understand how they are to deal with the issue of unknown blends.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

B. Ralston: This is a slightly more substantive amendment under division 2, "Biomethane Credit." I'm assuming that it follows upon the…. Given the amendment in 13.1, this is a method by which it would be calculated, and the credits would be conveyed to retail dealers. But can the minister just explain the purpose of 14.1, 14.2 and 14.3?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to recap here, purchases of 100 percent biomethane are exempt from carbon tax because biomethane, which is methane produced from biomass, is a carbon-neutral fuel. The biomethane of a blend where the amount of the biomethane in the blend is known is also exempt because it is a carbon-neutral fuel.

Terasen Gas, which is now FortisBC, has received permission from the B.C. Utilities Commission to offer a biomethane program whereby purchasers who sign up for the program will make a notional purchase of a specified amount of biomethane, which would be as a
[ Page 7764 ]
percentage or as a set amount of the total natural gas received.

[1605]

The program is based on notional sales of biomethane because once injected into the pipelines, it would not be possible for Terasen to track the actual amount of biomethane any given purchaser would receive.

The credit ensures that purchasers who sign up for this program or a similar program offered by other natural gas retailers do not pay carbon tax on the amount of biomethane that's specified in the contract.

The benefit is structured as a credit rather than an exemption to ensure that the benefit can be properly administered and that the refund FortisBC or other natural gas sellers that may provide a similar program receive is limited to the amount of biomethane they actually inject into the system if they inject less biomethane than they notionally sell under the contracts.

B. Ralston: Thank you for that explanation. Then is the credit calculated on the actual purchase of the biomethane before it's injected into the natural gas distribution system? Is that how it works?

Hon. K. Falcon: The credit is based on what is specified in the contract. If the contract specifies that there is 10 percent biomethane deemed to be part of the contract, then that would invite a 10 percent credit.

B. Ralston: Presumably, this is subject to audit or some form of at least notionally regulatory control in order to make sure that that is followed through on?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes, it would be subject to the same kind of auditing that is undertaken on any other types of credit or rebate programs that involve the private sector and utilize the benefit of the tax system.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

B. Ralston: The plain reading of this section would suggest to me it's simply there to authorize the director to refund an amount, and perhaps that authorization…. At least it clearly wasn't there in the legislation before. Is that the purpose of this proposed amendment?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised that this is to deal with a drafting oversight and to include retail dealers of natural gas. I understand the other fuels are essentially dealt with, with collectors; I believe that's the term they use.

[1610]

In this case, it is ensuring that retail dealers of natural gas also can benefit from the same principle that applies to collectors. For example, if there's an accounting error that was made, they are able to deal with that. It unintentionally excluded retail dealers of natural gas.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

B. Ralston: I'm assuming, based on a reading of this, that this is perhaps a similar drafting error. It's under section 56, which is entitled "Appeal to minister," and the proposal is to add a refund of tax paid or remitted. One presumably couldn't have an appeal unless there was something of substance to make an appeal about. I'm assuming that's the purpose of this proposed amendment.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. It essentially will provide regulatory authority for current administrative practices.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

B. Ralston: This appears to deal with the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, to make regulations, and these are consequential amendments following on the new definition of "biomethane" and "biomethane credits." Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes. You're correct.

Section 10 approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to add section 10.1 standing in my name on the orders of the day. The amendment expands the definitions of "estimates" and "vote" to incorporate the concept of revisions to the main estimates during the period from the day they are initially presented to when the final supply act is put before the House.

[SECTION 10.1, by adding the following section:

Financial Administration Act

10.1 Section 1 of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 138, is amended by repealing the definitions of “estimates” and “vote” and substituting the following:

“estimates” means the estimates of revenue and expenditure for a fiscal year presented to the Legislative Assembly, being

(a) the main estimates presented annually, and

(b) any supplementary estimates for the fiscal year,

and includes any replacement of or revision to the estimates made before passage by the Legislative Assembly of the final Supply Act that relates to those estimates;

“vote” means an appropriation under a Supply Act identified in the estimates as a vote.]

On the amendment.

B. Ralston: I think it's fairly straightforward, but can the minister just confirm that these revisions are
[ Page 7765 ]
proposed to deal with the situation that arose this budget year, where one set of estimates was tabled and a replacement or revised set of estimates was tabled in May this year. So the disparity between what was tabled in February 2011 and what was tabled in May 2011 — this is designed to deal with that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is yes.

Amendment approved.

Section 10.1 approved.

On section 11.

B. Ralston: I notice one of the member's capable staff people departing. I'm wondering if there's another one about to join him, or are we to continue? Perhaps I'll just wait a minute, then, if I might, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We'll take a two-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

B. Ralston: The proposed two revisions appear to simply give discretion to the minister to exempt property held by a health authority from taxation. That seems to be the combined effect of the two proposed amendments — give the cabinet the opportunity under section 12, the proposed amendment to section 21(2), "to limit the exemption from property taxation…or to impose conditions on that exemption."

So is that the purpose — just to provide a bit more flexibility given the particular circumstances of any piece of property?

Hon. K. Falcon: Generally, a health authority property is exempt from taxation. So the amendments here are clarifying that health authority property must be used by or on behalf of the regional health board to qualify for a property tax exemption under the act.

[1620]

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

B. Ralston: This initiates a new section of proposed amendments to the Home Owner Grant Act, and they appear to be dealing in some considerable detail with a relatively narrow situation that I suppose has arisen, thus requiring the amendment. So can the minister just explain the purpose of the proposed section 17?

Hon. K. Falcon: I am advised that sometimes homeowner grants are claimed in error. In other words, individuals claim a homeowner grant when they're not entitled to one. So this requires and makes clear, because apparently it was not explicit before, that they must be repaid back to the Minister of Finance and be repaid with interest. So where there was lack of clarity, this makes it explicit.

B. Ralston: I understand the remedial effect that's being intended here, but can the minister advise just how many situations there are where the government has attempted to reclaim a homeowner grant that was paid in error and has not been able to do so?

Hon. K. Falcon: Last year we issued 1,280 notices of disentitlement, which is referring to individuals that have incorrectly claimed the homeowner grant and were not entitled to it.

B. Ralston: And is the minister able to put a dollar value on that and also advise: is it such that, given the state of the legislation, none of those could be reclaimed by the government through any legal process?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have a dollar amount for the member, but I understand we can get that amount to the member if the member wishes. The amendments…. There are remedies in place for someone that does not pay back…. If someone is disentitled and they do not pay back that amount to government, then there are remedies that we do have available, and apparently some of these amendments also touch on some of those remedies.

[1625]

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

B. Ralston: I would have perhaps appreciated the minister's offer to provide the dollar amount, if that's easily calculated. I would think it would be.

I only have five minutes remaining to deal with this bill before the guillotine comes down and cuts off debate.

I did want to ask some questions about proposed section 14, amendments to the International Business Activity Act. These appear to follow upon a report prepared by the Vancouver International Financial Sector Steering Committee and made some recommendations about rates of taxation to draw the financial institutions to British Columbia.

Page 11 of that report, the international income tax rate. Just so that I have it clear…. This is, I think, something that was being advocated by the report. There are some comparisons about the international income tax
[ Page 7766 ]
rate after these proposed amendments came into place, and there are some comparators.

If this were a corporation carrying on qualifying international activities from a base in B.C…. It also assumes the preferred tax rate for financial institutions. So in Vancouver it would be 16.2 percent; in Beijing, 25 percent; Hong Kong, 17.5 percent; Seoul, 35 percent; Singapore, 18 percent; and New York, 39.9 percent.

Is that the effective rate of taxation that will be in place for the appropriate qualifying activity, and are those international comparisons accurate?

Hon. K. Falcon: The federal rate is 16.5, as the member knows. That is going down on January 1, 1.5 percent. The other income tax rates shown there are based in 2008. So I am going to presume that they are still the same, but I can't confirm that for the member because those are a few years out of date.

B. Ralston: Then just clarify it for the…. It seems to be the point of the presentation that was made here that in order to attract international financial institutions to British Columbia — and I think it's really the relative figures — it was felt necessary, as a matter of policy, that British Columbia's rate for these types of institutions should be lower than that of Beijing, Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore and New York.

That was the policy direction that's been recommended, and that's the policy direction that this minister supports. Is that correct?

[1630]

Hon. K. Falcon: Chair, I actually think that's a very good and relevant question, and as the member would know, I have a motion tabled with the Clerk to allow us to bring this in force by regulation. One of the reasons was I wanted to have an opportunity as a new minister inheriting this program to be able to take a look at and get more up-to-date information on what exactly this means and what incremental benefits I can be certain will result from this.

That includes exactly what the member said, too, about a comparison of what the international income tax rate competitive situation is. Because, for me, it's not just about who has the lowest rate that is going to necessarily attract additional investment. It will also be what incremental additional benefits I can be given some comfort will genuinely accrue as a result of this.

I think it is important to recognize that this program, when it was initially introduced back in the late '80s…. We were in a whole different environment as a country. I'm getting the notice. Anyhow, we can talk off line about that a little more if you want, Member, but all I would say is our tax situation is much different today than it was back in the late '80s and, certainly, something that I am looking at very carefully.

The Chair: Pursuant to the schedule tabled in the House, the committee will now conclude its consideration of Bill 2.

Sections 14 to 33 inclusive approved on division.

Hon. K. Falcon: Hon. Chair, I move the amendments to the commencement table standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Section 34, the amendments provide for the commencement of sections 2.1 and 10.1 at the beginning of this fiscal year and changes the commencement of sections 14 to 22 from a fixed date to implementation by regulation.

[SECTION 34, by adding the following items to the table:

Item Column 1 Provisions of Act Column 2 Commencement 2.1 Section 2.1 April 1, 2011 3.1 Section 10.1 April 1, 2011]

[SECTION 34, by deleting item 5 of the table and substituting the following as indicated:

Item Column 1 Provisions of Act Column 2 Commencement 5 Sections 14 to 22 By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which may be made to bring sections 14 to 22 into force on or after April 1, 2011]

The Chair: Minister, we'll deal with them sequentially.

Section 34, amendment to commencement of sections 2.1 and 10.1 approved on division.

Section 34, amendment to commencement of sections 14 to 22 inclusive approved on division.

Section 34 as amended approved on division.

Title approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The committee rose at 4:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2011

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. K. Falcon: With leave, now.

Leave granted.
[ Page 7767 ]

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2011

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2011, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Bell: I call second reading of Bill 15, intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4).

[1635]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING
AND VALIDATING ACT (No. 4)

Hon. I. Chong: It's my pleasure to move Bill 15, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4) to be read a second time now.

I'm presenting this legislation today in response to a request from the elected council of the city of Richmond for legislative amendments. The council has made this direct request to remedy an unusual circumstance affecting commercial property owners in an area known as Brighouse.

A number of commercial properties in the area have experienced sudden steep and sustained increases in assessed land values and taxes since 2005 due to the future development potential of those properties. The dramatic increases in assessed land values have been triggered by recent development in the Brighouse area and changes to the city's official community plan.

These changes will transform this area from warehouses, light industry and other commercial development to intensive mixed residential and retail, and those dramatic increases, some more than 300 percent, persist.

The legislation will provide authority to enable the city of Richmond to provide municipal tax exemptions to eligible commercial properties in the Brighouse area that have experienced extraordinary increases in their land values and corresponding taxes since 2005. It will also provide a provincial school tax flow-through, a partial exemption from provincial taxes up to a specified cap in circumstances where the city has provided a municipal tax exemption.

The province would only provide partial school tax relief if Richmond provides an exemption from municipal taxes, and the proposed tax exemptions would apply for a maximum of five years, as the legislation is intended to provide targeted transitional tax relief to affected properties in the Brighouse area.

The authority in the bill is intended to support targeted commercial business tenants, allowing them to continue to operate and provide jobs, pending redevelopment of the area. Currently business tenants occupying these buildings under leases are most affected by the assessment increases. With this legislation, there is the opportunity to help these businesses stay open and competitive and continue to provide important jobs for families in this area during the transition period.

Ultimately, one of the primary goals is to ensure we support local governments in creating economically sustainable and family-friendly communities with good job opportunities. The legislation we are here to debate today is a reflection of this goal, one I'm sure we all share.

I ask that members lend their support to this piece of legislation and, consequently, move second reading of Bill 15.

H. Lali: I know the member from Richmond, the MLA, has been working closely with these folks and with the minister to try to bring this forward. We just have some cautions from the opposition side.

This situation came in as a result of speculation and assessment values having gone up, and obviously, people who own the properties having to pay large increases in their property taxes as a result of that.

Of course, the caution that we've got is how future speculation is driving these assessments and the values up for properties and then having to raise these taxes. I think government needs to be cautioned on that so that any kind of abuses and that don't take place.

We also worry about…. When does the government decide to actually apply this, and where doesn't it, on a one-off kind of a basis? Where does it stop? I think that is something that needs to be considered by the government and also the abuse that might take place in terms of people actually profiteering as a result of future speculation.

I just want the minister to note that this is something that concerns the official opposition, and this is something that the minister, obviously, and the government needs to watch out for in the future.

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

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for Fraser-Nicola for his comments. Perhaps we'll have an opportunity to address some of those at committee stage.

However, at this time I move second reading.

[1640]

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 15 be placed on orders of the day for committee stage at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 7768 ]

Bill 15, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 4), read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. P. Bell: I call committee stage of Bill 14, intituled Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Coastal Ferry
Amendment Act, 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 4:43 p.m.

On section 1.

G. Coons: It's always an honour to get into the Coastal Ferry Act and open the vault and see how we can make it better. In section 1 in this bill, Bill 14, the Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, in 45.3…. I'd like to talk about that in section 1.

There are a few issues out there, and I think the minister realizes that. It was quite a deal for the commissioner to have this fulsome review of a lot of the issues. I'm just wondering, as far as the minister…. What prompted this review?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think probably the commissioner, who is a new commissioner and a fresh set of eyes, heard the same thing probably that the member heard, certainly that I heard. People were concerned about the rising cost of ferry fares. They didn't believe that it was sustainable to continue at that type of rate on the increases. I think it would be fair to say…. And I can't speak for the commissioner, but it would be my understanding from comments I've read that he actually wanted to have a look and see what was happening there.

So, Member, I would think the commissioner being a British Columbian and obviously hearing from the people and doing the job he's asked to do as an independent commissioner of the ferries took it upon himself to say: "Look, it's time. This act has been in place since 2003. It's time I had a look at it."

[1645]

G. Coons: It is fairly significant, this review, which opens up the Coastal Ferry Act that leads to this amendment bill. It is somewhat significant, especially since the commissioner, barely in his job for a month and barely knowing where the washrooms are, is calling for a fulsome review of what's happening with B.C. Ferries. A lot of the issues that he's looking at…. The underlying approach is that basically, he had a concern about the financial sustainability and looking at the public interest of ferry users.

I'm just wondering. In section 45.3(2), they look at the weighted average of the tariffs. The minister has declared that the amount is 4.15 above the weighted average of the tariffs. It gives a definition, but I'm wondering how the weighted average is determined.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The weighted average is determined by the amount of traffic on each individual route, the type of traffic, and when I talk about that, it's whether it be passengers, whether it be passenger vehicles, motorcycles and such things. This is dealt with. They receive that information from B.C. Ferries. The commissioner's responsible to determine the weighted average based on the things I've just pointed out.

G. Coons: Yes, and it is a rather complicated process. I've tried to follow it through, and I do believe that the commissioner is going to be looking at how understandable the price-cap calculation model is, the complexity of it and whether it's understandable to ferry users.

I sat down with the previous commissioner. It's very difficult to understand. I do have a meeting with the new commissioner tomorrow, so perhaps we can look at what happened today and look at some of the ideas and suggestions that perhaps the minister and I will throw back and forth. Maybe we can do a long pass and have a breakaway together. I'm not too sure.

But on that note, there was a significant change, a disruption to the process that this bill does in 45.3. It looks at the performance term, and the performance term 3 has been set through legislation as being from April 1, 2012, and ending March 31, 2016 — a four-year performance term.

[1650]

I guess what happened with this is the preliminary decision by the former commissioner had an 18 percent and 37 percent increase on the major and minor routes over four years, and I think that's where the previous minister was a bit shocked with those amounts. Those within the ferry community, including the minister, were outraged — I'm going to use that word — at the unsustainability of these for people who use the ferries.

I think that when we're looking at the significance of interrupting the performance term…. We've already gone through performance term 1. The first term was five years. The second term was four years, and this term was four years, and it's been interrupted by this legislation.

I'm just wondering. Why did the minister decide to change the performance term to the dates that it is now?
[ Page 7769 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There was an extension by one year for the commissioner to be able to take on the work that he requested, to have a look at this act and see what was taking place, to see if there were issues and recommendations he could put forward.

The performance term is still from 2012 to 2016. The final price-cap setting has been extended by one year, which will allow the commissioner to engage and look at the ferries act and put his recommendations back to government. If that extension wasn't granted, he wouldn't have been able to meet the time frames that are legislated today. Thus, a result that we're dealing with here is the amendment to that time frame.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for that. Again, this interference of getting in with the price cap, the preliminary price cap that hasn't been determined yet, but the minister…. It was supposed to be 4.18 and, I believe, 8.23 percent for the major and minor routes. This is a significant departure from the hands-off, no political interference that we've said and were promised in the literature that we got back in 2002.

Mind you, it isn't the first time, I guess, that there's been that interference. I guess just before the last election there was a $20 million influx into B.C. Ferries to reduce fares for two months by a third. So when I say that it's a significant departure from the hands-off, I guess it's not really that far away from the breaking of previous commitments that there be no political interference and that it would be left to run as this quasi-independent entity.

Getting back to the 4.15 percent weighted average of the tariffs that are now going to be payable on the routes. Why did the minister get involved with interfering with the 4.15 and using that number?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The question is: why the interference? Actually, this is a response to an independent ferry commissioner who wrote to me. As the Minister of Transportation receiving his letter, what he was asking made a great deal of sense to me. I think it made a great deal of sense to the vast majority of British Columbians, particularly those who use the ferry system on a daily basis.

[1655]

We responded by saying: "If you're prepared to look at it…. You've put this forward. We concur." Then to settle out on one, we had proposed increases; 4.15 percent is what the number was on the major route, 8.23 percent on the minor and northern routes. We took and put all of the route groups at 4.15 percent based on a sustainability issue.

Although there will be people that will say that's too much, I think we have to be realistic. The original 4.15 and 8.23 percent were questioned by the public. I certainly heard more on the 8.23 percent. I'm not trying to mitigate the 4.15, but it does cost a great deal of money to run the best ferry system in the world, which I think we have agreement on.

While we are waiting for the review by the independent commissioner and the recommendations that will accompany that review, we set the rates at 4.15 percent to try and equalize them across all routes until we see what the commissioner comes back with.

G. Coons: Yes, and I agree with the minister on the concept of sustainability.

A lot of people looking at the fare increases over the last eight years of significant, especially on the minor routes…. The ferry advisory committee chairs have met with the minister, met with myself and talked about the unfairness of their fares — always basically double what the major routes are — and having a situation that they felt was inequitable.

When we look at the 4.15…. The minister talked about the minor routes, where he reduced them from 8.23, I think it is. I usually use 8.25 just to round it off, but it's 8.23. I see the minister acknowledging that.

He acknowledged the concern on the minor routes, and that was significant, especially today. There's a fare increase, I may add — a fuel surcharge, another 2½ percent on the major routes and 5 percent on the minor routes.

Again, the fares just keep going up, even during the review. Right in the middle of the legislation for the review, we've got fares going up today. They went up last April significantly also — 6.71, I believe, for the minor routes.

The minister met with the ferry advisory committee chairs, acknowledged their concerns. This legislation, I'm sure, is coming forth because the commissioner also listened to those concerns. The ferry advisory committee chairs represent all of the minor routes. There are 12 of them, and they've got a good grasp of what's going on.

As far as the 4.15 percent in section 45.3, why didn't the minister freeze that, as the ferry advisory committee chairs — who have, I'm sure, acknowledged and lobbied the minister, talked to him…? He heard it, and they acknowledged he heard it. Why didn't he freeze the fares during the review?

[1700]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: he is correct. I did meet with the chairs of the ferry advisory committees. They did bring forward the issue that they would like to see a freeze, zero percent. They made that clear to me.

I did in the same meeting, though, I think, if you speak to them…. I thought it was a good meeting. They're very passionate. I made it very clear that zero was not on the table. The preliminary price increases that the ferry commissioner was looking at were 4.15 percent and 8.23 percent to allow the ferry system to operate.
[ Page 7770 ]

What I did when the commissioner said, "Look, I'm hearing from the public, and I agree…." This is what the commissioner, essentially, said: "I agree. It is time to have a look at this. We have had this act in place since 2003. I would like to have a look." He put that letter forward.

I as the minister concurred on behalf of the Crown — and, I believe, concurred on behalf of the people of British Columbia — that that would be a welcome idea. So we put forward in the legislation today the lower of the 8.23 or 4.15 that will encompass all route groups.

But I do want to go back. I think the meeting I had with the chairs of the ferry advisory committee was very good. I think they are not only passionate about what they bring to the table but very knowledgable. These are men and women that represent the people that use these virtually on a daily basis. But the reality is that 4.15 percent…. We have equalized that across all route groups right now, and I'm looking forward to what the ferry commissioner brings back in his report.

G. Coons: Yeah, I'm starting to see a connection here that the preliminary decision for performance term 3 by the commissioner of 4.15 and 8.23 has a direct tie to what's happening here — the 4.15. Obviously, there's a tie to the preliminary decision.

The preliminary decision was out there, and it came to the minister. What is the final…? The preliminary decision that was supposed to be made public — what was the date when it was supposed to be made public, prior to this legislation coming in?

[1705]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The preliminary price cap is released March 31. He puts that out. There are then 90 days in which people can put forward their concerns and ideas on the preliminary price cap at that point.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister, for that. I was in the right ballpark when I was thinking about that, and I was just trying to put it to this legislation. So we're about a month early to actually intervene and set a fare for the first year of the performance term 3. I've got it now.

Now, again, is there a cost to this? What is this going to cost taxpayers for this legislation, for intervening with the preliminary fare caps that the commissioner has put out there for a ruling on?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Right now I know the commissioner is working with B.C. Ferries on that to determine the final cost. What we're talking about, the 4.15, begins next year, April 1 of 2012.

I did say in an interview that I think it would be in the $4 million to $5 million range. Again, that is a minister saying that. I know that the final numbers have to be determined between B.C. Ferries and the commissioner, but when those are known, they will be made available.

G. Coons: Yes, we never want to question what a minister has said when it comes to trying to figure out what the cost is going to be.

But yes, I do recall the minister saying that this was going to cost in the range of $4 million to $5 million. I think that's an interesting amount that this section here, 45.3…. There is a cost to it.

What ended up happening with the preliminary decision is that the commissioner also is asking B.C. Ferries to meet a productivity challenge of $15 million a year, to cut back $15 million a year so that the fares of 4.15 and 8.23 could be met. That productivity challenge was put out by the commissioner to try to encourage B.C. Ferries to cut back on advertising, on executive compensation, on fuel and other methods of trying to meet that challenge.

B.C. Ferries put in a report to the commissioner, telling him that he has no jurisdiction over this. I believe the commissioner sort of took a step back, and that's why we're right here right now. The commissioner says: "I just can't follow the legislation and try to do the job of meeting the interest of ferry users and the financial sustainability of the ferry operators." That's why we're here with Bill 14.

It was then interesting, also, that the commissioner did a report. I'm not too sure if the minister has this or has seen it, but B.C. Ferries said they can't do $15 million. They can't meet that challenge, but they could meet $10 million. So there's a $5 million difference there, and I find that….

[1710]

I'm trying to process this here. I'm just trying to put the numbers together here, where it's going to cost about $4 million or $5 million, and B.C. Ferries is saying: "Well, we can't meet the $15 million challenge. We can only meet the $10 million challenge." It seems to me about the same amount, so I'm going to have to process that a bit further.

I do find it interesting that there is a correlation between the challenge to B.C. Ferries by the commissioner and the amount that we're hearing here. The commissioner did put together that if he did accept the new challenge of B.C. Ferries of $10 million and not the $15 million that he wanted…. He figured out that the fares would be 4.4 percent for the majors and 8.73 percent for the northern and minor group.

So there have been some calculations on whether or not B.C. Ferries could meet that $5 million difference that they said they couldn't meet. And then we have this $5 million on the table again.

I'm just wondering: in determining the amount for the 4.15 for all routes, were there any communications, verbal or written, with B.C. Ferries on that?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to clarify one thing I said. I said that the commissioner is working with B.C. Ferries on that. Actually, we're working with B.C. Ferries to determine…. I would think the member was going to
[ Page 7771 ]
come back and say: "Minister, what's happening here?" So just to clarify that.

The other one — the difference in the funding. There is no grassy knoll theory here. I'll tell the member that. It reflects the difference between the 4.15 and the 8.23. That's the ballpark number I threw out. It will be finalized, as I said. We're working to figure out what that difference is and what the cost would be to B.C. Ferries on that.

Member, if I could, I was somewhat negligent in not introducing my staff when we started. Joining me, I have Kevin Richter, who is my ADM of Infrastructure. I have Kirk Handrahan, who is the executive director of the marine branch, and I have Kevin Gillese, who is the barrister and solicitor with the AG's ministry, as well.

G. Coons: Again, in 45.3 there's a cost — $4 million to $5 million — and you're working that out with the commissioner. The $5 million goes to whom? To B.C. Ferries? Or you're trying to work out an amount that the government and the commissioner can work on without B.C. Ferries? Are you just working on the information that B.C. Ferries has submitted to the commissioner?

[1715]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The dollars we're figuring out right now, as I said, whether it's $4 million or $5 million, Member — I know those are big numbers; I agree with that — are the difference…. They are going to be down on revenue, obviously. This is the preliminary price cap that was put forward by the independent commissioner.

So the difference between the 4.15 percent that we have now established under this legislation, should it pass this House, and 8.23 percent…. We are going to replace that revenue to B.C. Ferries, and then what we're waiting for is the independent commissioner's report as he goes through his review to take into account the sustainability issue and the affordability issue of B.C. Ferries.

G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister. The $4 million to $5 million — where is that going to come from through the ministry budget?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We want to be clear. This is next year's budget as well. That's where this money would come from. We're working on that right now to ensure that it is within the ministry budget to be able to allocate that money.

Again, I know I've probably gone down this road. I said it's between $4 million and $5 million. It may be $5.1 million; it may be $3.8 million — just so we have an understanding there. But it would be out of next year's budget, and we will ensure that that cost is covered.

G. Coons: It is interesting that again, here's an amount going to B.C. Ferries. We did the same in this House — well, the government did — when they gave $20 million a couple of years ago. I think there were some service reductions happening, and I think the government put in $1.2 million somewhere along the line in the last year and a half or two. And here we are again.

This percentage, this 4.15 percent above the board for all of them, is fairly significant, because B.C. Ferries, when they talked about their productivity challenge, asserted that the preliminary caps with this productivity challenge posed a significant risk to B.C. Ferries' financial sustainability.

I'm sure we've talked about the finances of B.C. Ferries and the level of money that they're taking in and getting through subsidies from the government and the federal subsidy. When we look at this $5 million resulting from the decrease in the fare caps, it looks like the minister acknowledges that there is an issue and a concern about a significant risk to their financial sustainability if there's any flexibility from what they can raise.

[1720]

That's why we're here — because the commissioner has an obligation, a direction from Bill 20, the last time we opened up the ferry act, about the ferry users and the interest of the ferry users.

My question is: does the minister feel it's appropriate to give money to B.C. Ferries, or does he think that the independent company at this point in time, after eight years, should be financially sustainable so that they could take a $5 million hit and still move on?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: If I understand the member's question properly…. I know he'll correct me if I don't. It was an interesting question. This is not a stand-alone company in the sense that it pays for itself. We actually put in roughly $170 million of taxpayers' funds, $126 million in direct service fee.

There's an additional $24 million, roughly — the exact numbers are in the budget — that goes to social programs. That would be for, gosh, a vast array of things. The federal government then puts in about $26 million or $27 million as well.

So the idea that we would make up the difference between the 4.15 and the 8.23 percent fits very well with what I know a number of the members I've spoken to from the opposite side of the House, as well as numerous British Columbians, have talked to me about: increasing the service fee. In essence, this is actually helping keep the rate down at 4.15 percent across all routes until the commissioner can do his report and make the recommendations back to myself and government.

G. Coons: I think that at this point in time, when we just saw a 3.8 percent and 6.71 percent increase April 1 and then, today, a 2.5 and a 5 percent, it's just piling on and piling on. Somebody had to throw the flag, I guess, and I guess the commissioner did.

At this point in time I really want to stress the importance of the commitment of the ferry advisory
[ Page 7772 ]
committee chairs and their daily, on-the-ground knowledge of what's going on in their communities as far as the economic impacts and the social impacts.

I think that at this point in time I'd like to make an amendment, if I could.

The Chair: Proceed, Member.

[1725]

G. Coons: The amendment is in section 1, section 45.3(2). I'll pass a copy over.

[Section 1…Section 45.3 (2) of the Coastal Ferry Act, SBC 2003, c.14…by deleting subsection (2) and substituting (2) "Despite any other provisions of this Division, the price cap applicable to a route group is, for the period beginning April 1, 2012 and ending March 31, 2013, the amount is frozen.".]

That's the amendment.

On the amendment.

G. Coons: As we have indicated and the minister knows, there's been wide-ranging concern for many years, and when the Coastal Ferry Act first came into play, I read the mandate of it and I went: "Jeez, it may not be too bad if we just look at the fare increases based on inflation." Some numbers came out, and they were going to be about 3.1 percent average over the first performance term. I scratched my head, and I said: "Jeez, this may not be too bad."

There are some other issues there, the user pay and the cross-subsidization and finding alternate service providers. But as far as the fare increases, it wasn't too bad, I thought. Then some fuel surcharges came on, and they were piled on and rolled into the fares. Then we started the second performance term, where we've seen fares skyrocketing, and the impacts are horrendous.

At this point in time, as we move forward with this piece of legislation before us, I think it would be prudent to listen to the ferry advisory committee chairs, who look at the faces of the people that travel the routes every day.

On some of the routes we've seen fare increases, as we've said in the House before: on Mill Bay, up 54 percent; Comox–Powell River, 92 percent; Alert Bay, up 101 percent; Skidegate–Alliford Bay up in my area, 125 percent; Denman-Hornby, 128 percent over the last eight years.

Mind you, these fares are prepaid, round trip, two adults in a car. Those are the down-to-earth numbers the people on the ground are using.

So we threw out numbers, saying: "Oh yeah, it's only a cup of coffee." We've heard that with students, and we've heard that with ferry users. The press release that came out from the government in 2002 talked about: "Oh, it's just the price of a cup of coffee." Again, we're still getting that type of mantra.

I believe that at this point in time, as we move forward, we need to sort of have the wheels hit the ground here, or maybe the bow will go through the waves. However you want to look at it, I think it's time that we look and see the commitment from the government to ferry-dependent communities and those in coastal communities and on islands, to say: "Let's take a break from horrendous fares." Especially in the last two months, there has been an increase of, as I said, 6.71 and 5 percent, which is 11.71 percent in two months on those minor routes.

Inflation in the last seven years has been 11 percent, and in two months they're getting hit with inflation, with two fare increases — a fare increase and a fuel surcharge.

I believe that the minister is probably having some very reflective thoughts on this and relating back to his meeting with the ferry advisory committee chairs, who are the heart and soul of their communities, and has met with them and pushed forward the concept of: "Let's take a deep breath and work towards some solutions."

Let the commissioner go through the mandate that he wants to go through with his review. He's going to be looking at everything, especially the finances. This is key to this amendment, I believe.

[1730]

In estimates the minister and I spent quite a bit of time looking at the finances of B.C. Ferries and wondering whether or not the provincial subsidies were adequate. The ferry advisory committee chairs, as the minister knows, keep saying, even though he may disagree with them….

We look at it, but the provincial subsidy has remained constant for eight years at 91.8. They would stick to that.

They would say that there have been some northern adjustment fees and some other things that really don't help all the minor routes. They've separated themselves from the northern routes that ended up getting an adjustment fee due to incidents with the Queen of the North. The whole concept of user pay came into that, where the government had to step in and give significant amounts to the northern routes because they financially couldn't be sustainable.

That's where we're at with the minor routes. The minor routes are day-to-day.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

You know, they're looking at their tickets, looking at the stubs that they're getting and saying: "It's going up." The last two months it has gone up 11 percent. It's unsustainable. The minister agrees that it's unsustainable. That's why we're in here today looking at this legislation and, hopefully, making it better.

I believe — and I'm sure the minister is getting very good advice from his staff — that perhaps this is an amendment that's supportable. On that, I would like to encourage the minister to have that sober, reflective thought about this and think about the stories he has heard in his short time.

I'm not too sure if the minister has travelled all the ferry routes. I don't think the minister travels too many
[ Page 7773 ]
ferry routes at all. I don't want to blow this out of proportion or whatever, but I know that myself, time-wise…. I have probably seven or eight terminals within the riding I represent, but it's very challenging for me to travel the ferries in my own riding. It's eight hours to Haida Gwaii. It's nine or ten hours down to Klemtu or Bella Bella, and I just can't travel the ferries.

I'm sure the minister needs to do a tour. I did a tour. I travelled to 28 communities on a ferry tour about two years ago. I sat down and listened to the concerns at public meetings. Anywhere from 50, 60, 100 people and more came out. I heard the stories — the impacts on the economy, the impacts on tourism, the impacts on housing prices, the impacts on seniors.

I believe that an amendment that I have put forward would be one that would perhaps show that there is more of a concern from the government than hitting with another fare increase, when people are looking at the devastating impacts, especially on the minor routes.

On that, I think I will let that amendment go. I hope the minister supports that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: I want to thank you for the work you do, not only as the opposition critic but on behalf of the people you represent. I don't think you would find many people that wouldn't say: "Gosh, I would like to pay no increase, versus 4.15 percent." I couldn't disagree with the member.

But I will speak against the amendment for a number of reasons. I think most British Columbians recognize today that these are financially difficult times. I think the member would concur with that. Any time you're running a province…. This year we run a $41.9 billion budget to deliver the services and programs that British Columbians enjoy and, rightfully, deserve. The downside of that is that we aren't bringing in $41.9 billion today to pay for that. We're in a deficit situation.

In determining the 4.15 percent, I looked at those numbers. I looked at, really, the financial responsibility that we have on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and although zero is a nice number, which means the rates would be frozen, it just was not achievable or responsible.

I think we hear from the member and his colleagues across the way that there are many opportunities to spend more money in this province on additional services, on new services, whatever they may be. But the people I talk to…. I can't speak for the member, the people he speaks to, but probably one of the most important things I'm focused on for the people I represent in this province is getting our budget back to a balanced position.

[1735]

Every dollar we spend today that we don't have…. We're putting that burden on our children and grandchildren. We may live a very good life today, but I don't think it's fair to our children and grandchildren to pay for that excess today.

So although zero would be nice — freezing the rates, Member, and I wouldn't disagree on that aspect — if I bring in the financial responsibility, which all of us in this chamber have an obligation to look at, I have to stand by 4.15 percent for all of the routes. That's something that I will do. For that reason, I will be voting against your amendment.

[1740]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

The Chair: Hon. Members, the member for North Coast has the floor.

Please proceed.

[1745]
[ Page 7774 ]

G. Coons: Proceed? Okay, thank you, hon. Chair. The minister is saying: "One minute."

The Chair: Member for North Coast, please proceed.

G. Coons: Nice to see the minister's staff back.

Again in section 1, I'm still in subsection 45.3(2). It talks about "4.15% above the weighted average of the tariffs that are payable as at March 31, 2012 on the designated ferry routes that are included in that route group."

I'm just wondering: what is the definition of "designated ferry routes"?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The designated ferry routes are the ones that are defined in the coastal ferry services contract. They are laid out there.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. Are these designated ferry routes part of our provincial public highway system?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: They are part of our transportation network in British Columbia.

G. Coons: I just want to clarify a little more here about the definition of "designated ferry routes" as I see it in 45.3(2) in the bill before us. I think there's a significant difference between being part of the provincial public highway system and being part of…. What is the difference between being part of the provincial public highway system and being part of the transportation network?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: These are not highways. They are not defined as highways.

[1750]

G. Coons: Yes, and I guess the reason why is…. When the government did the Coastal Ferry Act back in 2003, they physically removed ferries as part of the provincial public highway system. By definition "ferry" means "any vessel (a) by which individuals or goods may be transported over water, and (b) that is part of the provincial highway system, but does not include (c) a ferry to which the Coastal Ferry Act applies."

Does the minister, in his dealings with ferry advisory committee chairs and getting his feet wet in the last two or three or four months of being minister, consider that B.C. ferries are part of our marine highway?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I met with the chairs of the ferry advisory committees. They felt that they were part of the highway system. I again, at that point, had spoken to them, and I think they would reiterate what we spoke about. I talked about it being part of our transportation network, and that's how I feel on this issue.

I know where the member is going with this, and I expected the questions to come. But it is part of our transportation network, an important part of our transportation network in this province and — again, going back, I think, to use the member's words — the best ferry system in the world.

G. Coons: Yes, on the 50th anniversary of B.C. Ferries we're still struggling. But those people in communities that depend on the minor routes are questioning that statement from both of us. When we look at a system that's affordable, reliable and safe, we've got to really ensure that we move forward on that.

I think I'll perhaps go down the road on that one for now, Minister, and look at section 45.3. I believe it's (3)(e) I'm going to be looking at. In here it relates:

"(e) section 40 (4) (b) is deemed to read as follows: '(b) issue the commissioner's final decision on the application to the ferry operator and the government, which decision must set price caps for the period from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016 for all route groups serviced by the ferry operator so that those price caps, when combined with the price caps established for those route groups under section 45.3 (2) for the period from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013, provide in the review performance term the return that the ferry operator is entitled under section 41 to receive in that performance term.'"

What caught my eye in this section here that is basically new…. I think it talks about section 41, in this section 40(4)(b). I'm just wondering what section 41 is.

[1755]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The section you're referring to deals with the return on equity that ferries is allowed to earn.

G. Coons: Yes, and the new part of this section 40(4)(b)…. There's a new section in there from "the government" down, and I'm interested in the workings of this section 41. What is the return on equity that B.C. Ferries is expected to get?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: You asked what the ROE is today. It is established by the commissioner, and the interim is established based on the principles under section 41 that we just spoke about. Today it is 12.73 percent.

[1800]

G. Coons: I did mention that in this section, 45.3(e), it talks about how "section 40 (4) (b) is deemed to read…." The first couple of lines — "issue the commissioner's final decision on the application to the ferry operator and the government" — were there before, and the rest of it is new. I'm just wondering why the rest of that had to be added to subsection 40(4)(b).

Hon. B. Lekstrom: So this section…. We are setting the first year of the price cap at 4.15 percent, Member. We've spoken about that. The commissioner will then
[ Page 7775 ]
set the remaining three years of the four-year price cap. This section is dealing with the issue that then the commissioner will take in all four years in his consideration of setting the ROE on this. It is a complicated formula, but hopefully, I've done it some justice in explaining it to you.

G. Coons: Yes, minister. I've tried to follow and read through, and I'm looking now at 45.3(3)(f), right underneath the one we were doing, the reference in section 41(6). There is an amendment being made to section 41(6) of the Coastal Ferry Act, which deals with…. The title in the Coastal Ferry Act, to 41, is "Principles applicable to price cap review," which involves a whole realm of figuring and return on equity.

We looked at the price caps for a route, and the minister said that it was all types of fares, whether it's drivers, passengers, children, underheight, overheight, buses, motorcycles, motorcycle group rates, motorcycle with sidecar — the minister would appreciate the motorcycle comments — kayak, canoe, bicycle, truck over a certain amount.

Then there are all the prepaid books. Not only that with all of those fares…. I'm under the impression that if bikes went up so much, then passengers could come down a bit. As things go up…. It's sort of like hitting the mouse with their head coming up. When one goes up, some can go down. Nobody can understand it. The commissioner has, in his review, said that we need to make this understandable.

[1805]

When we look at section 41(6), it also goes to the return on equity. We've talked about this previously, and I do have a couple of questions about 41(6). But as the minister knows, there is an issue with return on equity, and over the years it's somewhere between 12.7 and, say, 13.7 that they've had to maintain. In 2007 they got 17.5; in '08 they got 12.5 percent. In '09 it was 3 percent, and they were supposed to legislate it to get about 13.6. In 2010, 1.1, and the projections are 2.7 and 1.4 percent. So it's pretty concerning return on equity in this.

The question I have in dealing with 41(6): will there be a huge impact on return on equity? Is that the reason why this was what was put into the legislation that we're just talking about — because there was a concern about return on equity?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: This section deals with the fact that the commissioner is only setting the rates for three years of the four-year term. We're setting the first year, but it reflects the fact that he has to take into account all four years when he determines the ROE, which the commissioner does.

G. Coons: Thank you for that, Minister. As I was reading the legislation and trying to connect the dots along with the real Coastal Ferry Act, I thought that was the answer.

I'd like to look at 45.3(4). It talks about section 42, and we're talking about "no extraordinary price" caps. I think that is very interesting, because that's what section 42 deals with. I'm wondering why the minister decided to have section 42 not apply until October 1, 2012.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What this does is, really, suspends B.C. Ferries' ability to ask for an extraordinary price cap increase during the time that the commissioner is doing his review. That review is due to be completed by September 30. When you look, October 1, 2012, is the day following that.

G. Coons: Just a question: why did the minister decide to suspend price caps during the time of the review?

[1810]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I apologize. I would have misled you. I was talking about the report and confusing that with his final price cap. The issue is that the final price cap will be set by September 30, 2012, not the report, as I'd talked about in the previous answer. Sorry about the confusion, Member.

G. Coons: As far as "no extraordinary price" caps until 2012, I guess my question was…. I'm not too sure if he answered that. Why did the minister choose that date, and why is he declaring a suspension of extraordinary price caps during that time?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The one-year extension obviously comes into play here, Member, and during that one-year extension, while the commissioner is doing his review, we wanted some certainty.

We're working with B.C. Ferries in the meantime as this goes on, but while the review is underway, we wanted certainty that the ferry users would know that that 4.15 percent was it, that B.C. Ferries would not come forward with an extraordinary price-cap increase request to the commissioner, and that's the reason it's in the legislation.

G. Coons: Well, the minister missed his big chance at certainty when we could have frozen them. That's what they really wanted: certainty. Jeez, maybe we should revisit that sometime, Minister. Thank you for that.

Again, as far as no extraordinary price caps, under what circumstances would an extraordinary price-cap increase be allowed?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Under the bill that we're debating here before the House, under no circumstances could that take place — any extraordinary price-cap increase.
[ Page 7776 ]

G. Coons: Thank you for that certainty, Minister.

Moving along, I want to look at subsections 44(2) to 44(11), which is still in 45.3(4). They do not apply until October 1, 2012. And what are subsections 44(2) to 44(11)?

[1815]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The subsections 44(2) through (11) deal with the discontinuance of service on the routes.

G. Coons: Continuing that, there's some new language. I'm looking at (4)(a): "the reference in section 44 (1) to 'the authorization of the commissioner' is deemed to read 'the approval of the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.'" Why the change from the commissioner to you, the minister?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As we spoke about before, these sections deal with the discontinuance of service on routes. During this review period, we've made it clear that B.C. Ferries could not apply under that to the commissioner. But if some unforeseen circumstances…. If we had a ferry go out of service or something happened unforeseen, and God forbid it did, it would be our ability under my jurisdiction that we could deal with that issue. That's what that section deals with.

But the key issue here is that we talked about no extraordinary price cap increases being allowed under the terms of this while the review is going on. There's also no ability to have a discontinuance of service on the routes.

G. Coons: I find it interesting that the minister is now transformed into the Coastal Ferry Act and has a new power to authorize routes to be discontinued. Is that right? The minister has the power to discontinue a route. The minister talked about the circumstances that he sees where routes may be discontinued. What does the legislation say about routes being discontinued? Under what circumstances could a route be discontinued under current legislation?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will note right off that this is a temporary power that is conferred on me as the Minister of Transportation serving the Crown. This is to deal with if there was some unforeseen circumstance occurring. As I said, God forbid something would happen, but if it did, it confers that power to me as the minister during this review period. That's what this section is about.

[1820]

G. Coons: But I do find that interesting. It seems that we're at a point of trusting the minister on this because, you know, you either trust the minister or you go to legislation. I think that's a problem that the commissioner had when he…. And the reason we have this review is that the commissioner had a real problem with looking at the interested ferry users and the sustainability of the corporation, and B.C. Ferries sent him a brief saying: "Do your job. You're legislated to do this as commissioner. You're legislated to do this."

Right now the minister is saying, "Oh, well, these are the reasons," but I'm not quite too sure that those reasons the minister is saying are actually in the legislation. Because it says — now I'm on (4)(b):

"section 45 is deemed to read as follows: 'If, under section 43, the commissioner authorizes a reduction in service on a designated ferry route, or, under section 44, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure approves a discontinuance of all or part of a…ferry route, the price cap set for the applicable route group (a) must be reviewed by the commissioner, and (b) adjusted in the manner…."

So I'm not quite sure. What does section 43 say as far as routes being discontinued?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There are two distinctions here, Member. Section 43 deals with temporary service reduction, so possibly a mechanical situation — I'm trying to think of something — and the commissioner. These would have to be temporary and extraordinary situations. The commissioner would make that evaluation.

[1825]

Section 44 is discontinuance. That is the power we talked about just during the last question, Member. That is the temporary power conferred to the minister.

G. Coons: Okay, yeah. So we've got the reference to the two, a reduction and a discontinuance now. Right. So the minister now has the authority to discontinue a route and can reduce service on a route. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No. The way it works is the commissioner is responsible for any temporary service reduction on that.

G. Coons: Okay. Now, again, when we look at routes that may be discontinuing, does the minister — in what he's done so far in his three or four months — have any routes that may be on the block for being discontinued?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, I certainly don't.

G. Coons: My last question here, hon. Chair, is…. I just wondered: why has the minister — for the first term, I guess, until 2012 — put himself in the position to look at authorizing route discontinuance and/or reduction?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I know that we're going a bit back and forth on this. The member made a comment about the service reduction, and I do want to go back to that first before I go into the discontinuance. The temporary service reduction under section 43 remains with the ferries commissioner.
[ Page 7777 ]

The discontinuance, section 44. Really, the interpretation — I think the member has read this thoroughly and I know does a great deal of work on it — was based on the fact that the ferry corporation could apply for, and I'll give you an example, a discontinuance of a route based on it being uneconomical to run, for instance.

We wanted to make sure that there was certainty during this review period. We've removed that. But we also needed to ensure that if there was some unforeseen reason, outside of it not being economical route — I can think of a number of things, and we can hope they never would occur or become a fact — we needed some form to be able to deal with that unforeseen nature, should it occur. So that temporary power was transferred to the minister, being myself.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that we recess until seven.

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 6:30 p.m. to 7:09 p.m.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Coons: Great to be back for the last 20 or 25 minutes that we've got left here.

On 53.1 in section 2. This deals with "Commissioner to make recommendations." I just have a question to the minister. What process will the commissioner use to review the act and make recommendations?

[1910]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Member, the commissioner will set his engagement with the public. I know that he is very interested in hearing from the public. He has, obviously, in the first letter he has written to me requesting the ability to do this review, expressed the fact that he has heard from the people of British Columbia and their concern. I have the utmost confidence in the commissioner that he will certainly have every opportunity and allow every opportunity for full engagement with the public of British Columbia.

G. Coons: Under this legislation before us, is the commissioner required to hold public meetings or consultations or meetings with stakeholders?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The legislation doesn't cover that, Member, but I believe you've probably seen a copy of the letter. It states in his letter: "The review process will be conducted by the commissioner's office, supported with the expertise of a qualified consulting firm, and will engage with the public and key stakeholders."

I do know he's going to go out and allow for full public engagement. I know the member, in meeting with the commissioner — I believe he said tomorrow — will raise that. I believe the commissioner is turning his mind to that right now.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. Previously I've heard concerns with the mandate and the priorities of the B.C. Ferry Commission. It was back in 2006, and the ferry advisory committee asked him if he would hold public meetings on the islands so that people can ask questions. It says: "The commission will not be holding public meetings, but we look forward to invitations from representative groups."

That was five years ago, when the mandate of the commission was going in a certain direction, and they did not feel that they could host public meetings.

I have a concern about that. I'd like to propose an amendment to this bill, and I did give the minister a copy. If somebody could come along and take this….

I'd like to amend section 2 and section 53.1:

[Section 2...Section 53.1 of the Coastal Ferry Act, SBC 2003, c.14…by adding: ", hold public consultations with stakeholders and in ferry dependent communities" after "review this Act".]

On the amendment.

G. Coons: I think it's an important concept that the commissioner — because there's a past history with the commission saying they don't look after the public interest; they're looking after the financial sustainability of the corporation — would appreciate some mandate and some direction to ensure that he has the support of the minister, of the government and of this House to do the job that he needs to do.

I think by requiring him to hold public consultations with stakeholders and in ferry-dependent communities, it will give a breath of relief to a lot of people who might say: "Yeah, we've had opportunities before to try to have some input, and there's been a refusal because it wasn't a part of the mandate of the commission to do that."

I would hope that at this point in time — the Minister is looking very reflective over there and acknowledging the issue and the concern, especially since I pointed out the ferry advisory committee chair's issues in the past years about having concerns about public meetings — that this would be one that would be supported by all of the House.

[1915]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will rise and speak against the amendment. If the member gives me a moment, I will explain why. I think the intent is laudable, but I do believe that to enshrine this in legislation when we have it in the
[ Page 7778 ]
letter from the independent commissioner that his intent is to engage with the public and key stakeholders….

I guess the concerns I would have…. I have no difference of opinion with the member who raised this and put it forward that his expectation is that the commissioner will travel to communities that are affected. In the finest sense of the terms, when you look at some of the wording, to define a ferry-dependent community, although we may and certainly the member would define that and probably very correctly so…. I think it does put us in somewhat of a position.

If what the member is looking for is whether I as the minister support the commissioner's review and that review encompassing good public engagement, speaking to the communities affected, I think he is going to do that, Member. I understand the intent of the amendment, but I will oppose it.

I do encourage the member in his discussions tomorrow with the ferry commissioner to bring this up. I think he'll probably be more than satisfied with the response. I can't speak for the commissioner, but every indication I've received from him is that he is intending on full public engagement in all areas.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I thought we had a go there, but we'll still work on that one.

Still in section 2, in 53.1 it says that on or before January 24, 2012, the commissioner must review this act.

The Chair: Member, would you take your seat for a moment, please. We didn't vote on the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Chair: Member for North Coast, I thought you were getting up to speak to the amendment.

G. Coons: Oh no, it was so close.

Still on section 2, 53.1, in the legislation it says that the commissioner must review this act. What parameters does the commissioner have in his review?

[1920]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I think it is summed up what the intent of this is in 53.1, the last sentence: "…the commissioner, when exercising his or her powers and performing his or her duties under this Act, to balance the interests of ferry users with the financial sustainability needs of the ferry operators."

I think this whole exercise came about as a result of not only a new commissioner coming forward on this position but what all of us have heard, Member, whether it be yourself, members of the opposition, members of government, the general population — the concerns expressed by the travelling public about the sustainability and the affordability of the ferry system in British Columbia.

I do think the last part of 53.1 defines quite well what the ferry commissioner will be looking at.

G. Coons: Thank you, Minister. I tend to disagree on that.

When we look at the mandate or the priorities of the ferry commissioner, he's listed with six or seven — a priority to be placed on the financial sustainability of the ferry operators, which we're talking about. Then someplace else is just sort of a recommendation, I would say, because it's not under the priorities that he consider the interests of ferry users.

You know, there's a big stretch between the two. That's the problem he's having. I'm just wondering: as far as "the interests of ferry users," is there a definition of that in this legislation?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There is no definition of interests, Member. We did not want to curtail or tie the hands of the commissioner. I think this will be, certainly, a very worthwhile endeavour. Again, I have a great deal of respect for and confidence in the new commissioner. I didn't get an opportunity, really, to work with the old commissioner in that sense, but this one here….

It's very clear, Member, and I think you would agree. I don't want to put words in your mouth. The public have expressed concerns about the affordability and that sustainability for families in this province. Can it continue at the rate increases that we've seen? Those rate increases, Member, do go back. We spoke on this. Between '91 and '99 there were some significant rate increases. Between '03 and today there have been some significant increases.

The ability for the independent ferry commissioner to take a look at this in the interests of the ferry users…. I'm very confident he recognizes that it is all-encompassing. He will do the best he can and then put forward recommendations.

Again, I go back. This is not just based on his ideas. This is going to be based on his public engagement.

G. Coons: I would think that the ferry commissioner before the current one wouldn't want to be referred to as the old one. Perhaps the previous one. I'm sure Martin Crilly would prefer that. We'll refer to him as the previous ferry commissioner.

That's the problem. What ended up happening in Bill 20, the last time we opened up this can of worms — just a little pop, a little hiss — this government put in that the commissioner has a mandate to look after the interests of ferry users. That happened in the last legislation on the Coastal Ferry Act.

[1925]

Here we are with the new commissioner a month into his job, and he's saying: "I can't do it." He needs the definition of what considering the interests of
[ Page 7779 ]
ferry users is. I would think it would be incumbent upon the minister to ensure that the commissioner has the definition of consider the interests of ferry users, because that's why we're in this mess. It was just proposed and put in, in Bill 20 previously, last year, a year and a half ago, and now we're here again with this can of worms.

I'm wondering: is there a difference in the minister's mind between "considering the interests of ferry users" and "looking after the public interest"? Is there a difference between those two terms?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do see a difference between the interests of the ferry users and the public interest. I think they do overlap. I can't predetermine what the independent ferries commissioner is going to do as he looks at his review here, but I would not expect he will be travelling to Pouce Coupe to engage the public there. I know. I see the members on the other side in shock and awe that that may not occur. But I do think that they overlap somewhat.

You spoke about how it is not well-defined what the public interests are. I think that is part of what the independent commissioner's review is going to determine as well. I think that's a very important part. I wouldn't say far too often, but many times I think the public feel that the people in Victoria — I'm speaking about all MLAs — impose their will instead of the will of the people. The independent ferries commissioner is going out to talk to the public, to the interested ferry users, and come back with recommendations on what he thinks will improve the operation.

G. Coons: Again, I agree with the minister. But I think the previous minister said, when the legislation was coming through for Bill 20, that the interests of ferry users was underwritten in the legislation, when I asked her about that previously. Obviously, the commissioner could not find it underwritten within the legislation, because he is now having that problem.

[1930]

On that note, I'm going to propose another amendment. I think the minister has it.

[Section 2...Section 53.1 of the Coastal Ferry Act, SBC 2003, c.14, by adding "by considering the interests of the public good in the interest of ferry dependent communities" after "balance the interests of ferry users,".]

Amendment negatived.

The Chair: Now, in accordance with the motion that was tabled in this Legislature yesterday, it is now 7:30 p.m. I call sections 2 through 6.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 7:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — COASTAL FERRY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2011

Bill 14, Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2011, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. I. Chong: I would like to call committee stage of Bill 11, the Yale First Nation Final Agreement Act.

[1935]

Committee of the Whole House

BIll 11 — YALE FIRST NATION
FINAL AGREEMENT ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 7:36 p.m.

On section 1.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and her staff.

At section 1…. I'm hoping this is in order, but it's the beginning of our session here so I'd just like to get a bit of clarification that I think would apply to the whole bill. I believe it would be in order.

This is all done through regulation. I'm just curious. If we get beyond this point and this bill is ratified by the end of this session, prior to it going for federal ratification — which it's my understanding from the meeting with staff could be up to a year, a fair length of time — what are the provisions for amending sections of the bill? Is that possible? There are regulations. What's involved with that?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll begin just by introducing the staff who are accompanying me here today: my Deputy Minister, Steve Munro, and we have Mark Lofthouse, chief negotiator, and Jeff Loenen, our legal counsel from Ministry of Attorney General.

Thank you for the question. Amendments at this stage are unlikely. If they do occur, they tend to be admin-
[ Page 7780 ]
istrative changes. Anything of substance would have to go back through the agreement process again for ratification by Yale, for example. However, for those administrative changes, if necessary, the process would be for the three negotiators representing each party to sign off on any of those changes.

[1940]

S. Fraser: Thanks for the answer.

If I could follow the train of thought where it's leading me, does that mean, for clarification, that if there was an amendment of substance, as opposed to an administrative amendment, that would then require it to come back to this place? Would it have to come through a process in the Legislature again?

Hon. M. Polak: All three parties would have to sign off on a change. If it was of substance, then it would have to come back to all three places — the Yale for ratification, here for ratification, and if it had already passed through the federal House, it would have to go there.

S. Fraser: Just a bit more on this, if I could. If it was discovered that there was a need for an amendment — something subsequent happened within the next year, hypothetically, prior to ratification at the federal level — is there any difference? I mean, if a situation like that happened, would it be any different if it happened before or after federal ratification? Would the process change at all, and if so, how?

Hon. M. Polak: Should issues arise during the period of implementation or preparation for implementation, the method of addressing those is typically to reach an agreement outside the treaty as opposed to amending the treaty itself. An amendment to the treaty itself, if it was of substance, would essentially amount to renegotiating an agreement.

S. Fraser: Just the final clarification. If the Yale First Nation themselves discovered a mistake or an amendment that would better serve maybe a situation that wasn't anticipated, would that kick in the same process? Would it then have to come back to the province, the federal government? Would it have to be re-ratified in this House through this process and/or the federal House if it happened after federal ratification?

Hon. M. Polak: If it was an amendment of an administrative nature, then the three parties could sign off on it. If it was an amendment of any substance, it would have to go through the entire process again.

S. Fraser: Now, I might have missed it, but do we know where the line is between "administrative" and "substance," and how would that be determined if it isn't clearly defined?

Hon. M. Polak: That is laid out in section 26.8. Again, just to make it clear to the member, it is contemplated that through the implementation process there may need to be discussions that result in other agreements outside of the treaty. That would be the way in which issues are managed through implementation and in fact has already occurred, for example, with the Maa-nulth treaty, which I know the member is familiar with.

S. Fraser: Just moving on. It's still under section 1, but section 1(2). It says: "Words and expressions used in this Act have the same meanings as they have in the Yale First Nation Final Agreement, unless the context requires otherwise." I'm confused by the statement. What exactly does that mean?

[1945]

Hon. M. Polak: This wording is not unique to Yale or the Yale final agreement. It is standard legal terminology to protect against an irrational interpretation of words within the document.

S. Fraser: I don't mean to belabour this, but could I seek the indulgence? Could the minister provide me with an example, just for my clarification, of: "unless the context requires otherwise"? I still don't quite get it.

Hon. M. Polak: We could come back with an example for you, but essentially it's to ensure that there isn't some wild interpretation placed on a word that would generally make sense within the context.

B. Simpson: So the treaty we have in front of us, just for those who end up reading this or paying attention to this…. As legislators, we have a document that is 495 pages long that is the final agreement. But within the context of this chamber, we have a bill, and that bill is the only document that we, as MLAs, can try to impact or affect.

I know that the opposition critic and I have been asked by, in particular, the Stó:lô to look at some amendments. We've clarified that that's not always available to us because the final agreement is a final agreement. It has been negotiated and constitutes a final document.

So all we can do is speak to the bill, but the bill lockstep references the sections of the agreement. Therefore, we can participate in an exercise of trying to understand what's in the agreement and trying to make sure we understand how we arrived at the agreement as well. It's with that in mind that my questions will focus on initially.

In section 1 of this, there's a preamble of whereases. The one I pointed out last evening in second reading mo-
[ Page 7781 ]
tion is: "AND WHEREAS Canadian courts have stated that this reconciliation is best achieved through negotiation and agreement, rather than through litigation." Courts have ruled, time and again, that their preference is not to litigate a resolution to the question of territorial claims and land claims. Their preference is government-to-government negotiation that ends up in a treaty that represents constitutional rights.

It also says: "AND WHEREAS the Yale First Nation Final Agreement embodies the principles of this New Relationship, including mutual respect, recognition and reconciliation of Aboriginal rights and title." And then, "…by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows," and we're on section 1 of the enactment, which is the definitions section.

The definitions section is the first section that actually defines the agreement as between the Yale First Nation, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia.

So for the record, what is the government of British Columbia's understanding of what constitutes the Yale First Nation? What is the Yale First Nation?

Hon. M. Polak: That is defined by Canada in the Indian Act.

[1950]

B. Simpson: Okay, so let me ask the question a different way. What is the minister's understanding of how many people are involved in the Yale First Nation, and what physical land do they claim territorial rights to?

Hon. M. Polak: As of May 2011 those members enrolled through provisions defined in the treaty are 155. That is further described in better detail in section 25.1 of the treaty. Their reserve lands amount to about 217 hectares, and their statement of intent lands as filed with the B.C. Treaty Commission amounted to 103,120 hectares.

B. Simpson: With the minister's forbearance, part of the reason for answering some of the questions, of course, is that some of this won't go into Hansard, into the public record. I know it's in the agreement. In order to avoid reading sections of the agreement in…. That's why I'm asking some of these questions, so that they are available.

So 155 members. I wonder if the minister could clarify, because the public reporting of the vote puts the number of members at 99, with 66 of the members voting in favour of the treaty. If the minister could just simply state what the nature of the vote was, who was registered with a right to vote, how many participated in the vote, and what the actual vote was of the Yale First Nation to accept this treaty.

Hon. M. Polak: Staff are just taking a look at the raw number of people who voted. To answer the member's question — and we can get you the other number afterwards — the difference between the membership of Yale and the number of people who voted is similar to what would happen in a typical general election for us. There are those who were under the age at which they were allowed to vote, and there were others who simply did not vote for a number of different reasons. The vote did pass with 68 percent of those voting in favour.

[1955]

B. Simpson: For a point of reference, because this is going to be part of my questions, certainly, with respect to this treaty…. The Stó:lô First Nation…. There are two components to the Stó:lô First Nation, as I'm sure the minister is aware. What's the minister's understanding of how large that First Nation is?

Hon. M. Polak: This just goes to show that this is probably the lowest television ratings for any Hansard broadcast in the history of the House. In fact, even members present are not watching the proceedings in the House as we proceed. However, we will continue.

Staff are just taking a look at what our official best estimates are in terms of a population attached to Stó:lô. There are, in fact, three components to Stó:lô. There is the tribal council, the treaty association, and then a number of independent Stó:lô bands, so it's three groupings totalling about 29 bands. We'll get you the number in terms of our estimates of attached population.

To go back to the previous question, there was a 94 percent participation rate in the vote, and that amounted to 91 of 97 eligible voters.

B. Simpson: Now that the other distraction is gone, I'm sure that many people will be switching back to Hansard and watching with great interest.

I appreciate the minister getting that feedback from staff, and also the correction. I was talking about the two organizations or bodies. There are ones outside. There are Stó:lô who are self-identifying, as Yale did, and then participating in the treaty process. There are Stó:lô who are not participating in the treaty process, and some Stó:lô bands that are not participating in the Stó:lô organizations.

I guess the reason for raising Stó:lô is that we'll get to the issue of overlapping claims or right-and-title issues. The first process in the resolution of a treaty under the B.C. Treaty Commission process is a statement of intent to negotiate. Could the minister state for the record: what was the time frame for Yale to issue a statement of intent to negotiate?

[2000]

Hon. M. Polak: Just to clarify, the Yale are not Stó:lô, self-identified. They are not a self-identified Stó:lô First
[ Page 7782 ]
Nation. They are, in fact — and have been, under the auspices of our federal government, for the last 110 years — identified as an independent First Nations band. Not Stó:lô, but as Yale. Our estimates have the membership of Stó:lô in all three groupings to amount to about 5,200.

With respect to the statement of intent, the B.C. Treaty Commission accepted the statement of intent to negotiate by Yale on April 26, 1994.

Just a suggestion, a friendly one, in order to keep us moving…. Section 3 moves us into discussion of the entire treaty. I wonder if the members would be interested in passing through sections 1 and 2 and then continuing this discussion under section 3. I leave that to them.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's offer, but we're in the definitions section. There are significant questions about definition, and what we're talking about is kind of the start of definition. Hopefully, Hansard reflects this.

I never indicated at all the contention that Yale was a self-identified Stó:lô. I didn't say that. I just said that Yale self-identified and entered the treaty process.

The minister has indicated that she believes Stó:lô are around 5,000. The Stó:lô themselves have indicated publicly that they believe they're in the 10,000 mark, so there's a difference in an order of magnitude that's quite significant there.

But when the Yale…. Again, the minister must know, because she's had meetings with the Stó:lô, that the Stó:lô disagree with the minister's contention about Yale and Yale's contention about Yale. The Stó:lô contend that Yale is a village of the Stó:lô, and I'll take a look at that in a second. This is under the definitions component, because in definitions the Yale First Nation is defined.

During the statement of intent, it's my understanding — and I look to the minister to disabuse me of that notion — that it's incumbent upon the self-identifying First Nation in the statement of intent to provide the government with a list of any First Nations whose claims overlap with the traditional territory that they have expressed an intent to negotiate around.

At the time, did the Yale First Nation identify the overlapping or conflicting claims of Stó:lô at the date that she indicated they issued a statement of intent?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. Polak: To be clear, it's not my contention that Yale are an independent First Nation and not Stó:lô. They have had their own status as an independent First Nations band for more than 100 years, according to the federal Indian Act, the government of Canada.

With respect to the statement of intent, that is provided not to us. It is provided to the B.C. Treaty Commission. We do not have that documentation. That is strictly managed through the B.C. Treaty Commission, and I suppose the member could seek to access that information from the B.C. Treaty Commission. Nevertheless, that's not information they provide to us. It was provided to the B.C. Treaty Commission, as I said, in April of 1994. They are the ones who make a decision with respect to that, and it is they who hold those documents. We have not seen them.

B. Simpson: I want to be crystal-clear, given the minister's response, that I respect the right of Chief Robert Hope and the Yale First Nation to identify in any form that they wish to in their recognition under federal jurisdiction. I'm not contending that they are Yale or Stó:lô or anything. I'm simply saying that part of the debate around the Yale treaty is the contention from the Stó:lô versus the contention from Yale. The treaty process is clear that in the statement of intent, there is supposed to be a clear statement of where there are overlapping claims.

While the minister does claim that the government isn't responsible, that that goes to the B.C. Treaty Commission, one would think that due diligence on the part of the provincial government…. The B.C. Treaty Commission is not a signatory to this agreement. The government of British Columbia, on behalf of Her Majesty, is a signatory.

[2005]

The government of Canada, on behalf of Her Majesty, is a signatory, and the Yale First Nation is a signatory. The B.C. Treaty Commission is not a signatory, does not have rights to sign.

If the government of British Columbia is going to enter into an agreement that has the potential in any way, shape or form to extinguish the right of another First Nation, I think it would be incumbent upon the government to actually understand whether there are other First Nations rights at stake here.

Let me try it at a different angle. If the minister thinks it's only up to the B.C. Treaty Commission to know…. When was government apprised by either the Yale, the B.C. Treaty Commission or by the Stó:lô that there were serious issues with Yale self-identifying and entering in the process and Stó:lô not having their rights guaranteed, either by way of letter of intent or by way of a process that their issues could be heard?

The B.C. Treaty Commission hopefully got it in the statement of intent, but when was the government apprised that there was an issue with respect to the Stó:lô overlapping claim?

Hon. M. Polak: Let's be clear about how the statement of intent process operates. The B.C. Treaty Commission are charged with making that decision. They are independent, and we do not, as government, have a right to interfere with that decision. In fact, we would be contravening the role of the B.C. Treaty
[ Page 7783 ]
Commission and our role if we were to, as the member suggests, consider it due diligence to examine the B.C. Treaty Commission's decision. That process, by the way, was established back in 1992.

We certainly understand our obligations, and that is one of the reasons that we continue to consult not only with Stó:lô, but also with other impacted First Nations. We fully expect to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

But the member should be aware that further in the Yale agreement, in fact, under section 2.12(2)(b), there is an explicit provision that deals with what the member is concerned about. The member said that prior to us potentially extinguishing the rights of other First Nations…. In fact, according to the treaty itself, that actually cannot happen.

The section reads as follows. That's a provision of the treaty. "If the provision cannot operate and have effect in a way that does not adversely affect that right" — in other words, the right of another First Nation — "the Parties will make best efforts to amend this Agreement to remedy or replace that provision." That continues in place going forward through the implementation of a treaty.

In other words, there is no possibility of extinguishing the right of another First Nation. It is, in fact, enshrined in this treaty, as it would be in any other, recognizing that in the entire province, there is truly only one First Nation that does not have overlap issues with other First Nations. Yet we intend, as time goes by, to successfully reach agreements with First Nations in spite of those difficulties.

B. Simpson: We will get to section 2 and that clause in particular because, of course, the language is "best efforts," and best efforts to date in these late stages of the final agreement have not led to resolution. So it is conceivable that the Yale treaty…. We'll get into the issues of permitting, gatekeeping, giving what the Stó:lô believe are their time immemorial rights of access away to another First Nations.

I think the Stó:lô would disagree vehemently with the minister about the nature of extinguishment and the comfort that they might get from best-effort language in the agreement. Maybe I'll ask the question to the minister: at any point in the agreement, is Stó:lô recognized as existing?

[2010]

Hon. M. Polak: The reason that Stó:lô are not mentioned in this treaty is because this is the Yale treaty, not the Stó:lô treaty. There is a provision — not just the one that I read, but also one that deals with the right to reasonably access the areas that the Stó:lô would be interested in. Again, we understand our obligations, and we'll continue to consult with Stó:lô and with other First Nations that are impacted.

It is worth noting that in the case of the Maa-nulth treaty and the overlap dispute that took place with the Tseshaht First Nation, the agreement to resolve that only came into place two weeks before the implementation date. The treaty had been fully ratified three years prior to that.

This is certainly not out of sync with the way in which we have conducted ourselves in negotiations with other First Nations and in concluding other treaties. In fact, it can be argued that the satisfactory conclusion of agreements such as the one with Tseshaht is actually easier to get to once you have some parameters, as defined in a final agreement. They can very often be easier to reach than with the blank slate that exists before one has a final agreement in place.

I want to reiterate. We certainly understand our obligations. We have provided for the mitigation of any impacts on the Stó:lô within the treaty in that particular section, and we intend to continue the consultations with them to ensure that their rights are protected fully.

S. Fraser: I'm just going to step into this for a moment, because the minister made a comment about the Tseshaht First Nation and the Maa-nulth treaty. I was present. It was just days before the implementation of the Maa-nulth treaty that the Tseshaht and the five Maa-nulth Nations did arrive at an accommodation.

I would submit that that's maybe not a fair analogy to this situation. In this situation there is quite a…. I don't know if "acrimonious" would be the right word, but this is quite a volatile situation — the history of the questions about the access and territorial boundaries and the historic use of the canyon itself that are identified, certainly, for the Yale and the Yale treaty here. The conflict, if you will, with the Stó:lô over that predates the first reading of the treaty.

To a large extent, I'd say it's of a different magnitude than anything that occurred between the Maa-nulth First Nations and the Tseshaht — and, of course, being mindful that of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations in and around Clayoquot Sound and Barkley Sound, the Tseshaht, as well as the five Maa-nulth Nations, were all Nuu-chah-nulth.

There may have been discussions about territorial issues, certainly, and maybe disagreements, but it was not of the scale…. It's not nearly comparable, I do believe. I just wanted to clarify that. I have some experience with what's happening on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

B. Simpson: Thanks to the opposition critic for stepping in on that, because I also want to clarify…. I do appreciate…. The minister sent me a note yesterday, after my second reading, when I intimated incorrectly, from understanding the opposition critic's opening
[ Page 7784 ]
remarks, that the Tseshaht was done before the final agreement was reached. The minister disabused me of that notion.

So I went and I did some reading on that. That's where I want to go now, because the opposition critic is correct. We're looking at a fundamental difference in these two circumstances, and also the belief by many experts in treaty negotiations, by many First Nations that the government is on a slippery slope. What happened in the Maa-nulth was resolved, for reasons that I'll illustrate momentarily.

[2015]

What's happening in the Yale may not be resolved, and I think it gives little comfort — in fact, I know it gives little comfort — to the Stó:lô that reasonable access is somehow guaranteed through this treaty and that it's somehow easier to reach an agreement on unresolved territorial claims if one of the parties needing resolution gets the claim and the other has to argue their case in the court or with government post.

The best analogy I can come up with is two children playing in a sandbox. An adult comes along, picks one, says, "It's your sandbox," and then to the other one: "Well, now that we know it's this person's sandbox, you've got the right now to prove that you get a share of the sandbox or that you get reasonable access." That's how it feels to the Stó:lô. I see the minister nodding her head in the no, but it's the Stó:lô who are the ones who are living with the consequences of this, not the minister.

In the case of the Tseshaht, we have a situation in which…. And I'll come to the question. When a statement of intent is put before the B.C. Treaty Commission and the territorial claims of other First Nations are named, there are two opportunities or two ways of approaching overlap agreements.

The first is to simply exclude them outright from the treaty table. So those are excluded, and no rights are allocated to any of the parties in an exclusion agreement. The treaty is then formed, and only in areas where there's an agreement that that First Nation has primary right and there's an agreement around overlap that's not contested. That's dealt with, but the area that's under contention is excluded.

The second way to do that is to establish a boundary agreement or a joint resource management agreement or some kind of memorandum, and that's what the case was in the Tseshaht. They had an agreement. That agreement was what allowed them then to finally reach the agreement before the full implementation of the treaty. The agreement then became, as I understand it, an appendix to the treaty, and some of the rights….

Okay, so I'm misunderstanding that. Again, I read a lot over the last couple of days. So I'll take that off the table.

My point is that the work was done after statement of intent. Agreement was made then that what they would do is do a terms and a joint resource agreement. As the minister knows, the Maa-nulth is part of the Nuu-chah-nulth. There was a division there, and part of that division is a small group, self-identified, who entered the treaty process. The Tseshaht was caught in the middle.

As part of what went on there, and to the opposition critic's point, the accord that was facilitated before the implementation was facilitated by the Treaty Commission. It used the memorandum that already existed as a tool to reach that agreement so that all parties could celebrate.

But here's what Tseshaht Chief Councillor Les Sam warned to government: "Now that it's been accomplished, I would challenge the federal and provincial government to append this document to the Maa-nulth treaty" — so that's where I got it from; there was a challenge to append it — "and to include consultations between all nations as part of the treaty process. Imagine all the trouble they could save if they just started out doing the right thing in the first place."

That's really what the contention is here. For the record, Madam Speaker, from a reputable source that was provided to me. Hugh Brody, the Canada Research Chair in Aboriginal Studies at the University of the Fraser Valley, has a piece that he has written about the risks of the Yale agreement.

He points out an interesting fact. He states:

"Experts on aboriginal fishery on this stretch of the Fraser River in question in the Yale treaty" — which the Yale get control of and now can give permitting or reasonable access to the Stó:lô — "estimate that 60 percent of the salmon harvest in Stó:lô communities of the Fraser Valley area still come from some 93 family fishing sites in the canyon. The lands include most, if not all, of the fishing sites that the Stó:lô Coast Salish people have developed, managed and used for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. So it looks as though the Yale agreement is an important reckoning with history."

It says it does and does not pay due attention to history, and what it points out is it actually makes the situation for the Stó:lô more untenable because the Stó:lô, as a people, were actually moved by the settlement government out of that territory and down into the agricultural lands in the Chilliwack area. That's what's weakened, if you will, their claim because they're not living there any more. But they were moved out of there by the settlement government, not by their own accord.

[2020]

My question to the minister: is it the minister's understanding that, at any time during the treaty process, either an exclusionary agreement was arrived at, taking into consideration Stó:lô claims, or an understanding or a resource-sharing agreement or joint management agreement was arrived at, as part of the treaty process, that either the Stó:lô or the Yale can point to as a possible way forward to resolve this outstanding issue?
[ Page 7785 ]

Hon. M. Polak: That's a wide-ranging question, so I'm going to do my best to address the components that were raised.

I first want to go back just briefly and address the comments around Maa-nulth. One cannot say that there is an identical, apple-to-apple comparison, but it is worth noting that the disputes with respect to the Broken Islands group — which is a huge, huge geographic area — were not insubstantial. This was a pretty big dispute.

In fact, the agreement that was reached was reached between the nations. It's not something that we are a party to and, hence, one of the reasons it would not be appended to the treaty. There are still ongoing negotiations to settle finer points of that, the important thing being that the parties are interested in reaching resolution. Indeed, that is a model that, if you think about it, occurs all the time with local governments that are non-aboriginal, where various things arise.

It's really important to note that nothing in the treaty modifies Stó:lô's rights. I'll say that again. Nothing in the treaty modifies Stó:lô's rights. The fishing right for the Yale is not exclusive. They have no right to control the fishing on the river. The only thing they have the right to control with that respect exclusively is their treaty settlement lands.

With respect to that, in order to address some of the concerns that have been raised by Stó:lô, that is why there is a provision in section 14.8 that reads as follows: "14.8.1 Yale First Nation will consider a request by an individual for Reasonable Access to Yale First Nation Land other than Frozen Lakes Land and may refuse such request on reasonable grounds. In the event that Yale First Nation accepts the request, Yale First Nation will provide the individual with a Permit, or otherwise allow Reasonable Access to the requested site."

The test is reasonable access. It is not specifically named as a Stó:lô right, because this is a Yale First Nation treaty and the right applies to anyone who would wish to access what is a non-exclusive fishing right that would be governed by the minister and by environmental regulations and others.

It is also important to note that in terms of the work that has been done prior to reaching this final agreement, in discussions with Stó:lô, negotiators have repeatedly sought from Stó:lô identification of specific sites, specific locations about which they have concerns, and to date they have not been able to provide any.

With respect to the specific questions asked by the member, there was 100 percent overlap with respect to Stó:lô's claims and Yale's claims. So there was no exclusionary agreement that could be reached, and there was no shared-territory agreement as we entered in that. I apologize if I've missed any of the areas that the member inquired about.

B. Simpson: Because of the sensitive nature of this issue, again, I want to make a statement of respect for Chief Robert Hope and the Yale. In my conversations with Chief Joseph Hall, he has also indicated the same respect.

[2025]

Chief Joseph Hall has indicated quite clearly that he believes that 90 to 95 percent of this treaty they can live with. While they believe fundamentally that Yale is a Stó:lô village, they don't contest Yale's right to self-identify because, in fact, there are other Stó:lô bands that are self-identifying that they're going to have similar overlapping claims.

The issue here is not as simple as the minister makes it, though. It's better for me simply to reflect the Stó:lô language that they've provided both the opposition critic and myself with. One pertains to chapter 1, definitions of a permit.

This is the commentary from the Stó:lô itself that should be on the public record.

"The permit. This provision would allow Yale to charge a fee to Stó:lô for a permit to access their own fishing rights. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly held that this is not lawful for B.C. to do. They cannot through the back door now set up a system whereby another level of government in B.C. can now demand permits for Stó:lô to fish. This is unconstitutional."

Not my language, Madam Chair. That's the language of the Stó:lô.

As the minister indicated, we have a 100 percent overlapping claim. We're not talking about a few areas that are in dispute. To show the untenable nature of the minister's contention that somehow the idea of reasonable access and definition around "reasonable," which is similar to the definition around "best efforts," if the minister was part of the group that felt that they were completely disenfranchised, their rights extinguished, I think that she would also feel the same discomfort with words like "best efforts" and "reasonable access" and the interpretation of those terms.

With respect to this specific portion, and we will get to that in section 14, but because the minister referenced it, I can rebut just now that:

"Yale First Nation will consider a request by an individual for Reasonable Access to Yale First Nation Land other than Frozen Lakes Land" — which we'll get to — "and may refuse such request on reasonable grounds."

So reasonable access and reasonable refusal.

"In the event that Yale First Nation accepts the request, the Yale First Nation will provide the individual with a Permit, or otherwise allow Reasonable Access to the requested site."

So for the Stó:lô: that's again saying that it's now the Yale's sandbox and that permission has to be given by another First Nation, a permission that is not, in their estimation… Again, I'm trying to reflect the spirit and intent of the conversation and the briefing I've been given. It's a restricted access that is not permitted as far as they're concerned under the constitution of Canada, but will be restricted and permitted under a treaty. So that's the issue.
[ Page 7786 ]

You have unrestricted access by the constitution of Canada, and you now have restricted access by a treaty signed by Canada and British Columbia. That access is by permission of another First Nation which the minister indicates has a 100 percent overlapping claim.

So the real issue is basically who raced to the table first, who made their claim known first, who got it signed off first, and now Stó:lô is only going to get a best efforts attempt and reasonable access.

So the Stó:lô's commentary on that is:

"This is unacceptable. Yale First Nation has never functioned as a gatekeeper to the canyon for Stó:lô. Stó:lô do not now and never have asked permission from Yale First Nation to access their fishing rights which are property fully owned by Stó:lô families. It is not acceptable to establish a permitting system whereby Yale First Nation will be able to determine whether Stó:lô can access their property and on what terms."

That's the nature of the contention, and the minister must know that this has already come very close to the potential for violence. The potential for violence exists as well as the potential for serious litigation.

So my question to the minister, since she raised it: who determines "reasonable" in this case? The word is "reasonable." Who determines what is reasonable access?

[2030]

Hon. M. Polak: First, the term "reasonable" is an objective standard that is defined in law, and it is included because of that very definition and nature of that definition. Let's deal, then, with that section.

The section that the member and I have been referring to, section 14.8, is drafted in the positive. As a result, I am advised by legal counsel that the Yale could not refuse a request that was reasonably made. The section is also drafted broadly so that it applies not only to Stó:lô but also to other members of the public who may wish to access fishing on the river.

You will note that not only is a permitting method mentioned, but also it refers to other means by which access could be granted. We would anticipate that the eventual agreement that could be reached with Stó:lô would not involve permitting. It would likely be some type of non-permitting agreement together with the Yale.

We will continue to be consulting and discussing with Stó:lô, and we have every expectation that in the rather lengthy period of time between now and implementation, we would be able to reach such an agreement.

Another very important thing to note, I believe, is that we can't forget that there is a pre-treaty context, and in the pre-treaty context, the areas of concern are, for the most part, existing treaty lands. As of right now, the Yale already have control over those reserve lands. So the reserve lands on which the Yale currently reside are, by and large, the areas that are of concern. They are the ones that are right down at the river.

So truly, when it comes to those lands, in fact having this particular section now apply to those lands that will become treaty settlement lands actually spells out far more clearly the capacity for other people, including Stó:lô, to access fishing on the river that, without this section, they certainly do not have as a guarantee explicit as it is found in the treaty section.

B. Simpson: To the minister's point of, again, how the First Nations that claim that they were on that land since time immemorial, as Yale does, I'm sure the minister must be able to understand how the Stó:lô then feel that in the Yale treaty, they're relegated to another third party, just with non-aboriginal interest, commercial interests, others that the Yale First Nation can deem by permit that made a reasonable request.

Again, I'm sure the minister must at least understand the egregious nature of just even the language that's being used here — that along with anybody else, the Stó:lô can get reasonable access, when the Stó:lô, as the minister has already indicated, have a claim over the entire area as a primary claim, as a time-immemorial claim, just like the Yale.

I'm sure that the Yale First Nation, if the shoe was on the other foot and they were being accorded reasonable access by permit by Stó:lô, would feel exactly the same as the Stó:lô. I hope the minister's not suggesting that the Stó:lô's visceral reaction to this is somehow a surprise, given the history of this dispute.

But the question remains, and maybe the minister can point to it in the treaty. As I said, here we are in the eleventh hour of a session that has been truncated. We have time allocation. As MLAs, we saw this treaty a few days ago, and relative to all of the other work that we've got, 495 pages of it.

[2035]

Somewhere in here, maybe, the minister can answer the question of what the dispute resolution mechanism process is whereby the Stó:lô can actually come to somebody and say: "We believe we asked for reasonable access. That access was denied."

What is the dispute resolution mechanism available to the Stó:lô as one of the First Nations in this case, between Yale and Stó:lô, that claim time-immemorial rights to that same territory?

Hon. M. Polak: First, I just want to make it clear that we certainly do understand the concerns of Stó:lô. We understand the very emotional nature of the attachment to the land of all First Nations. I should point out, though, in terms of context, that Stó:lô also have a virtually 100 percent claim overlap with the Tsawwassen First Nation. Indeed, they have worked out arrangements with Tsawwassen. Some of those were not worked out prior to the signing of the treaty and, in fact, were worked out following that.

In terms of the dispute resolution, it is important to note that the implementation of the treaty is not only
[ Page 7787 ]
up to Yale. The implementation of the treaty is up to Canada, British Columbia and Yale, and should there be issues with respect to that implementation, then we would expect those to be resolved through negotiation. We intend to continue to work toward that end with Stó:lô, and we fully expect to be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion to those discussions.

But we recognize that given the historic nature of the dispute, it stands to reason that this would take a considerable amount of time and effort, and we're quite willing to do that. In fact, when I met with the Stó:lô, and again when I wrote them after the meeting, I committed to them that we wished to continue to engage with them and were committed to ensuring that their rights were not extinguished in any way by the Yale agreement.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments about understanding how the Stó:lô feel. However, I don't think it's the same case with the Tsawwassen as the minister indicates. Yes, there was a claim there, but the minister must know that the level of acrimony, the level of the desire for the Stó:lô to have the claim on the Fraser is not the same as that expressed for Tsawwassen.

I have the situation with the Nazko and northern Shuswap. You do get these statements of overlapping claims, testing the water, making sure interests are protected, etc., but not to the degree that we have on the Fraser portion where the Yale is. So I don't think the comparison holds.

The minister has indicated that the process still lies with Canada, with British Columbia and with the Yale. But my question was actually quite particular, because if it is in the treaty…. Again, I haven't had an opportunity to go through the whole treaty. What is the actual process, though?

If Stó:lô have trouble even agreeing to the permitting process — which, again, they're going to have.... The minister knows this. You know, they contend that agreeing to being permitted or agreeing to give Yale gatekeeper rights is in and of itself a concession to something they don't believe should have happened. But suppose that they did, and they were denied those rights. My question is very specific. What is it that the Stó:lô need to do? How do they initiate a process, and what does the actual process look like to determine that legal application of "reasonable"?

[2040]

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, there are varying degrees of acrimony that present themselves when parties can't come to an agreement, especially with respect to things that are of such an emotional nature and where there are such strong historic ties between people and the land. Nevertheless, having grown up in the Fraser Valley, I'm aware of the kind of acrimony that has existed with respect to the claims that cross over between Stó:lô and Yale and other First Nations in the valley.

I would put it to the member that that exists already and has existed for many years with varying degrees of heightening to the tensions, depending on what happens to be going on at the time. I would also put it to the member that there is significant potential to improve that situation now that the treaty provisions will allow for a far clearer definition of what the rights of the parties entail and how they may be actioned.

With respect to process, again, I would advise the member that we believe it would be highly unlikely that the process through which the Stó:lô would access their fishing rights would be one of a permit.

In fact, we have every expectation that it would likely be a blanket agreement and that within that agreement there would be a dispute resolution process. There would be mechanisms to reach decisions when there are disputes that arise. Certainly, it is our intent to negotiate such an agreement and such provisions that would ensure that the Stó:lô have even improved access when one considers the history on that part of the river over the last many decades.

It is our hope and our expectation that we would be able to negotiate such a blanket agreement and provide better certainty to the definition of the rights of Stó:lô in that area of the river than currently exist outside of treaty.

B. Simpson: This is one of the reasons why last night I moved a hoist motion for six months, because the argument the minister's making — the final agreement is on the table and it's now in process towards implementation, etc…. I still think that hoist and — the opposition critic indicated — referral to committee…. We could have maybe tidied some of this up.

Again, the minister is indicating from the government's perspective…. And the government obviously wants this treaty. It's another treaty. It's another resolution of an outstanding claim. But the minister's contention that somehow it clarifies and makes it easier…. It clarifies it for one nation to the exclusion of the other nation, other than if you take it that the other nation gets clarified because that one nation gets rights that it doesn't. So the clarification aspect is one-sided — again, the contention from Stó:lô.

Secondly, the minister indicated that they don't have an expectation. It's another reason why it's quite conceivable that this should be taken, put aside, not rushed debate and not do all of this stuff. But the minister's contention is that it's not the government of British Columbia's belief that Stó:lô will get access by permit, that there will be a blanket agreement negotiated somewhere.

I wonder if the minister could refer to what section of the final agreement talks about a blanket agreement that would cover off Stó:lô's specific rights in this case and resolve Stó:lô's specific rights by blanket agreement as opposed to the process of permitting.

[2045]
[ Page 7788 ]

Hon. M. Polak: First, to the member's specific question. That, again, is part of section 14.8.1, where it references that the Yale First Nation will provide the individual with a permit or otherwise allow reasonable access to the requested site. It is written in an enabling manner so that it facilitates the negotiating of such an agreement, and that's our expectation with respect to the process that would engage Stó:lô.

With respect to, though, the idea that one would delay for six months and then reach an agreement, it's highly unlikely that one would reach an agreement in six months or less. The Maa-nulth agreement took pretty much three years for what the member himself suggested was a much more simple dispute.

The Yale right now, under the Indian Act…. Let's pretend for a moment that there is no treaty in discussion right now. Right now, as it stands, the Yale have exclusive rights to control their reserve land, which makes up the vast majority of what amounts to treaty settlement land in the treaty. So right now, under the Indian Act, the reserve land is under the control exclusively of Yale, and that is the vast majority of the sites that are entailed in the treaty settlement lands.

So when I referenced the fact that the treaty actually goes a long way to enshrine the rights of Stó:lô to access and the rights of other British Columbians to access fishing in those areas, it is, in fact, provable simply by looking at the current status of access through those lands to fishing. Right now there is no provision that protects those rights. The treaty does put in place that provision in section 14.8.

B. Simpson: We're winding down for the evening, but I want to do a couple of things. I have a pointed question, and then the opposition critic is going to close off.

So again, to the minister's contention…. It may appear to some that we're arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but the reality is that the minister is contending that the Stó:lô, like everybody else….

The minister's reference, and we'll get to section 14, doesn't have any reference to blanket agreement. The minister indicated that her expectations are that the Yale would enter into a blanket agreement with Stó:lô. But the Yale could enter into a blanket agreement with commercial fishermen, could enter into a blanket agreement with recreational fishermen, could enter into blanket agreements with whomever.

The minister stipulated, and the Hansard would show it, that it's her expectation or the government of British Columbia's expectation that Stó:lô would not have to go through a permitting process but that a negotiation would occur in which they would have a blanket agreement — and then turned around and quoted a passage that doesn't say that. It just actually says that other arrangements are available and that those same arrangements are available to anybody else who wants to get access outside of a permit process.

The second point I want to make is that the minister is again contending that I would say: "Go back to square one." That's not what I'm saying at all. The reason for a six-month hoist, which was defeated by the House, is that the final agreement is actually on the table. So all that the minister is saying about defining rights, defining what the lay of the land is….

It would be on the table, then, and simply give the Stó:lô, who are seeing this for the same first time that we MLAs are seeing it, the same first time that…. They have understood that things are evolving, but now that they've got it here, they would then enter into a relationship with the government to figure these things out.

So my question is to the minister, to close off my part for tonight. The minister has indicated she believes that permitting won't be the way that the Stó:lô will access their rights, that it will be by way of blanket agreement. The minister indicated that she thought that could be negotiated. So is the minister indicating a commitment to some due process whereby Stó:lô will be able to remove the need for permitting and replace it with a blanket agreement?

[2050]

If so, what does that look like, and how long does she think it might take?

Hon. M. Polak: First and foremost, it's worth noting in this discussion, because it is a significant part of the context, that this treaty and the discussion of the treaty and the implementation of the treaty does not exist outside of section 35 of the Constitution of Canada.

Section 35 provides a very important context within which a treaty must operate and, as such, it is not correct to say that Stó:lô are like everyone else. In fact, what I am trying to present to the member is that the provision in 14.8 would allow access to Stó:lô as well as allowing access to the general public. It is not for a moment to equate the rights of the general public with the rights of Stó:lô. As I've said before, the Yale treaty does nothing to negatively impact on the rights of Stó:lô.

When it comes down to what could potentially be negotiated, it could be a blanket agreement with Stó:lô on the whole. It could be an agreement with individual Stó:lô families who have historic residence in the Yale area.

All of those things are potentially available to negotiate. These are negotiations that would result in an agreement between Yale and the interested parties of Stó:lô, be they Stó:lô on the whole, Stó:lô in a particular grouping of some of the 29 nations or, indeed, individual families. This is a negotiation, and it is impossible to predetermine what form will find satisfaction with all parties that would be within the negotiation.
[ Page 7789 ]

It is not correct to say that the Stó:lô have not had access to or knowledge of the wording of the Yale final agreement. The developing language of the agreement has been shared with them going back to 2008 and, in fact, the final agreement language was available to them as early as 18 months ago.

S. Fraser: I'd just like to make a comment. First of all, I support the Yale people and applaud Chief Robert Hope and acknowledge his father before him and the work they've done for 17 years. I do support the Yale people in their bid here for treaty, and I will be voting thusly.

This debate that we're having…. We're on section 1. It's an important one. It's part of the check and balance. While I don't agree with…. I couldn't vote in favour of a hoist motion. I have suggested that there are so many issues in a treaty of this nature, in any treaty, but it's 515 pages, including the bill, if you will.

We've had very little time, as the member for Cariboo North has stated. We have requested in the opposition an extension of this sitting, which is a very small sitting after ten months of not sitting, and this would be a reason for that two weeks' extension, which was denied.

So we're sitting here still on section 1. I have a few more questions on it, but I needed to make that clarification. I'm going to make the plea again to the minister. I believe Bill 11 will pass. I hope we have a bit of time tomorrow still — an hour, maybe. That may get truncated, too, because of another issue that's coming to the House, and there's limited time.

But there's never been more of a need than using one of the basic tools of this Legislative Assembly, and that is to empower the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs so that both sides of the House, members on the government side and on the opposition side, have the opportunity to actually address some of these issues. We shouldn't be here at the eleventh hour on section 1, knowing that we're going to run out of time.

[2055]

It doesn't make for the process of this House to work in a process that should be a celebratory one for all the people of British Columbia. It has been exclusive, it has been secretive, and it is leading to a problem in actually deliberating over just section 1 of this bill, Bill 11. We're trying to get through section 1 before we close today.

I guess I have a couple other questions on definitions. I would note Five Mile fishery. It's not in the definition section. That, I believe, is problematic, certainly for the Stó:lô, who have claims to canyon fishing rights also, certainly regarding Five Mile fishery. That term is not even acknowledged in the definitions, which is section 1. Can the minister verify that and comment and maybe explain why that has been excluded? That is a problem, certainly, for the Stó:lô.

Hon. M. Polak: To go back to a few points, yes, there are very many issues around this treaty. There were very many around Maa-nulth, very many around Tsawwassen. There always will be.

A treaty is a beginning. It is a new way of relating, and we do not expect that a treaty is the end of dialogue and negotiation. In fact, in many ways, because a treaty lays out a framework that didn't exist under the reserve system in the Indian Act, it in essence opens up a whole new range of discussions, negotiations — be that in the manner of Tsawwassen as it discusses its new relationship with Metro Vancouver or with TransLink or with other municipalities…. We expect that treaties will be a beginning point of negotiation, not an end point.

As far as the select standing committee, I'm sure the member knows that it's not up to me as the minister to charge the committee. I do want to say…. I know that we have time constraints, and in the interest of getting through the bill, I would suggest that perhaps we discuss, ahead of our time tomorrow, whether or not some of these matters really take us well outside section 1. We should perhaps be going through these issues in a more orderly fashion, given that we are dealing, I think, well outside the definition section.

To the specific question, the Five Mile fishery is not dealt with specifically in the treaty, and that's because the treaty deals with land. It deals with the treaty settlement lands that are now, under the treaty, becoming the lands owned by the Yale. The fishery is a non-exclusive fishery, and the treaty does not in any way impact on the rights of those who would take part in the Five Mile fishery.

S. Fraser: I believe that the minister's statement would be a contentious one from the Stó:lô's point of view, certainly in some of the issues they've raised with me and that we're trying to get clarification on in this House. I'm going to move on, because certainly section 14 is a place to possibly look at the fisheries issues further. I'm hopeful that we can get to that tomorrow.

One other definition, though: Frozen Lakes Land is a contentious part of this treaty, certainly from the Stó:lô point of view, and I understand the importance for Yale also. But again, in the definitions section of the treaty here, it says it "means the Yale First Nation land described as 'Yale First Nation Land — Former Provincial Crown land,'" and then, of course, it's cited in a map 3 and appendix B-3.

[2100]

I understand the minister's statement about not citing Stó:lô in a Yale agreement. Fair enough. But the minister and her staff must know how contentious Frozen Lakes Land is and the claims that span the Stó:lô also. So I just wonder: was there a specific reason to lay it out strictly as Yale? Under that definition, I would suggest it excludes historic use that the Stó:lô claim.
[ Page 7790 ]

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:01 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 9:03 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

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

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

On Vote 10: Office of the Premier, $9,455,000.

The Chair: We're currently debating the budget estimates of the Office of the Premier.

Do you have an opening statement?

Hon. C. Clark: Before I begin, I'd like to just take a second to introduce some of the staff who are with me today. John Dyble is my deputy minister and cabinet secretary. He's also the head of B.C.'s public service, a job which he performs very ably. Michelle Leamy, who's the director of executive operations for the Office of the Premier, is sitting beside me. Deborah Fayad is the assistant deputy minister and the executive financial officer at the Ministry of Finance. All of them are here to make sure that we can provide all of the answers that the opposition is looking for today.

When I was sworn in as Premier, I committed to making change in government. I committed to focusing on three things, and those were families, creating jobs and opening up government. We've begun to move, I think, very quickly and very aggressively on making sure that we reach all of those goals. We've got a long way to go, and we have a lot of work ahead of us, but we are already making progress, and I'm delighted about that.

When I said that government would put families at the centre of decision-making, I meant things like raising the minimum wage and eliminating the training wage, so that some people who are at the bottom of the wage scale could have a little bit better chance of getting ahead.

We launched the review of B.C. Hydro rates to find ways to reduce the impact on families. We supported the B.C. Ferry Commissioner's review of ferries to better reflect fairness for families who use the ferries.

We've eliminated parking fees in B.C. parks, which I think is one of those small things that makes a difference for families, because British Columbia's incredible natural splendour is something that we should be enjoying and that parents should be introducing their children to. We wanted to make that a little bit easier by eliminating those park fees.

We've increased the gaming grant funding for more than 2,000 non-profit community groups, recognizing that those community groups are really what underpin our society. They're what make communities so strong. I always say that the most important element, the most important unit, of a society is the family. Absolutely, it's the family. Supporting the family are all of those community groups, which are there to support us and fill the gaps, sometimes in times of crisis and sometimes when we need help.

I promised that we would open up government to British Columbians, that we would talk about the problems that government has and that we would work with citizens to try to find solutions. I don't think there's any better approach to that than what we did in working to improve the HST.

I don't think there's any better example of that than listening to almost 300,000 British Columbians in the largest listening exercise in the history of British Columbia and seeking their ideas about what we needed to do to improve the HST. That's why we are offering to reduce it — or telling British Columbians that it will be reduced, should it pass at referendum — from 12 percent to 10 percent so that British Columbia families have a little bit better chance to get ahead, recognizing something that we heard all across the province.

I have been hearing this for years from British Columbians. Families really feel like they're squeezed. Even though, in many cases, they're earning two incomes and their incomes are going up a little bit, they still find it tougher and tougher every day to get ahead.

That's why we decided that we wanted to make the HST something that was a lot fairer than it had been. We
[ Page 7791 ]
wanted to respond to the report that the independent panel did, which told us that families were going to be bearing an additional $350 burden if we didn't do something to change it.

[1455]

I didn't think that was fair, so that's why we changed it. That's why we changed it — to give transitional support for families but also to reduce the rate from 12 percent to 10 percent. Going further than that, we're making sure that we're paying for that by rebalancing the burden of taxation a little bit so that business is paying more and families are paying less.

Those were all things that we heard when we went out and took the time to talk to citizens about what they wanted from their government. It's a new way of doing government, not just with the 300,000 British Columbians that we talked to formally over the HST, but all those British Columbians that I have been speaking to in the town hall meetings that we've done across the province — unscripted, open town hall meetings where anybody can come and raise the questions that are most important to them and their families.

Those have been great. They've been great because they haven't been an opportunity just for government to say: "Here's what we want you to know." It's for citizens to say to government: "Here's what we want you to know, and here's what we think you should be doing." If we want to talk about engaging citizens, we have to make sure that citizens have access to decision-makers in a way that they haven't had before.

Those are just some of the ways we're opening up government. We have a lot more to do when it comes to opening up government. I'm sure we'll get a chance to talk about that a little bit throughout the course of these estimates.

I created a smaller cabinet. Part of that was the new Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, which is focused on creating the conditions that will allow jobs to thrive. I don't believe that government creates jobs. I believe that government, though, can impair the creation of jobs. We can enable the creation of jobs. We are very much interested in finding ways that we can enable the creation of jobs by the private sector, because it is jobs that are the bedrock of healthy communities and healthy families.

If you want to do the best possible job you can as a parent, or as a grandparent, or as a child looking after your aging parent, or your siblings — or whoever it is in your circle of people who love you and support you — the most important thing you need, to be able to do that as well as you can, is a job. It is a source of income, to be able to support the people you love in your life.

That's why, when we talk about a jobs agenda, it's a families agenda. We often, I think, in government talk about jobs and the economy like it's this abstract set of statistics, and it isn't. It is not abstract. The reason we care about economic growth and a thriving jobs economy is because people need to work. People need to be able to work and bring home an income if they're going to support the people in their lives that they love. There is a very intimate connection between our economic health and our families' health. So when I say families first, part of what I mean is creating a thriving economy.

Those are all things that we are working on. We want to make sure that we are creating jobs, supporting families and opening up government to citizens in a way that we haven't done before. We will not be perfect. We will not get it all done in a month. But we are going to strive to do everything we can to make sure that our government meets these goals. British Columbians are counting on us to meet these goals, and I have a team that works with me, that I know has what it takes to make sure we get there.

I'm very much looking forward to a constructive debate with the opposition, talking about how they want to contribute to helping make these goals a reality for British Columbia. That's what the estimates process is all about. I'm very much looking forward to that.

I'll sit down, but before I do, I have to say it: go, Canucks, go!

A. Dix: Welcome to the Premier, and welcome to Mr. Dyble.

I just want to start…. The Minister of Finance, in the presentation of the HST last week — which the Premier was very much involved in, which she just spoke about in these estimates at some length — suggested that the zero mandate that currently applies to public sector negotiations will continue for two more years. Can the Premier confirm that that is the case?

[1500]

Hon. C. Clark: I can confirm that what the Minister of Finance said was correct.

A. Dix: Just to confirm that that is zero last year, zero in this year, zero next year and zero the year after.

Hon. C. Clark: When a collective agreement comes up, there has been a mandate of two zeros, and that mandate remains in place.

A. Dix: The question I asked, though, was…. I understand that that is the mandate now. The Minister of Finance talked about this at that press briefing. Is it now two more zeros in the years to come?

[1505]

Hon. C. Clark: I didn't hear exactly what the Finance Minister said, so if the member wants to read that into the record, that would be helpful.
[ Page 7792 ]

The budget documents, which I'm sure he has, on page 37 say: "Budget 2011 assumes the current public sector compensation negotiating mandate. This mandate requires two-year agreements with a net zero cost to employers."

In addition to that, though, he will note that in the current budget forecast there is no room for increases that has been set out in that budget.

A. Dix: The Premier will be aware that there are issues right now in the community social service sector. She'll know, because that sector was profoundly affected by Bill 29, which she voted for in this House in 2002, where she stripped collective agreements and cut wages of working families by 15 percent.

I want to put that in context of just what people do, just so the Premier might understand this. There are community support workers. They have a starting wage of $15.54. They're working with individuals with developmental disabilities in the community.

Life skill instructors. The same, helping adults to survive on their persons-with-disabilities benefits of $905 a month. Transition house workers, who provide and help and work with women and children escaping violence, handling crisis calls and so on. Early childhood educators, who actually start at $12.50 an hour.

The government, of course, is offering all these people zero, which is part of collective bargaining, part of the negotiations.

I want to put that in context, what those people do in their families. I want to discuss the Premier's approach to her budget, because as you know, under STOB 50, base salaries in her budget are up $2.138 million.

I'd like her in context to explain, especially to those people, the nature of those increases.

Hon. C. Clark: We will be negotiating with the community service workers. Very hopeful that we can find ways to get to agreements with all of the workers who work so hard in the public sector for British Columbians every day. I always say that we are not just in the service provision business, we are in the people business here in the public service. I'm very hopeful that we can find agreements with all of the unions with whom we are negotiating now, and there are many of them.

In terms of the salaries in the Premier's office, the member may not know this, but two areas of government have moved into the Premier's office: the board resourcing and appointments area, and intergovernmental relations.

[1510]

The total overall salaries and benefits in the Premier's office have gone down, as has the overall budget for the Premier's office.

A. Dix: Of course, the Premier will know that it's gone up since February, since the budget retabled and the restatement of the estimates. And since the Premier understands that she's in the people business, let's go through, then, her staff and how she dealt with negotiations with them compared to how she deals with them.

Just to put in context as well for the Premier, 2009 wage growth in all goods-producing industry was minus 1.14 percent; in service-producing industries it was plus 1.9 percent. So in the private sector those ranges are there. It changes from year to year. It's often in the zero percent to 4 percent range on the plus side.

I just want to put that in context so the Premier could explain how it's possible that her chief of staff is getting paid $10,000 more than Martyn Brown.

Hon. C. Clark: The current chief of staff is making the same amount as the previous chief of staff.

A. Dix: So the current chief of staff is making $195,148 — is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: Indeed.

A. Dix: And Mr. Brown was making $185,590 — is that not correct?

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Brown was the Deputy Minister of Tourism.

A. Dix: The last time we debated the Premier's estimates, he was the Premier's chief of staff. That's what he was making. So that's up 5.1 percent. Let's move on.

They've got a principal secretary. It replaces the position, I guess, that used to be held by the deputy chief of staff, who was Mr. Hanman. The new principal secretary also created a new position in the Premier's office for $195,000 salary plus a myriad of benefits. So we've gone from that position — from a deputy chief of staff for policy — at $85,000 to $195,000 for the new principal secretary.

Can the Premier explain why that's a good investment at a time when she's saying zero to so many people?

Hon. C. Clark: The budget for staff is actually lower. Also, I should point out — the member kind of skipped over it — that the previous chief of staff was actually not Martyn Brown. I want to just make sure I correct him on that.

The principal secretary is also working on intergovernmental relations, which is an incredibly important focus for our government. Some of our most important intergovernmental work happens with the government of Canada, and so we're continuing to work on that.

The principal secretary job is something that I think existed under various different incarnations of the New Democrats when they were in government. I don't sup-
[ Page 7793 ]
pose it would be that unfamiliar to this member opposite, having been a chief of staff himself.

A. Dix: Well, there was a principal secretary who was also chief of staff. The Premier has created a new position at $200,000 a year on her political staff for that and replaced the position that paid $85,000 a year.

Deputy chief of staff, operations. Previously Ms. Dauphinee held that position — $129,600. The new chief of staff, Kim Haakstad, is getting paid $144,000. That's an 11 percent difference. Can the Premier explain that?

[1515]

Hon. C. Clark: The member is incorrect in overestimating the amount that the principal secretary earns, and I will correct him. The current deputy chief of staff is earning what the previous one did.

A. Dix: And what amount is that?

Hon. C. Clark: It's $144,000.15.

A. Dix: The Premier has a new press secretary. The previous press secretary earned $125,000 a year, Bridgitte Anderson — right? The new press secretary earns, unless I'm mistaken, $185,000 a year. Can the Premier explain a 33 percent pay increase for the position of press secretary in her office?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, the member overestimates the amount that the press secretary is making. He is a highly valuable member of my staff. Chris "Olsen on Your Side" is doing an absolutely fantastic job there. The member, again, overestimates the amount. I'm not sure where he's getting his numbers from, but his numbers are wrong.

A. Dix: So what is Mr. Olsen making?

Hon. C. Clark: It's $125,000.10.

A. Dix: Let me ask you about what Mr. Mills, who is making, I gather…. Let me ask the Premier what Mr. Mills is making.

Hon. C. Clark: Again, the overall salaries budget for the Office of the Premier has gone down. Shane Mills is earning $120,000.18.

A. Dix: Perhaps the Premier can tell me what the previous director of communications in the Premier's office made?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know the answer to that. We'll try and get it for him.

A. Dix: I wanted to ask the Premier about Mr. Morgan, Gwyn Morgan, who is a member of the Premier's transition team. I'm wondering if the Premier can tell us if Mr. Morgan has an ongoing role in her administration.

Hon. C. Clark: There is no draw on the budget for Mr. Morgan, who is a recipient of the Order of Canada and a respected Canadian, I think, not just in this province but across the country.

A. Dix: So the Premier says no draw on the budget. Does Mr. Morgan play a role in her government?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, not in the government in any formal sense at all. He's not drawing any kind of a salary. He is, as I said, a highly respected Canadian and a recipient of the Order of Canada. He does not draw any budget from, as far as I know, anywhere in government, and certainly not from the budget estimates that we're debating today.

A. Dix: I didn't think that was that complicated a question. He was on the Premier's transition team, and I thought she might have an answer to that question, but apparently not.

Mr. Morgan, of course, played an important role in the decisions made at the beginning of the Premier's time in office. I just wanted to cite some of the things he said and see if they reflect the view of the Premier or not.

He blamed immigrants who come from countries where the culture is "dominated by violence and lawlessness" for our rising crime rates. He said: "Recent riots in France and Australia are timely and troubling examples. It seems as if multiculturalism in these countries has created subcultures bearing little relation to the mainstream culture and values of the country."

He went on to say: "It's fair to say that most immigrants who abuse our society have come in as refugee claimants."

[1520]

The Premier said on a radio show — and I'll just quote what she said:

"When I was sworn in seven days ago and I made the speech at Government House, you were there, Harjinder" — it was on the Harjinder Thind Show — "and one of the things…. You know, I made, like, a seven-minute speech.

"One of the points that I made very specifically in that was that I want our province's public service to reflect the diversity of this province. It isn't good enough as it stands. There are things that we should do about that. We have to be much more active in making sure our public service and appointed boards at the political and at the civil service level, where people are hired through merit, are all representative of the true diversity of British Columbia."

Now, the Premier will know that she spent several millions of dollars in severance to allow herself free rein in hiring in her office. I wanted to ask how her hiring in her office reflected the diversity of the province. Would
[ Page 7794 ]
she say that she reflected it accurately in appointing her staff when she had unfettered access to do so?

Hon. C. Clark: Just to take a second to say a few words about Gwyn Morgan. Gwyn and I don't share every single view in the world, but I do share the view of many, many Canadians in respecting the incredible contribution he has made in employing thousands and thousands of people across this country.

He's a well-established and respected columnist in one of Canada's national newspapers, and he's a recipient of the Order of Canada. He has made tremendous contributions to this country, and he was also a valued member of my transition team.

His depth of understanding about economic issues is unquestioned. In heading a government that I want to be a fiscally responsible government, one that manages people's money the way they would expect it to be managed…. He made a big contribution in helping set us out on the right economic path through the period of transition, and I'm grateful for that.

We are not where we need to be in terms of public service diversity. I've asked my deputy…. I've tasked him, and he has sat down with the other deputies across government to come up with a strategy that we will act on quickly to increase diversity in the public service.

[1525]

It's important that we look at all aspects of diversity, as well, that we make sure the South Asian community and Asian communities are represented, that women and men are well represented, that the gay, lesbian and bisexual community is represented.

All of those communities that have traditionally been under-represented in the public service need to be able to see their own faces in our public service. That's an important part of government, if we want to govern well.

So, no, we are not where we need to be with that. We have a lot more work to do, and I am very hopeful that by next year when we get to the Premier's estimates that we will have some great news to report of progress on that front.

A. Dix: It's one thing to say it; it's another thing to do it — right? So the Premier had unfettered access and spent $2.7 million firing people, not giving them other places but firing them, so there's a big payout — $2.7 million. She had unfettered access to hire anyone she wanted, and she did. So the question is: how did she do? What's the report out? How did she reflect her own diversity goals when she had unfettered access to hire anyone she wanted? How did she do?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, we are working on it. We have a lot of progress yet to make on this. It's an issue that I'm very, very much alive to. I absolutely am committed to making sure that our public service reflects the community that we serve.

It's important — and I can say this as the second female Premier in British Columbia's history — for women, for example, to see other women doing jobs that aren't traditionally female. For anybody who is raising a daughter, and having lived through this myself, I know it's important. It's not just important for women. I think it's important for people who are members of visible minorities, people who are members of all kinds of groups that haven't traditionally been part of decision-making in our society and in our government.

So we have a lot of progress to make, and I continue to be committed to making that progress. If you look across our public service and you look across the political staff, you will see diversity there. We aren't where we need to be. We're going to continue to work on it.

I think it's one of the most important legacies that we can leave, and we will make sure that we have a progress report for the member after we've had a little bit of time to work on this.

A. Dix: Well, these are always wide-ranging debates. The Premier ranged very widely in her opening statement, and I'm sure we will during the debates, but these are about her estimates.

We just spent millions of dollars hiring staff. So I'd like to know, since this is a central issue for her, exactly how she did in their first round of hiring. She had unfettered access. She had a transition team. They fired everybody, basically, so then we all paid it out. We paid severance packages that were at $550,000 and all this stuff, so that the Premier could put her stamp on the government — with public funds.

It's a very simple question. She hired a bunch of people. Can she tell us how those hirings, her hirings, not the public service but her office, her hirings, reflected the goals that she'd promised in that interview?

[1530]

Hon. C. Clark: At the political level — and I think that's what the member is focused on — my chief of staff looked at all of the considerations that one needs to, including diversity. As I said, we're not there yet. But if you look across the political staff in the buildings on the government side, you will see diversity. We have a lot more to do on that front, and we are very actively working to develop and recruit talent that we can bring in, which will reflect the face of this province better.

We have some time ahead of us. We're going to work very consciously and very hard to make sure this happens. As I said, I think it's important that people who traditionally haven't done these kinds of jobs see themselves reflected in the job. For example, I hired a Minister of Labour who is a woman in a wheelchair. She represents this province incredibly well — not
[ Page 7795 ]
someone you would traditionally see in that job maybe 30 years ago.

I think those are the kinds of moves we need to make. She's one of those people, I think…. When people see her on television, perhaps they'll look twice. Perhaps it will change their sense of what's possible for people with disabilities.

Now, that minister has achieved a lot throughout her life. She hasn't been limited by her physical disability at all. Nonetheless, I think it's important that British Columbians with disabilities see her as a leader and realize that jobs that traditionally weren't available to people with disabilities may be. That is true for people of colour. It is true for women. It is true for people of all communities that don't traditionally do these kinds of jobs. We have a long way to go and a lot more to do.

A. Dix: But it's a straightforward question. I mean, the Premier hired a bunch of people. How did those hirings reflect her diversity goal? I've asked a couple of times. She apparently doesn't want to answer, which may tell us something about what she thinks of the answer. But how did she do? What were the results specifically?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have a table of results for the member, but I can certainly say that it was something that the chief of staff considered as he was hiring people at the political level. We made some progress on it. We aren't there yet, though, and that is why we are continuing…. Actually, we are beginning to put a real focus on developing talent and attracting talent from communities that haven't traditionally been represented in this line of work, because they absolutely should be.

A. Dix: So are there any visible minorities reflected on the Premier's senior political staff?

[1535]

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, the Premier's office staff does include people of many different backgrounds, including people who are visible minorities. I would also add, too, that across the political staff which is hired by my office, you will find people of many, many backgrounds, some of them in the most senior roles in government. We have a long way to go, though, as I said. We are continuing that work.

We are working hard to give a real focus to recruiting and then retaining people who haven't traditionally been represented at this level in the public service. We're doing that at the public service level and at the political level, because we have a long way to go.

Half, or about half, of the people who are employed by the Premier's office are female. I think that's great. I don't know how the NDP feel about women in public office these days.

With the NDP, I notice in question period, as a matter of fact, that as we sit there, it's almost all guys that get up and ask the questions. Almost the entire front bench of New Democrats is male, except, of course….

A Voice: Maurine Karagianis.

Hon. C. Clark: Is she on the front?

On the front bench of the New Democrats, the guys that get up and ask the questions — the front line, if you will, of the New Democrats is all guys, all men. What happened to the woman who used to lead them? What happened to their diversity in leadership on the New Democrat side of the House?

I mean, you can talk a good game about what everybody else should do, but maybe people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones so hard. Maybe when your only woman on the front bench who gets up and asks questions is the former leader who got pushed out by the guys who decided it was their time to be in the sun….

Maybe you shouldn't be throwing those kinds of stones, because I'm not sure that the NDP record in political leadership when it comes to diversity these days, particularly representing my half of the population, is exactly a stellar one.

A. Dix: Well, the Premier voted at four in the morning on Bill 29, which led to the largest layoff of female workers in history; got rid of the Ministry of Women's Equality; has been closing women's centres. I mean, really.

Let me go through the list, then, since the Premier doesn't want to give a straightforward answer to a question she has the answer for in these estimates. It's directly related to her budget. Mike McDonald, Dimitri Pantazopoulos, Kim Haakstad, Chris Olsen, Shane Mills, Doug Brown, Trevor Halford, Rebecca Scott, Stacie Dley, Jessica Hodge, Jennifer Chalmers, Antoinette De Wit, Judy McCallum — all listed at the swearing-in ceremonies as the Premier's office staff. They were the ones listed off. Can the Premier tell us — in terms of that group, anyway — how she did on her diversity mandate?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah. The member, of course, offers a selective list of people that work for the Premier's office, but among them are people of South Asian descent. I would note that I didn't take an exact tally of it, but I think about half of them are women. I think about half of them in the office represent my half of the population, unlike the NDP leadership.

[1540]

I think we have done a very, very good job at making sure that women, who are very much a traditionally under-represented group in this line of work, are represented well in the Premier's office, and not just in the Premier's office, but also across government.
[ Page 7796 ]

We need to work a lot harder, though, to make sure that people of other traditionally under-represented groups are there. If you look across the political staff at government, you'll see some very talented people that we have recruited to government, who I hope one day will find their way to the Premier's office, if we can continue to invest in them and make sure that their jobs are as rewarding as they need to be.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

I point the member to my caucus and cabinet, which, again, is a diverse group of people. I'm very, very proud of the moves that I made in appointing this cabinet and the group of people that are there. It's diverse. It's reflective. But we can always do more, and we certainly can't rest on our laurels.

As leaders we need to make sure that we are continuing to promote women, that we are continuing to make sure that women, for example, are rewarded rather than punished, that women are allowed to be able to stay in their chosen lines of work rather than shoved out.

I think on our side of the House, on the government side of the House, we've done a very, very good job when it comes to women. I think the NDP have some real lessons to learn from the government when it comes to promoting women in politics.

A. Dix: The Premier is correct. The six lowest-paid people on that list were women. But I think we know what the answer is. The Premier said one thing when she was talking on ReD FM, and she did something exactly the opposite. That's what happened here.

I just want to continue on, because she mentioned appointments to her cabinet. I wanted to note that she increased the number of parliamentary secretaries from nine to ten. I wanted to ask the Premier how she envisions the role of the parliamentary secretary.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is right about this one. There are ten parliamentary secretaries. That's down from 13 parliamentary secretaries when the New Democrats left office. John Les is the parliamentary secretary to me in the Premier's office; Pat Pimm to the Minister of Energy and Mines; John Yap to the Minister, again, of Energy and Mines; Randy Hawes to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; Dr. Margaret McDiarmid is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health; Donna Barnett, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation; Dr. Moira Stilwell — gosh, all these women. Wow. That's great.

What happened to the woman leader we used to see across the House? That's right. She's been demoted.

Gordon Hogg is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. Richard Lee is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Social Development. They are all bringing particular focus and attention to the priority policy areas to which they've been assigned within their ministries, and they are all, I think, fulfilling their duties very admirably.

A. Dix: I know the Premier hasn't been here in a while. We usually don't say the names out loud like that. That's very interesting to hear.

In any event, the question is pretty straightforward. She fired the member for Surrey-Tynehead as a parliamentary secretary. Can she explain why that was?

[1545]

Hon. C. Clark: The member is quite right. I haven't been here for a few years. I have to say being on the outside taught me a lot about what people expect from government and how people expect to be heard by their own government. I apologize if I don't adhere to the rules as closely as I might.

In fact, I was at lunch with the Speaker on Monday. Someone said: "You know, you only get one minute for your answer in question period." I stood there, and I went: "What? It's only one minute?" So I'm not always aware of all the rules, I guess.

I'd been standing there, and I'd been listening, getting the question period and watching question period in the five years that I've been out. I'd been listening to the current Minister of Education and the current Minister of Health answer their questions. I could not believe that the rule would only be one minute for answering a question based on what I'd seen in terms of the way they answered questions now.

I apologize to the member if I've offended him by not adhering to the rules. I'll do my best to try and catch up with all the rules that I might have forgotten since I was last here.

The member for Surrey-Tynehead will be chairing a select standing committee of the Legislature. I think he's going to do an absolutely fantastic job with that.

A. Dix: I'm just reflecting on it, you know. It's just a reflection on the past — the first time since 1991 no South Asian parliamentary secretaries or cabinet ministers. It's an evolution, I guess.

I just wanted to ask the Premier specifically whether she made any commitment to anybody or any group to fire the member for Surrey-Tynehead as a parliamentary secretary.

Hon. C. Clark: The member should be aware that when a Premier selects a cabinet and parliamentary secretaries, you make a selection. You don't fire people. When a new Premier comes in and makes a new cabinet, he — or she, in this case; I guess we won't have a chance for a she from the NDP for a while…. You make those selections based on your best judgment.
[ Page 7797 ]

The member that the member opposite is referring to is, as I said, going to be chairing an important select standing committee. He is also on one of our cabinet committees and serving an incredibly important role. It's the cabinet committee on families first.

There are few communities in British Columbia that understand the value of families better than members from the South Asian community and people like the member for Surrey-Tynehead. He really understands very intimately how important families are in British Columbia. That very much reflects my views and my values as well, and he is making a real impact and a huge contribution on the cabinet committee of which he's a part.

A. Dix: So I take it the answer to the question is no.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, Premiers don't fire cabinet members. When a new Premier comes in, she or he selects a new cabinet and a new set of parliamentary secretaries, which is what I did.

A. Dix: I want to ask the Premier a few questions about severance. She spent quite a bit of money — presumably some of it in her budget, some of it in other ministries' budgets — getting rid of people. It cost between $2.5 million and $3 million.

I wonder why she made that choice in these cases, why she chose to get rid of them and not have them, for example, do other jobs in government where they would work off that severance on behalf of the people of B.C.

[1550]

Just bring us in on her thinking in that regard — what it is — and why it is she decided to fire that list of people.

Hon. C. Clark: When I was selected as leader of the B.C. Liberal Party and Premier of British Columbia, it was on a mandate for change, and I'm very committed to making sure that we change government and the way government works in British Columbia. Having said that, change doesn't just mean changing the face at the top of the government. It means that there have to be some other changes that need to be made.

We tried to minimize those changes, but nonetheless, some of them we felt needed to be made in order to be able to carry out the kind of change that British Columbians were seeking from us.

The member will know, because there was an information bulletin published on April 28 of this year that details the names of the individuals who were severed as well as the amounts of their severance, and I'd refer him to that. Further than that, though, I just offer this caution for him as we continue down this line. I don't intend to, nor am I permitted to, discuss the details of any specific personnel issues, and if that's where he's going with some of these questions, I won't be able to answer those.

A. Dix: By this point in the estimates, I'm not that worried about not getting answers to questions.

I guess what I want to ask, first of all, because there's a lift in the salaries since the budget and the restatement of the budget…. What share of the budget lift on the salary side is severance? Or is that in another budget line?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm advised there is no severance in the budget that we are debating. It's all charged to the previous year's estimates and budget.

A. Dix: I just want to ask, of the 13 individuals listed in that, how many got the maximum allowable severance?

[1555]

Hon. C. Clark: The way severance is calculated is in accordance with the employment termination standards regulation, and that includes salary, employer-paid benefits and executive holdback. Severance levels are based on a calculation, and those are such factors as service time and the employee's salary at termination. That's how severance was calculated in each of these cases.

I should note it is very different from the way it was under the New Democrats. Since then there have been much tighter rules on the approval of compensation plans, reduction of maximum severance from 24 months to 18 months and limits on payout of accumulated sick leave and vacation leave. All these are changes since the member was in charge over at the Premier's office.

Public disclosure of senior executives' contracts to hold employers accountable; improvements to the rules preventing double-dipping; openness and accountability clauses requiring employers to make contracts for senior staff available for public inspection — those are all changes to improve the accountability of severance. We are in line, I believe, with other provinces when it comes to severance.

I do understand, though, having been outside of these hallowed halls for the last five years, those severance numbers look like very, very big numbers. But I'm advised that they are, indeed, very much in line with what goes on, the standards that are set across the country, and they are set in accordance with the employment termination standards and the calculations as I've described them.

A. Dix: So why didn't the Premier simply give people notice so they could work off the $2.5 million and save taxpayers that $2.5 million in severance?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said at the beginning, I was elected on a mandate for change in British Columbia, the kind of change that British Columbians want, which is focusing on families, open government and creating jobs all across the province.
[ Page 7798 ]

In order to effect those changes, we needed to change more than just the face at the top. We needed to change some other faces across the public service. Those are very, very difficult decisions to make, and I recognize that for the individuals involved, they're obviously most difficult.

They're expensive decisions to have to make as well. But we limited the number of decisions that we had to make on that as much as we possibly could. I'm advised that the rules of notice would have been something like, in some cases, up to 18 months, and waiting 18 months for change is not change. I mean, that might be….

I don't know if that's how the member opposite characterizes change, but when the public says they want a change, they don't mean: "Gee, I want to wait a couple of years for it." People elected me to be the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party and the Premier of the province because they wanted change, and I intend to deliver on that agenda.

[1600]

A. Dix: So is the Premier's view that the people in question — Mr. Seckel, Mr. Brown, Ms. du Toit, Mr. Taylor, who got $114,000 after five months' work…? They're closing group homes. It is attributed to that.

She thinks that those people were the problem, that they were the impediment to change? The Premier wasn't spending her own money. Let's face it. She was spending public money. Did she think they were the impediment to change? Is that the view of the Premier here?

I don't think that's an answer to the question. The question is whether in fact…. The Premier has become Premier. Presumably, these people that she fired at public expense — big numbers…. That happens sometimes, and we understand that. But the whole group of people she brought up from the same party — she moves them out at public expense, and she didn't have any other option to that? None of these people would work for government under her direction, or they would sabotage something?

Why would you spend $2.5 million in public funds and $114,000 in public funds for Mr. Taylor after five months' work? And who knows how that meets whatever guidelines the minister just referred to? How can the Premier explain this expenditure?

I mean, I understand her argument that she wants to bring some sort of change. This is her argument, so she's out there saving Gordon Campbell's HST and all this sort of stuff. But it seems to me that the issue here isn't change. It's the expenditure of the $2.5 million. That's what I'm asking about.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I mean, these are all very difficult decisions, and they are very big numbers. I'll just say this. These were difficult personnel decisions, difficult for me. I don't mind saying that, because he'd been associated with me for some time, politically and in every way.

"I felt that it was time for a change, so I made a change. We pay severance when that happens."

Of course, that's one of British Columbia's previous Premiers talking about the member opposite when he was fired with cause and still received seven months' severance. I don't know the exact amount of that severance, and I don't know how it compares to $114,000, which I agree is a very big number. But of course, he was fired with cause.

Of course, there's Elizabeth Cull, who worked for the New Democrats. I don't know if the member opposite was involved in the backrooms on that decision as he was in many others back in the day. But even though $114,000 sounds like a lot of money — and indeed, it is a lot of money — her severance of $177,475 sounds like even more.

So does Chris Chilton's. Again, I don't know if the member was involved in this decision, as he has been very close to all the former NDP Premiers in the past. Chris Chilton received $300,000 in severance. Severance decisions are, as his former boss said, very difficult to make, and they are very expensive.

I am glad at least, though, that the decisions we had to make around severance were as limited as we could make them. Because we have changed the rules since we came into government, these severances were a lot cheaper than some of the ones that I've described.

The Chair: Premier, just a reminder that no electronic devices are supposed to be used during estimates.

A. Dix: Well, $550,000 is a lot of money; $350,000 is a lot of money. It's not a change in government. There's a new Premier. The Premier decided in these cases, presumably, that these people would have no role in future, so $2.5 million in public funds was spent right off the top.

[1605]

I guess I want to just go on and ask a couple of detailed questions about the Premier's staff. In particular, I wanted to reflect on Mr. Shane Mills, who is the director of communications, who seemed involved on the Premier's staff in her by-election campaign, tweeting about the campaign, and so on, while it was going on.

I'm wondering if she thinks of that as appropriate. I know he's only getting $120,000 to work as her director of communications, which is a fair sum of money. I'm wondering if she took steps to ensure that the clear violations of the rules that Mr. Mills was engaged in have been corrected.

The Chair: A reminder to the Leader of the Opposition that you address the member as the Premier, not she.
[ Page 7799 ]

Hon. C. Clark: All the staff in my office and across government are bound by the public service standards of conduct. Those set strict limitations on partisan activity for them, and they observe those limitations.

A. Dix: So when Mr. Mills is tweeting about various partisan activities, he's doing it on his own BlackBerry and own computer?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as long as I've known Mr. Mills, he's had more than one communications device handy, so I'm absolutely confident that everyone on my staff has conducted themselves within the standards of conduct that are set out in the rules.

A. Dix: We'll have to reflect on that. My next set of questions is about the Taseko project, the Prosperity mine project, which falls, obviously, under IGR and has been a main preoccupation of the Premier.

I just wanted to ask her what her current position is on this question. She'll know, of course, that after the project was rejected in federal environmental approvals, she intervened and demanded that the Prime Minister overturn that.

[1610]

In response, for example, Mr. Prentice, who was then the federal Environment Minister, responded that the environmental comments were "so pronounced, so scathing in terms of the environmental effects that cabinet considered this and has followed the panel's recommendation that the adverse environmental effects are such that we cannot approve this project."

That was Mr. Prentice in the Harper government — not known for being out there on climate change. I mean, you have to be pretty far out on the right of the political spectrum to be the right of Stephen Harper on climate change, but that apparently is where the Premier is on the environment.

That said, the Premier said that in her first meeting with the Prime Minister. This was the key issue she raised at that meeting. I think that's correct in the way I said that. One of the key issues that the Premier raised was this issue of the Prosperity mine which, as you know, got through the provincial process from which aboriginal people were alienated and then was rejected in the federal process.

What conclusions does the Premier draw about that project in light of that rejection and in light of the decision even by Mr. Harper to say that the Premier was out on the environmental fringe?

Hon. C. Clark: Indeed, you don't have to be on the far right of the spectrum to be opposed to good environmental initiatives. This opposition opposed the carbon tax. They opposed the clean energy agenda that my predecessor brought in. They ran against it in the last election, and they lost on that issue among many, many others. You don't have to be on the far right.

I don't think many people would characterize this Leader of the Opposition as on the far right. I think people would instead rather characterize him on the far left of public opinion.

First of all, I would dispute the member's characterization of where you need to be on the political spectrum to be against progressive climate change and environmental agendas. He's certainly not on the right, and his party has certainly been opposed to that, although I recognize they're kind of all over the map on these things now.

The member is quite right. I did meet with the Prime Minister, and we did talk about that. I know that the company is continuing to work on the project. They've submitted something new, I believe, to the environmental review process, and that's underway.

A. Dix: The Premier had that discussion with the Prime Minister. I just wanted to go through her thinking on this question, because it's an important question.

The project has now been changed. She wanted the project to go ahead as it was. The Premier said that there was no possible way to change the project, except to destroy Fish Lake. That was her position. She lobbied, and after she did that, after she made that her position, the company has come back and said: "Well, there are other ways to do it."

I wanted to know what steps the Premier has taken, in light of the issues up there, to consult the Tsilhqot'in.

Hon. C. Clark: As usual, the member mischaracterizes my comments about this. I didn't say what he suggests I said, which was that there no possible way to change it. That's certainly never been my….

It's not my purview to decide whether or not it would be changed. It's certainly the purview of the company, and I'm told that they did change it and that they've submitted it. I know that the First Nations in the community are deeply concerned about this.

[1615]

I have not made an effort to go out and negotiate this on behalf of the company. This, though, would be an issue that the members opposite would be wise to canvass with the Minister of Energy, who may have more to say about this issue and whose estimates are up tonight.

The Chair: Just a reminder to all members to address all comments through the Chair.

A. Dix: Well, hon. Chair, as you know, this is an issue which involves intergovernmental relations. The Premier has directly got involved in it herself, both as a leadership candidate and now as Premier. She has stated that
[ Page 7800 ]
the federal government made a mistake in the previous proposal. She said: "My preference is always to say that the decisions that are going to be made close to home are almost always going to be better decisions." She said that it was a bad decision by the federal environmental review process.

Now, the provincial environmental review process drew dramatically different conclusions. So my question, because these are the Premier's comments, is: why does she think that the provincial environmental review process is better than the environmental review process from the federal government, when they drew such dramatically different conclusions?

Hon. C. Clark: I am advised that the federal government is reconsidering the decision — or actually considering a new application, to be more precise, from the company. We'll see where that goes.

There has long been a desire on the part of the government of British Columbia and in fact many, many provinces across the country — well, I should say, other provinces across the country — to harmonize the federal and provincial environmental review processes, and I think that's important. I think it's important that we move on that to try and minimize the amount of regulation that's out there.

I think it's important for all the job creators across the province, who create jobs for families and who create revenue for government, to be able to pay for all the services that families count on us to provide for them when they're in need. That's a discussion that I've initiated with the federal government and something that I talked to the Prime Minister about, as the member knows, when I met with him shortly after I was selected as Premier and leader of the B.C. Liberal Party.

Further than that, though, I would recommend that the member or perhaps some of his members talk to the Minister of Energy and Mines, who has been much more intimately involved in the day-to-day details of mine development, not just this mine but mines across the province. His estimates are up tonight.

A. Dix: The question, then, is straightforward. Did the Premier, at that meeting with the Prime Minister and before these changes in the project were brought forward, advocate for the overturning of the federal environmental process with the Prime Minister? Is that what she advocated?

Hon. C. Clark: I've never advocated that. What I talked to the Prime Minister about was harmonizing our environmental review processes in the long term, because I believe it's good for job creation in the province, and I think we can do a better job of that. I think going through two parallel processes that are intended to achieve the same thing — one that says yes and one that says no — isn't good for investment and job creation across the province.

We are working to try and see if we can find some consensus around harmonization of environmental review. I think that could be a very, very good thing for job creation across the province. As I said at the time to the media, what I talked to them about was whether or not there was a way forward and whether or not he saw a way forward on it. I did not advocate what the member suggests that I was advocating.

A. Dix: During her leadership campaign in response to the now Minister of Finance, the Premier said that aboriginal people should be consulted and have a key role in addressing and reviewing all economic activities in the north. This is obviously in the Cariboo, which is in the centre of the province, but that, I think, would obviously apply to this project.

[1620]

The Premier has talked to Taseko about this, I assume. She has talked to other people about this. She talked to the Prime Minister about this. Is the Premier planning to talk to the Tsilhqot'in about this?

Hon. C. Clark: I have talked to the parties that the member named. I've also talked to Chief Baptiste about it, and I have directed all…. In our conversations I've pointed them all to the Minister of Energy and Mines, who is working on this issue and mining issues all across the province. Again, if the member would like more details about where that stands, I'd direct him to the estimates of the Minister of Energy, which are up tonight.

A. Dix: In retrospect, in this case — because it shows the difference between the federal and provincial processes, and the Premier has obviously shown a preference for the provincial process — there is the alienation of First Nations from this process. Does she think that that approach to this was acceptable?

What happened here, clearly, was that the provincial environmental review process failed, and it was embarrassing to British Columbia that the results were so decidedly different at the federal level. This is the same project and a completely different approach. I mean, it exposed, if you will, the problems of the environmental review process in British Columbia.

Is the Premier planning to review that process in light of the obvious failure in this process to address this issue adequately?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, certainly we are going to have to review the processes if we want to harmonize them, which we do. That would be part…. Should we come to an agreement that there should be a harmonization of processes? That would mean a reconsideration of how
[ Page 7801 ]
we're going to do it wholesale, which I think would be great for British Columbia.

There are clearly flaws in a process where it can take 17, 20 years to get to a conclusion and the conclusion is a yes and a no. There are clearly flaws in that, and my concern about it in a general sense is that when we do that we scare away job creation from our province.

We need to encourage job creation all across the province, in smaller communities. We need to encourage job creation, particularly in some of the smallest communities where First Nations people can rely on those jobs to become sustainable communities.

Mining is an important part of revenue for government to pay for other services. It's an important part of creating jobs for families to put food on the table for their kids, and it's been an important part historically of the cultures of many, many small, rural communities all across British Columbia.

We certainly are pursuing that agenda, as I said, and we're going to continue to pursue it.

A. Dix: I just want to ask the Premier, as part of her role, responsible now for IGR, what her position is on the bill put forward by her former colleague, the former Environment Minister Joyce Murray, Bill C-606, which would amend the Canada Shipping Act to ban tanker traffic on B.C.'s north coast?

[1625]

Hon. C. Clark: I believe the member is referring to a letter from the previous British Columbia Premier, the Alberta Premier and the Premier of Saskatchewan in which they said:

[1630]

"Our three governments, like all Canadian governments, recognize the unique nature of Canada's aquatic ecosystems and are sensitive to the environmental implications of the gateway pipeline project. Indeed, the federal review panel has a broad mandate under both the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to consider whether the gateway pipeline is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. We believe it is in the public interest that the joint review panel be given time to complete its environmental assessment."

That letter was sent in response to the introduction of Bill C-606, which, I'm told, is no longer on the order paper because an election, obviously, has intervened. Nonetheless, I think the member is referring to my comments at the time, saying I agreed with the position stated in this letter, which I do.

A. Dix: Does the Premier oppose the moratorium that has been in place since the Trudeau government in 1972? Presumably she is on the record, then, opposing the proposal put forward by…. I don't know. Perhaps it's a Member of Parliament. I'm not sure. It could be a Member of Parliament.

[J. van Dongen in the chair.]

The proposal is to put that moratorium into law. Is the Premier in favour of lifting the moratorium on tanker traffic on the north coast?

Hon. C. Clark: If the member is referring to the voluntary exclusion zone on the coast, no. My government is not advocating any changes to that.

J. Horgan: Just following up with the Premier. If the government supports the voluntary exclusion zone, that would suggest that we don't want to see tankers in that zone, which would suggest that a terminal for oil sands product from Alberta through the gateway project would be unhelpful, because once you get to tidewater, you're supposed to get into a boat to get to market. If we're not allowing boats in that area, why would we build a pipeline to get to the port?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, we'll wait and see what happens as a result of the environmental review process that they're in now. I know British Columbians are all watching that very closely. I've been up to the northwest quite a bit in the last little while, and I've certainly heard concerns and support for it. I've certainly also heard that down on this end of the coast as well. We'll see what the environmental review process tells us once it's completed.

J. Horgan: Just for my benefit. I know the Leader of the Opposition was characterizing the question in a way that the Premier could respond to a general consensus from, certainly, the Member of Parliament for her constituency provincially. Her endeavours in Ottawa…. Other Members of Parliament within all political parties advocate for an exclusion of tanker traffic in the north coast.

If the Premier supports that position, that would be great. It would be nice to have that on the record. But my point is: if you're going to exclude tankers in that area, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to build a pipeline. Would the Premier agree with that statement?

Hon. C. Clark: That's why there is an environmental review process that will provide us with a lot more information about what makes sense and what doesn't. I think it's wise for all of us to wait and see what the outcome of that could be.

The Chair: Just a reminder, Member, to stick to the estimates — the vote.

J. Horgan: I'll do that, hon. Chair. Thank you very much.

I'd like to carry on, on this questioning, however, because the Premier, if I heard her correctly some questions ago, said that the government supported the
[ Page 7802 ]
exclusion zone. This is an intergovernmental relations question. We have staff, I know, from Intergovernmental Relations here. You've held that portfolio. You'll understand this a little bit.

I'm trying to get from the Premier…. If we support an exclusion zone, which I believe she said, then that makes the pipeline redundant. Her response is: "Let's await the environmental review on the pipeline."

[1635]

I want to take the pipeline, leave it to one side and focus instead on the exclusion zone, which the Premier referenced earlier, and put a specific question to her: does her government support an exclusion of tanker traffic on the north coast?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the voluntary exclusion zone that the member, I think, is referring to is voluntary. It's not a matter of government policy. It's called a voluntary exclusion zone for a reason. Because of that, I don't anticipate trying to change that. But certainly, I think where the member's probably going with this is his desire to pre-empt the process, the environmental review process.

That is not my desire. It's my desire to see what the environmental review process uncovers and for all British Columbians and all Canadians to be able to see the facts and the conclusions once they've done their due diligence.

A. Dix: Continuing on this issue of intergovernmental relations, the Premier has characterized the ban on tanker traffic, the policy that's been in place under Liberal and Conservative national governments since 1972, as a step too far. What steps, what precautions is the Premier prepared to take to protect our coast if she doesn't agree with this historic policy, which is, of course, supported by the overwhelming majority of B.C. families?

Hon. C. Clark: The member may not know this. The federal moratorium on west coast tanker traffic is solely directed at tankers that are transiting the B.C. coast and not oil tankers that are sailing to or from B.C. ports.

I'll just reiterate this. I read this into the record a moment ago, but I'll read it again for the member. Our government, this government, just like the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta, "recognize the unique nature of Canada's aquatic ecosystems and are sensitive to the environmental implications of development." Our coastal environment is an absolute treasure that we have an obligation to cherish and protect, and my government is absolutely committed to making sure we do just that.

A. Dix: Just in terms of the Premier's position on the Enbridge project, I want to ask her first whether she discussed this project with the Prime Minister during her discussion with him.

Hon. C. Clark: As I recall, that wasn't on the agenda.

A. Dix: So the Premier had Mr. Harris, of course, who was a vice-president of Enbridge. The current head of her communications shop worked for Enbridge — Mr. Sweeney. Does she feel that her relationship with Enbridge and the project is in any way influenced by the fact that she has important Enbridge supporters working with her?

[1640]

Hon. C. Clark: No.

A. Dix: Just on this question, because sometimes the Premier might be misquoted in the media…. I just wanted to quote her here, because this is an important question of intergovernmental relations. She said: "We've got tankers going up and down the St. Lawrence, for heaven's sake. I don't know why we'd ban them necessarily off the west coast. I think that's a step too far, way too soon. Let's not foreclose our options here before we even decide whether or not the Enbridge pipeline is going to be built." That was in response to the federal Liberal Party's position. I'm wondering if that continues to reflect her view.

Hon. C. Clark: As I've been saying all along, we have an obligation to let this go through the process. That's certainly one of the things that I was trying to suggest in those comments that the member has quoted. We have an obligation to make sure this goes through the process, and I think we'll benefit from the process as well. We will all be better informed by the facts, by the science. We all make better decisions when we have more information.

As I've been saying for the last few minutes that we've been canvassing this issue, it is crucially important that we protect British Columbia's beautiful coastline. We all cherish it, not just for its beauty but for its economic benefit, for the benefit that it provides in stable communities that have been along our coastline — for hundreds of years, in some cases.

We have to make sure that we are protecting our incredible coastline and our incredible environmental heritage in this province, and my government intends to continue to do that.

A. Dix: I wanted to ask another interesting IGR question. Let me just finish on the Enbridge question. The Premier said that the Enbridge issue wasn't on the agenda of her discussion with the Prime Minister. Was it discussed?

Hon. C. Clark: No.

A. Dix: On that agenda — I just want to ask — with Prime Minister Harper, did the Premier discuss the
[ Page 7803 ]
comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union and the position of the government of British Columbia on that question?

Hon. C. Clark: We had a half-hour meeting. It was short, but it was sweet. It was the first time I'd met the Prime Minister since being elected. In fact, it was the first time I've met the Prime Minister. So we spent a bit of time getting to know each other, and we talked about some of the priorities for government. We did not get to all of them, though. We have a lot more talking to do. We're going to continue to do that now that the federal election is also out of the way and that we have a majority government for at least the next four years.

So I think we're all in the position to be able to really start some of the deep discussions that we need to have about the many, many issues that are facing British Columbia, including the economic issues which are so vital to supporting families all across the province, in communities large and small. I know that they have an equal interest in trying to ignite our economy, in trying to make sure that we can enable the creation of good, family-supporting jobs in every community across the province.

I often talk about how important it is that we try and find common ground, and I don't mean that just government to opposition. I also mean that with citizens, but I also mean that between governments. I think that on the jobs agenda we certainly have found a lot of common ground, and I'm very much looking forward to talking about a whole range of economic issues with the Prime Minister in the future.

A. Dix: So 30 minutes, and they talked about Taseko, apparently. That was the number one issue for the Premier — overturning the federal environmental process on that.

[1645]

The question I want to ask about is the question of the trade with the European Union, because so many of the issues are in provincial jurisdiction, as the Premier will know. The provincial government, needless to say, has to make an offer, effectively — a formal offer — to the federal government. Has that been done? Has the B.C. government weighed in on this question? As the Premier is responsible for IGR, does she know what the position of the provincial government is with respect to this potential agreement which would have significant implications for British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: I do want to just correct the member, because he is in the habit of mischaracterizing my comments. I did not go to the meeting with the Prime Minister — I'll say it again — and ask that the environmental assessment be overturned. I just want to correct the record on that. Further, with respect to the question that the member asked….

Point of Order

J. Horgan: Hon. Chair, I'm just wondering. I've heard on a number of occasions the Premier characterize the Leader of the Opposition's questions as mischaracterizations. I'm wondering if that's going to continue throughout and if that's an appropriate portion of debate today.

The Chair: Premier, if you could continue and just be cautious about the choice of language. I think I want to convey that to both sides.

Hon. C. Clark: I will make sure that…. I'll find my thesaurus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the caution.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Clark: With respect to the question that the member asked, those negotiations are actually not being formulated and conducted under IGR. They're being done under the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. That team is sitting now and working through our positions on a number of the important issues that are facing us. I'm told that they're likely to be meeting in the next month or so to have their first meeting with respect to the negotiations.

A. Dix: Does the Premier have concerns, because these issues have been out here for a while, about the impact of the agreement on the costs of pharmaceuticals in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: As the member knows, the area he's specifically speaking about is an area of federal jurisdiction, though we are aware of the issue and we are, as I said, formulating our official negotiating position on it. We're in that process right now.

When I say "we," I use that loosely because although we are debating the estimates of the Office of the Premier, those negotiations are being conducted out of the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation.

A. Dix: The Premier will know that the federal government and the EU are proposing fairly significant extensions of the exclusivity of new and existing drugs on the market on behalf of the European drug companies. The Premier will know that this is in fact a very significant….

You know, it's great when you draw a full house.

Interjection.

A. Dix: I know. It's going to be interesting. It's always wonderful to have a good crowd in here. It's particularly
[ Page 7804 ]
heartening for both the Premier and I to draw such a good crowd on a hockey night.

Interjection.

[1650]

A. Dix: That's right. No chanting, no towel-waving, no nothing.

The significant proposal here being made will damage our public health care system. I think that's very clear. Does the province have a position on this question? We're talking about estimates of $250 million in increased annual costs for the cost of drugs in British Columbia. It will affect PharmaCare, and it will affect families across British Columbia.

Hon. C. Clark: I do want to express my sympathy for all of the members who may be feeling a little bit bad about missing the first hour of the hockey game, if that's what they end up doing. It starts in about seven minutes. We don't want to see anybody get upset about that. I know they won't, because they're all here to do their jobs. It's one of those tough decisions you have to make when you're serving the public — although "Go, Canucks, go!" in about seven minutes.

I thank the member for his input on that and his advice about it. All the input we receive on this will help formulate the government's position, which I'm told the Ministry of Jobs is working on now in conjunction with the Ministry of Health. I'm hopeful that members opposite have also canvassed this question in more detail with those ministries responsible, because they would certainly have more details available.

A. Dix: As the Premier and minister responsible for intergovernmental relations in B.C., have they assessed the cost of implementation to the public health care system in B.C. of the EU's proposals?

Hon. C. Clark: These are the Premier's office estimates. That work will have been done, I'm sure, by the Ministry of Health. That would have been the appropriate place to find that level of detail.

A. Dix: Let me ask the Premier then, in fact, as the person responsible for IGR, the person leading the government in intergovernmental relations — that person — whether she has a position on this question. I mean, it's a fairly straightforward question. We're talking about something that will dramatically increase costs to our public health care system. In fact, it would increase costs to every private health plan in B.C. and to members of the public as individuals.

Surely this is an issue that she as Premier will be raising with the Prime Minister. Will she raise this issue with the Prime Minister so that our public health care system isn't sold out in these negotiations?

Hon. C. Clark: Meanwhile the member made the point, I think quite well, that this is an issue for the Ministry of Health. It's something that the government is certainly aware of, and it's work that certainly should have been done by the Ministry of Health. I know that if the member found the time, he would have canvassed that with the minister and hopefully been able to get some more specific answers to those questions.

A. Dix: I hope the Premier finds the time to inform herself on this important question as well.

I wanted to ask the Premier if she has a position on the EU's demand for the inclusion of drinking water in the agreement.

Hon. C. Clark: As the member points out, there is a whole range — not just these two, but many, many issues — that will be under discussion in the negotiations.

[1655]

As I said earlier, the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation is working hard to collate the information that we have, to make sure that we've quantified it. That's going to help inform our negotiating position. Of course, we're working with other provinces and with Canada on this as well. So stay tuned.

A. Dix: I wanted to ask the Premier whether the exemptions that have been requested by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the B.C. School Trustees Association to this agreement have her support.

Hon. C. Clark: These are very important negotiations, and the government is deeply engaged with all ministries at quantifying all of the statistics and making sure that we have all the information we need to go forward. That work is happening in the Health Ministry, in the Jobs, Tourism and Innovation Ministry. We're working across all ministries to get the information.

The member, I think, would be wise, though, if he seeks further detail on the information that has been collected so far, to canvass those with the appropriate ministers and the appropriate ministries.

In terms of the position that our government will be taking with respect to the negotiations, we are, as I said, formulating that now, and the member should stay tuned.

A. Dix: Will the Premier agree to table in this Legislature and with the public B.C.'s offer in these negotiations to the federal government — in the spirit of open government, you know?

Hon. C. Clark: Just to note that the trade agreements are incredibly important for an economy like British
[ Page 7805 ]
Columbia's. It's incredibly important that we include agreements with our trading partners. It's one of the many ways that we support an economy and support jobs all across the province.

We are a small economy. We need to be an open economy, and that means we need to conclude trade agreements that are good for British Columbia and pursue them aggressively with other trading partners all around the world.

[1700]

The member knows — he's been very close, I'm sure, to the labour movement in the past and currently — that negotiations aren't typically conducted in public. But there will be, I'm told, consultation on this agreement. There will be many avenues for the public's input. I am sure we will have the benefit of the member's views on this throughout the process.

A. Dix: The Premier will know, because she's no doubt an expert in these questions about the labour movement and everything else, that on the European Union side of course these things had been tabled. People know where people stand there.

The people of British Columbia will be able to know where the European Union stands on these questions. They just won't be able to know where the government of British Columbia stands and whether the government of British Columbia is protecting seniors or ensuring that prescription drugs are affordable here in British Columbia or whether our interests have been sold out by our provincial government. Apparently, that's something we'll have to discover after the fact here in British Columbia, but they don't have to discover that after the fact in Europe.

I wanted to ask briefly again about the Premier's meeting with the Prime Minister, as we go along in the discussion of intergovernmental relations. Did the Premier, in that meeting, ask the Prime Minister of Canada about the shipbuilding issue that we discussed on Monday in the Legislature? Did she raise that issue with the Prime Minister in those discussions?

Hon. C. Clark: It was a short meeting, as I said, but I have been discussing this issue with my federal colleagues since then.

We are going to very aggressively pursue this procurement for British Columbia. It is hugely important to us. It is hugely important to the health of our province. We are talking about a procurement contract over 30 years that will be worth billions and billions of dollars.

When we think about generational decisions that government can make, this is one of them. Canada has two coasts — three coasts? We have two coasts, one on the east and one on the west.

I think British Columbia is the right place for that contract to land. British Columbia has the skilled workforce. We have the financially viable companies. We have the will. We have the economic strength and underpinning as a province. This is the right place for that shipbuilding contract to land.

When I say it's a generational decision, what I mean is this: 30 years and billions of dollars spent on an industry where British Columbia has a tradition. We are talking about not just one generation but multiple generations of skilled workers in this industry that will benefit from this contract. This government is going to push hard and aggressively to make sure that contract comes here, as it should.

When I talk about families, when I talk about jobs, one of the things I'm talking about is this shipbuilding procurement. We are going to work very hard. I am delighted that the opposition is supporting us in this. I know that many of the unions involved are also supporting us in trying to do this and making sure that we can bring this contract to British Columbia. It is that important. These are not just jobs for 30 years. These are good family-supporting jobs.

I know that on the other side of the House they'll be delighted that they're also union jobs. They're jobs that have a high wage and a high rate of benefits. It's not just the shipbuilding industry. It's all those other industries that supply it.

This is huge for British Columbia. We are going to give it the focus that it deserves, because British Columbia families deserve no less than that.

A. Dix: The Premier meets the Prime Minister. It's of this importance, and she raises the issue of the Taseko mines but doesn't raise this issue.

Can the Premier tell us one concrete thing other than giving a speech on Monday that the Premier has done on this issue? Did the Premier raise it in her leadership campaign once? Has she spoken about it with anyone once? Has she met with anyone in the federal government on this question? Has she met with cabinet ministers? What exactly has she done other than give a speech?

[1705]

Hon. C. Clark: My office has been in contact with the company for some time about this. I have met with the political minister for British Columbia and discussed it. Many of my ministers have also been in contact with our federal colleagues. I intend to fly to Ottawa.

I think even the member opposite, when he sees the extent of the work we are preparing around this in advance of the July 7 deadline for the proposal to be delivered to the federal government, will be impressed with the effort and the energy and the commitment that we will be putting in to make sure that this federal contract, this procurement, comes to British Columbia.

They are going to spend the money somewhere in the country, and I am profoundly committed to making
[ Page 7806 ]
sure that we bring it here. We have to do everything we can to try and make sure that this money is spent in our province, in our ports, and that it benefits our families. It's a generational decision. It's a decision that will make a huge difference for families.

The other thing of course, too, is that I think we have a lot of work to do in this province in educating our federal colleagues — not our colleagues from British Columbia but federal colleagues across the country — and citizens across the country in understanding how important Asia-Pacific is not just to our province but to our entire country.

We need to be facing west in a way that we haven't. We need to be engaging with the Asia-Pacific in a way that Canada hasn't before. Attracting this shipbuilding procurement to British Columbia will make a very real difference in helping realize the potential of our Pacific Gateway.

I am incredibly excited about the potential of this. As I said, when the member sees the package that the company puts together and the support that the government provides, I think even he will be impressed with the depth of our commitment to making sure that this procurement goes to support B.C. families.

A. Dix: It would be hard to be impressed since we've been way behind Quebec and way behind Nova Scotia. Our campaign has been less impressive. Seaspan itself came and talked to the opposition members because they couldn't get the attention of the government on this question a few months ago. We raised this issue consistently. We've been fighting for these jobs for a long time, and the Premier discovered it on Monday and didn't even raise it with the Prime Minister when she met with him.

So that's the contrast, I guess. Maybe the Premier can tell us whether the government has engaged a lobbying firm in Ottawa to assist her in this matter.

Hon. C. Clark: I'd just remind the member that my meeting with the Prime Minister was on March 15, which was the day after I was sworn in as Premier. It was about a half-hour meeting, so we didn't get to all the issues that we certainly should have.

But as I said, he's wrong to say that I haven't raised this with our federal colleagues or with the company. We certainly have. We've been engaged with them for some time. I met with one of my federal counterparts, the political minister for British Columbia, to talk about this not long ago. So we are certainly acting on this. In answer to his question, my office hasn't engaged a firm on this.

[1710]

Just let me say, too, I hope that when we talk about working in the spirit of cooperation between our two parties on both sides of the House, we can extract a commitment from the New Democrats here to lobby their federal brothers and sisters because, of course, there is a Quebec shipyard that's in the running for this. Their federal brothers and sisters, their party, is a Quebec-based party. We need this opposition and these members here to exert their influence with the federal official opposition to make sure that this decision is made in the interests of British Columbia.

Here on this side of the House we are committed and unfettered in our ability to be able to represent British Columbia first, and I hope the members of the opposition will make that same commitment.

I know it might be difficult. I know that when you're facing down a big caucus of people from a province in your own party who are in the game to try and win this, it might be a challenge. Nonetheless, I'd ask the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and make a commitment that his party, federally and provincially — because they're all the same, really — will support British Columbia's bid to try and bring this procurement for B.C. families.

A. Dix: You know, hon. Chair, we've been raising these issues in December and January and February and March and April. I know that the Premier's federal party got 12 percent in British Columbia, and she's feeling bad about that. I think it used to be a party, and now it's a groupuscule. But all of that said, you know….

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please.

Member, carry on.

A. Dix: The province sends money outside the province to build ferries in Germany, and it's lecturing us on Quebec? Of course the official opposition supports getting these jobs for British Columbia. We've been supporting them for months while the Premier and the government were asleep at the switch, so we're glad, finally, that they've drawn attention to this.

The Premier talked about her meetings on this issue. When did she meet with the political minister from B.C.? On what day was that? What was the nature of that meeting? Was it half an hour, or it was less than that? When did she discover that this was an important issue? And the idea that you're not going to raise this issue with the Prime Minister — when you say, as the Premier says and as we said on this side of the House for months, that this is a central issue for British Columbians, you're going to go into a meeting with the Prime Minister and not mention the issue. That's the position of the Premier. That seems to be less than compelling.

At what date in the Premier's time as Premier did this important issue come to her attention? At what date did she meet with the federal official on this issue, the federal member of cabinet?
[ Page 7807 ]

Hon. C. Clark: I met with the political minister for British Columbia on May 20 and talked about this specifically. I met with the Prime Minister on March 15, as I said a little bit earlier.

My whole team is engaged in this. My office has been in contact with the company frequently over the last little while. I hope even the member will be impressed by the scope of our effort to try and secure this for British Columbia. I intend to go to Ottawa to talk to the Prime Minister personally about it before the deadline of July 7, and we are working very, very hard on this.

It would be great if we could secure a commitment from the Leader of the Opposition to lobby his colleagues in Ottawa to try and secure their support for British Columbia getting this contract.

[1715]

I know they are a Quebec-based party. They weren't a few months ago; they are now. I hope that he can make his voice heard. I hope that he's willing to make his voice heard. I hope that he's willing to stand up for British Columbia. He's in the opposition. His federal colleagues are in the opposition as well. But that doesn't mean he can't make a very real difference by trying to exert some influence with his colleagues federally and secure their support for this contract.

We will be working to try and influence all federal MPs. I will certainly be working, as I have, very collegially with my federal colleagues in the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party to try and get their support for this. But we are unfettered in the B.C. Liberal Party in our ability to be able to stand up for this province. When I go to Ottawa, I am not faced with members of my own party who oppose what's best for British Columbia.

I suspect the Leader of the Opposition is refusing to make this commitment today because he's worried that if he does go and speak to the members of his own party federally, he won't meet with a welcome reception. If he goes and asks them to support British Columbia, he's concerned they'll say no. Is that the reason he won't stand up today and make a commitment to persuade his federal brothers and sisters to make a commitment to support this procurement coming to British Columbia to support B.C. families?

A. Dix: So what the Premier is saying…. Presumably the Premier will go and talk to Stéphane Dion, Quebec Liberal MP, whose leadership campaign she worked so hard on. Maybe she'll lobby Mr. Dion on these questions and see what his position is, as we will lobby all members of Parliament, because we're fighting on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I'll tell you when we started lobbying on this issue. It was April 2010. April 2010 is when we started lobbying. Two months into the Premier's job, and they finally get a meeting with a cabinet minister from British Columbia, the chief political minister from British Columbia. That's the level of commitment we see. July 7 is the deadline.

This issue has been before us for a long time, for a very long time, and we have been acting on it. We've been fighting for those jobs in B.C. We've been fighting with the federal government to ensure that B.C.'s voice is heard. It's the Premier that has been left behind. So I'm pleased they have finally become apprised of this issue, which the Premier says is her number one priority.

She was elected Premier in February. She was sworn in, in March. She finally meets with him in the middle of May; she meets with a federal cabinet minister. Was it the minister responsible for Canadian heritage who the Premier met with? That level of commitment.

I'm very hopeful that we will see from the Premier a strong, strong voice on behalf of British Columbians to all MPs, as will the members on the opposition side. But we didn't start on May 15, you know. We didn't start on May 15. We started in April 2010 on this question. That's the difference between us and them.

If we'd had a government in British Columbia that had started in April 2010, B.C. would be a whole bunch better on this issue and on this contract. We'd be in the front of the pack and not behind other jurisdictions, as we are now. It's not our shipbuilders that are at fault. It's not our unions that are at fault. No matter how derisively the Premier always speaks of unions, it's not them that are at fault. It's the government of British Columbia that has been slow at the switch.

I'd like to ask a different question to the Premier on an important issue, an issue that she raised in her time as a radio host. It relates to issues that she raised around the plea agreement in the B.C. Rail case. I won't be asking about the specifics of it, because those matters may well be in other ministries, but I want to ask her. I'll just read the questions and ask if in her job as Premier she has received answers to any of these questions.

Those questions are as follows. Why did the Crown offer the plea deal in the first place? Why did they feel they needed to throw in the $6 million indemnity in order to get the accused to sign it? Was the Crown worried that they couldn't get a conviction otherwise, that they could only get these guys to agree that what they'd done was criminal if they threw $6 million into the pot to sweeten the deal?

Why did they offer the plea deal now? Were they concerned that the remaining list of witnesses would further damage their case? Do they think it was already so shaky that the rest of the witnesses getting up on the stand could only have harmed them and made a conviction even less likely?

[1720]

Did the former Attorney General sign off on the final agreement or not? We do know that it was the special prosecutor who came up with the deal, but we also know that at the end of the day, that $6 million is a big budget
[ Page 7808 ]
decision for the government. Was that a decision that the former Attorney General had completely empowered his bureaucrats to make on his behalf? Did he have any say in the final deal when it came to the $6 million? Why didn't they choose to proceed after the assets of those convicted when it is absolutely what would have happened to any of the rest of us if we'd been convicted of a crime and owed the government money?

Those are the questions that the Premier previously asked about this case. The Premier has been Premier for two months. Has she received any answers?

Hon. C. Clark: I know that the member has been canvassing and attempting to canvass this case in the Legislature for many, many, many years now. I know it was canvassed in the debates around the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Finance as well. I'll just say this about it.

The two individuals that were convicted in that case betrayed the public trust, they breached their oath, and they were convicted. They besmirched the office that they held. Beyond that, the specifics of this particular case…. I know he's canvassed them extensively with the appropriate ministries, but I do want to just go back to the first comments that the member made and say this.

You know, he says that gee, it would all be better if his opposition had been in charge of helping to secure the shipbuilding procurement for British Columbia. I don't think that's true. Remember, there was a federal election that intervened here for one thing, first of all. During the federal election we weren't pursuing meetings about shipbuilding contracts with our federal counterparts. We certainly have been since.

We certainly have been engaged with them — not just through my office but all of my ministers have been directed to do that. Members, and private members as well, have been working very, very hard to engage with our counterparts at the federal level to make sure they understand how important this is for British Columbia.

But it's interesting that the member still doesn't stand up and say that he can persuade the members of his own party to support this procurement contract coming to British Columbia. We are working hard to persuade everyone in the House of Commons, in particular…

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …the federal government side of the House, with whom we have a great working relationship, I'm proud to say. We're going to continue to work with them to fight for what's right for British Columbia, and I hope that the member will be able to stand up today and tell us that he is hopeful, that he can give us some ray of hope, that he can persuade the members of his own party to be able to support this procurement contract coming to British Columbia, because it would sure be great for lots of B.C. families.

The Chair: Member and Leader of the Official Opposition, I just want to remind members that we're considering Vote 10, the budget estimates of the Office of the Premier. It is important to be relevant to those estimates.

[1725]

A. Dix: Absolutely.

The federal government put this out in June 2010, and the Premier says that the B.C. Liberal government here in B.C. got a meeting on the issue on May 15, 2011. They think we're being unfair when we raise the issue of how slow they were. They were clearly slow off the switch. They're clearly behind the governments of Quebec and Nova Scotia.

Yes, I know the Premier is about to say that there's an NDP government in Nova Scotia. They've been on the case. The B.C. Liberal government here has not, and that, unfortunately, is the difference facing British Columbia shipyards.

To go back to the other question, the question was very simple. In her role as Premier has she sought and has she received answers to the questions that she herself asked as a talk-show host?

Hon. C. Clark: It certainly has raised questions, and that's why I initiated the indemnity review that's ongoing now. I know that's been canvassed extensively with the appropriate ministers in the appropriate estimates. I don't intend to pursue that further here in these estimates today.

With respect to the shipbuilding contract, let me say this, because the member was also speaking about that in his comments. I think the proof is going to be in the pudding on this one. The member can stand up and cast aspersions on whether or not the government's really committed to doing this. As we get a little bit closer to it, I think the proof will be in the pudding.

As I said, I hope that even he will find some light and that even he will find something to smile about when he sees how committed the government is to making sure this happens for British Columbia families.

A. Dix: The Premier said: "I initiated the Toope review." Since the Premier initiated the Toope review, can she tell this House and this committee why the decision was made not to review the $6 million payout? The Premier has talked in public. As the initiator of this review, the Premier can explain in her own words why the $6 million plea agreement that violated a 25-year policy of the government….
[ Page 7809 ]

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

It ought to be reviewed. Before this, the Minister of Education said it ought to be reviewed. He had a little bit of support over there. Some other people, including the Premier herself, back before she was a leadership candidate, said it ought to be reviewed.

The question is: why isn't that plea agreement, the $6 million paid out in violation of the government's own rules on those questions, a subject of the review that the Premier, and I'm just quoting her now, personally initiated?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the payment the member is talking about is not part of the Premier's estimates, but I will say this. I know this has been canvassed thoroughly in other sets of estimates in the House.

The indemnity review is going to be looking at the entire policy of indemnity. Dr. Toope is a highly respected lawyer and a former professor of law and now the president of UBC. He's going to be doing a wide-ranging review, including indemnities that were extended long before this government was in power, if that's what he chooses to do. We'll see what that review comes back with.

[1730]

I think the public has had quite a legitimate concern about how indemnity was applied in the past, and that's what the review is intended to look at.

A. Dix: Back to the review that the Premier has confirmed that she as Premier and the Office of the Premier initiated, obviously, there were a series of options for the review. The one that the Premier selected, in her own words, was the option that excluded a review of the particular plea deal in question.

I want to know why the Premier excluded that review, a review of the $6 million plea deal about which there are so many unanswered questions — why the Premier made the decision not to in fact review that plea deal but instead made the decision to do a review of a policy, when in this case, in the case that initiated the review in the public sphere and was the cause of this review…. According to the Premier herself, this review took place because of the Basi-Virk $6 million payout.

I guess the question is why — when in that case it wasn't an issue of the policy; it was an issue of the fact that the government didn't follow the policy — there isn't a review of that particular $6 million payout, which has clearly undermined confidence in the government.

Hon. C. Clark: I did initiate this. I did ask the Attorney to put this in motion. The details of it are things that his ministry worked out, as should happen. I know the member has canvassed this very extensively — if not this member, other member's have — with, I think, at least another two ministers.

Let me say this. The news release announcing the details of how the review would work, which was released by the Attorney General, does not explicitly exclude anything, including the extension of indemnity in the 1990s and going back.

Dr. Toope is being asked to answer a series of questions. What is the objective of the indemnity policy? How does it work? Who is indemnified? Under what circumstances? Is the policy fair, and how does it compare with other jurisdictions? What, if any, changes need to be made? That's what the review is considering.

It's a broad review. It's going to be looking historically. As I said, the Attorney General's ministry worked out the details of exactly how this review would work, and I'd refer the member to the press release, the information bulletin, that describes it in quite a bit more detail.

A. Dix: The Premier says that she directed the Attorney General to proceed with this review. When did she make that decision? What were those directions? Did the Premier direct the Attorney General not to do a review of the $6 million payout? Did the Premier direct it? For example, the former Attorney General, the former Deputy Attorney General, the former deputy to the Premier — will they be testifying or providing evidence in that review?

I mean, either you review the payment, with the questions that the Premier herself used to ask before she became Premier, or you don't. I'm asking specifically here about when the Premier directed the Attorney General to do the review and what the instructions were — not what the press release says but what her instructions were to the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Clark: The instructions and the discussions of cabinet are confidential, and I'm not at liberty to discuss them. Certainly, though, I did have this discussion with the Attorney General sometime before May 13, when it was announced. As I said, the news release makes this very clear. Nothing is explicitly excluded from Dr. Toope's purview. He will be conducting this.

[1735]

The member keeps saying: "When you do a review…." I am not doing a review. Dr. Toope, a respected legal mind, is doing this review. I'm sure it will be in depth, and I'm sure he will look at many, many instances of when and how indemnity has been extended.

I think it is important that the public be clear on these issues. That's why when the Attorney General set out the details of how he would conduct this review, he described them in the news release. I know that the members opposite had a chance to talk to him about those specific details in the estimates. I hope they did, because that's where, I think, they should have gotten the answers to some of the questions that the member is now choosing to ask after the fact.
[ Page 7810 ]

The Chair: Leader of the Opposition, just to interject, I want to remind you that it has been said and noted that these issues have been canvassed with the relevant ministries, the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General.

A. Dix: I'm asking questions relevant to what the Premier did and the Premier's direction as to this review.

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: I'd like to say this committee will be recessed for a division vote. We'll reconvene right after.

The committee recessed from 5:36 p.m. to 5:49 p.m.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

A. Dix: To continue on this discussion of the review that the Premier initiated in her office that is now being headed up by Dr. Toope, the Premier, when she initiated the review, when she gave instructions to the Attorney General, decided not to review the $6 million payout to the B.C. Liberal officials who had been on trial and paid $6 million in their legal fees.

[1750]

Can the Premier take us through her thinking in that matter? In other words, when she initiated the review in her office instructing the Attorney General in that regard, why did she decide not to specifically review that $6 million payment? Why did she decide not to do that?

Hon. C. Clark: I made a commitment that…. I was quite clear to British Columbians that I was concerned about this issue. After I became Premier, I had a discussion with the Attorney General. He and I shared this concern, and I directed him to initiate this review. He's initiated it. He has settled the details, as I've said a number of times.

The items to which the member is referring are not excluded from that review. It will be a very broad review looking at a lot of issues around indemnity.

A. Dix: The decision not to have a specific review of the $6 million payout, that decision that the Premier took and then instructed the Attorney General…. I mean, the option to review the $6 million payout in violation of the 25-year policy of the government…. The decision not to do that was the Premier's decision, I gather, and the Premier decided not to do that even though the option to have a review of that would have been an option clearly before her.

I mean, the Minister of Education, who was one of her rivals for the leadership of the Liberal Party, specifically called for that.

I want to know why the Premier excluded that option, excluded the proposal of the Minister of Education, and decided not to have a review of the $6 million payout — including answers to this long list of questions, including answers to questions like, and this is an important question: was the Crown worried that they couldn't get a conviction otherwise? They could only get a conviction, they could only get these guys to agree what they'd done was criminal if they threw $6 million into the pot to sweeten the deal?

Clearly, that won't be a subject of the review. That was a question the Premier herself had, yet she has excluded that from this review.

The issue was clearly before her, put before her in an eloquent way by the Minister of Education, who had made that specific proposal. I'm asking the Premier when she, in her office, gave instructions as to this review, why she decided not to review this payout to Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, as I said, I think that the public was concerned about the indemnity policy of government. I think they were right to be concerned about it. The current Minister of Education expressed a concern about it as well.

I should just take a moment to acknowledge the great work that he is doing in his ministry, the first Minister of Education since 1996 to attend a BCTF convention and the first to get a standing ovation when he did it. He is doing terrific work in that regard.

The Attorney General, as I said, shared my concerns about this. We met. We talked about it. I asked him to initiate this review, which he has done. The details of the review were details that he set and that would be appropriately canvassed in his estimates. I am told that they were canvassed extensively.

As I've said a number of times already, the issues that the member has raised are not excluded from Dr. Toope's review.

I'd remind him again. He keeps saying: "When you do the review." I am not doing this review. Dr. Stephen Toope is doing this review.

A. Dix: Well, the Premier gave direction as to this review, what the scope of this review was.

The Premier is wrong. The people of B.C. are not concerned about the indemnity policy. I have never heard that raised. What their concern is, is that the government didn't follow the indemnity policy. They didn't follow the indemnity policy, and they gave $6 million at a time when the government says that they can't afford to do basic things like run courthouses and so on and when they can't fund very important things, I think people would agree, like group homes for people with developmental disabilities — 55 of them closed.

[1755]

The public is concerned that there was a $6 million payout to put it to an end, a trial that was a serious trial
[ Page 7811 ]
for the government in power. That's the concern of the public. And the Premier who said very specifically a few minutes ago — I notice that there was a backing off of this now — that the Premier initiated the review, that this was her initiation and her.

She had the option to review the decision of the government — not to have an indemnity policy. Of course the government has an indemnity policy. The Premier decided not to review this decision, this decision around that indemnity policy. A decision that, by the way, was favourable for many people in the government's political party — right? Because it put an end to a trial that wasn't going very well for them, and this is what happened.

So the Minister of Education said that that should be reviewed. That's what the Minister of Education said. But the Premier decided not to do a review of the decision — not of the indemnity policy, because people don't care about the indemnity policy that much, I don't think. They have issues about it. I'm sure that they're interesting issues of concern.

But the Premier decided, as I understand it, not to review this decision, not to follow the indemnity policy that allowed $6 million of public funds that we can ill afford to go to B.C. insiders, that allowed $6 million of public funds that should be spent elsewhere to go to B.C. Liberal insiders — right? That was the decision.

So the question to the Premier is: why aren't we reviewing that decision? Why did the Liberal Premier of British Columbia initiate a review and not ask that that decision be reviewed?

Hon. C. Clark: As I've said a number of times, the Attorney General set the details of this review. None of the issues that the member refers to are excluded from that review. I've said that a number of times, and I don't have anything new to add, any new information to add further than what I've told the member quite a few times already.

I would refer him to the estimates for the Minister of Attorney General. If he failed to get the answers he sought then, this is not the time or place to try and seek those.

As I said, I don't have anything further to add on that subject. I've answered these repeated questions a number of times and, I don't have anything further to add than that.

A. Dix: I could play, too. We could go all night. The question though is, and the question I've been asking that the Premier has refused to answer: what were her reasons — when she in her own words initiated this review — for not having a review of the decision not to apply the indemnity policy in the B.C. Liberal corruption scandal?

Hon. C. Clark: I haven't been counting exactly but I think I may have answered that question ten or 12 times. As I said, I don't have anything new to add.

The member would have been wise, I think, to raise these issues with the Attorney General. I think he did. If he didn't get the answers that he sought, that he hoped to get…. I'm sure he got some good answers, but they weren't the ones, obviously, or the words that he hoped to put in the minister's mouth at the time, I suppose. I don't have anything new to add to this.

I move that at the close of the sitting day the committee report progress on the Office of the Premier.

Motion approved.

The Chair: By agreement we'll be recessing for 25 minutes. I'll see you all back here at 6:25 with the estimates for the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

The committee recessed from 5:59 p.m. to 6:27 p.m.

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENERGY AND MINES

(continued)

On Vote 23: ministry operations, $47,926,000 (continued).

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Chair, for recognizing me. In this crowd of people I would have been hard to recognize.

I thank the minister again for a brief nutrition break, and we're back at estimates 2011-12. I want to say at the outset that, in a moment of charity, I suggested to staff that they need not come tonight because I would confine my questioning to the oil and gas sector. I'm pleased to have the staff available on this night to help us out in that, Minister.

But I just want to say that there are two areas that I didn't get to canvass on the electricity file that I'd like to just put on record with the minister now. He and I have talked off line about the prospect of more detailed briefings on various issues. My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke is going to be meeting with the minister and others on the Columbia River treaty, and I'm going to certainly participate in that as well.

But we didn't get to Site C, which is a very contentious issue in some parts of British Columbia, nor did we get to the Columbia Power Corporation, where I used to work. I would like to canvass issues on those two subjects sometime over the next month or so.

I would just ask if the minister could confirm for the record that an opportunity would be presented to me to sit down with appropriate staff and any other people he would
[ Page 7812 ]
want to assign to the meeting so that I could have a detailed discussion of the Site C proposal, as well as an opportunity to speak with officials from Columbia Power on issues pertaining not just to the treaty but to the Waneta expansion, which is a project near and dear to my heart.

Hon. R. Coleman: No problem. I actually spoke to the other minister today and some staff with regards to the one briefing that we talked about yesterday with regards to the Columbia River treaty and confirmed with the member for Kootenay East that we would be doing that. I have no problem actually including the member in that. We will make arrangements for the other two briefings to take place.

J. Horgan: I want to start by saying that I had an opportunity to ask the Premier a question about tanker traffic on the north coast. We didn't get into issues around the current moratorium on oil and gas exploration on the north coast. The ministry had — I wouldn't say a division, I think — certainly a silo within the ministry in previous estimates, going back to certainly '07-08.

[1830]

I'm wondering if the minister could advise what the status is of the former group that used to be focused on the offshore oil and gas exploration moratorium.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm sure you advised your two colleagues and I will advise my colleague of the rules of the game in this particular chamber this evening. We don't want to know any scores of what might be going on in the outside world.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: See, this is the problem.

Actually, there's no work being done whatsoever in offshore oil and gas right now.

J. Horgan: In discussions with the Premier prior to the nutrition break, there was what I characterize as a nebulous response. I'm sure the Premier felt differently about that. She had made some references to tankers traversing the St. Lawrence Seaway every day, and that was not a concern to her. She saw a possibility of that happening on the north coast.

This is going to lead into a serious of questions on the Enbridge pipeline, just so the minister and staff are aware of that.

I wanted to know if we could address the question of a destination point for oil and gas — well, let's start with oil — as a result of the Enbridge pipeline. There's no point in going to tidewater if the province of British Columbia is going to maintain the moratorium — or the voluntary exclusion zone, I believe, is the appropriate language. I stand to be corrected.

My question is: is it the view of the minister and the ministry that at the present time tanker traffic is excluded from activity on the north coast?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's no moratorium on tankers on the west coast. It's a voluntary exclusion zone that exists for tankers that are travelling from Alaska to the Lower 48 to stay 80 to 100 nautical miles off the coast of British Columbia. On a regular basis, tankers do come into the Port of Vancouver to deliver petroleum products, what have you. That's one of the things people don't really know about the traffic.

It's a voluntary exclusion zone right now between the Coast Guard and the shippers coming from Alaska down into the lower 48.

J. Horgan: Certainly, representing the constituency of Juan de Fuca, which is named after the Strait of Juan de Fuca, we in my neck of the woods see big boats every now and again coming back and forth along the straits. We're certainly seized of it on the west coast of Vancouver Island — the amount of traffic that is on the south coast.

The exclusion zone that you talked about, however, is interpreted by many people in British Columbia as prohibiting tankers from arriving in places like Kitimat, for example, to pick up what would be the end product of an Enbridge pipeline.

[1835]

I guess specifically: what is the minister's view on tanker traffic in and out of Dixon Entrance into Kitimat?

Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to make sure the member knows he's got the interpretation wrong, first of all. It is a voluntary agreement on taking tankers down the outside of the coast of British Columbia outside of Haida Gwaii, 70 to 100 nautical miles off the coast, to deliver that. We do already have shipments of diesel and oil that go into coastal communities today. I don't have the list of communities that we serve, but we also know that tankers take condensate into Kitimat now. That condensate is then shipped by rail to Alberta and across the west.

I know we're getting down to a discussion about tanker traffic, etc. But I just want to be clear that there's no moratorium in place. There's no legal moratorium in place with regards to tankers on the coast of British Columbia. It's a voluntary exclusion zone that's been agreed to by the parties.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for the response. Look, let's move to the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project. Can the minister advise this committee of the status of that project and what role his ministry is playing in either advocacy or education on behalf of the people of British Columbia?
[ Page 7813 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: The Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, as they refer to it, obviously has the potential to deal with some transference of oil from northern Alberta across British Columbia to a port to have it exported. It's right now undergoing a full Canadian environmental assessment to meet the strict requirements of both the National Energy Board Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This is a really long process that will take years to complete.

A joint review panel has been formed by the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The joint review board requested additional information from Enbridge before continuing the process. That's where they are right now.

Enbridge is currently working on filing their additional information. The next step is that this joint review process will be issued a hearing order to outline the timeline of the review and information on how people can participate.

[1840]

Our interest in British Columbia is seeing if this is possible in a scientific, sound and environmentally responsible manner. At this point in time this ministry would probably be an intervener or a part of the process, but we're not involved in the project at all.

J. Horgan: Has the ministry sought intervener status, following on the minister's briefing note?

Just as an aside, I've often thought that the more efficient way to manage estimates is to give the critic the briefing binder prepared for the minister. Then it would save a whole lot of time. I could read it at my leisure.

Nonetheless, has the minister sought intervener status, and, if so, what would the position of the province of British Columbia be?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, we haven't applied for intervener status as yet. There is lots of time to do that, because there's a lot of process ahead. We would have to reach that point.

Obviously we have interest in seeing whether we could have the $5.5 billion investment in British Columbia and the jobs that come with it and the relationships that we may be able to build if it can be done. But if it can't be done without working with First Nations and meeting the environmental standards and what have you…. I think all the parties recognize that that is where the work has to be done from here before we would ever get to a position with any more depth than that with regards to the particular pipeline.

Obviously we welcome investment, and we welcome opportunity, but those investments and opportunity have to come at a point in time when they actually meet the requirements that are being laid out for them to have to meet before they can ever get to it.

J. Horgan: Certainly, some of my colleagues in the official opposition have expressed their views on the Northern Gateway Project. I as critic have done my best to stay a bit detached from that in the interest of having a broader and more comprehensive view. My colleague the Environment critic has done, I think, a super job, as has my colleague the aboriginal affairs critic, in trying to grapple with some of the environmental and First Nations issues that the minister is well aware of.

However, it strikes me, just as a point of economic opportunity, that were I to take the limited means available to me as Minister of Energy, and the capable staff at his disposal…. Knowing that the amount of oil in British Columbia is very, very small, and the amount of natural gas potential, conventional and unconventional, is very, very large, I would be focusing all of my energies on liquid natural gas capacity in Kitimat so that we could take a product that belongs to the people of British Columbia, extract it, add value to it and find markets where we can get a far greater return than we're getting right now.

I know that the minister will agree with that position, but rather than just a mutual admiration society on the question, I'd prefer instead for him to give me some details on where we are with respect to LNG in Kitimat, what pipeline capacity we will need to get from the northeast to tidewater that is not already in place, and generally what the state of play is on liquid natural gas potential in Kitimat.

Hon. R. Coleman: We recognize that the liquefied natural gas opportunities are substantive. We have more than one player, than just Kitimat. We actually have another major international company interested in Prince Rupert which would also like to bring natural gas from the Horn and Liard and the northeast part of the province to a liquefied natural gas plant in that location.

They're in the early stages of their work, but I've met with them, and they've indicated that they want to also be a participant in liquefied natural gas. They think there's capacity for two to hit the Asian market, which is obviously very important for our natural gas resources in the long term, for a number of reasons.

First of all, as the member knows, we have in North America today a glut of natural gas, so the glut of natural gas has driven the price down under $4 most days, and as a result…. You know, we're the furthest from the market. We have to get it through to Chicago to distribute it across the United States. So we have to go through various pipelines to be able to ship it into the North American market.

At a price of $3 to $4, it is tough economically, whereas it's presently in Asia about $12. As a result, if you could get liquefied natural gas to Korea, China and other areas in Southeast Asia, there would be a great advantage.

[1845]
[ Page 7814 ]

There are a couple of projects that are being looked at. One is the group that the member is familiar with, and that is the folks that are trying to put it into Kitimat. They're entering a partnership with a couple of companies to try and do that.

They've had very good success to date with almost all the First Nation groups along the route. They also have a very good proposal, as I understand it, a relationship with a First Nation where they would actually place the plant in Kitimat to build the liquefied natural gas plant.

All of the oil and gas industry see this, in my initial meetings with the gas industry, as a critical component to the future of the industry in British Columbia because we're closer to the Asia market, as we know, but at the same time we have an abundant resource that, if we can get it to that market, would be beneficial to all of us in B.C. and obviously get a better price for the product, which would then give better revenues to us as government for the things that we need to pay for, but also, as the member says, get a resource that's in British Columbia to those markets.

I've had meetings with all the players in these so far, and we'll continue to do so. I think that they're further down the road than the Enbridge-type proposal. They're much further down the road with their work with First Nations and, certainly, on their location of where they want to go. They'll probably be out of the chute a lot earlier, and again, it's multi-billions of dollars of investment into B.C. for the natural gas sector.

J. Horgan: Last evening we were discussing material assumptions with respect to electricity prices and the impact that has on B.C. Hydro, whether it be our heritage assets or power we import or power we purchase from independent power producers. I highlighted, as the Minister of Finance did, that the market is quite flat for electricity, and the minister, in his comments a moment ago, confirmed what we all know and what we see every day — that the price for natural gas in North America is flat as well.

Has the ministry done any work on the potential benefits to the treasury of not just the industrial economic activity that would flow from LNG capacity, whether it's in Kitimat or Prince Rupert, but the impact potentially on royalty revenues? That will lead into some questions about how we set our royalty rates, as well, but I'll just start with that.

What's the overall economic impact anticipated to be if we can get a better price for our product?

[1850]

Hon. R. Coleman: Sorry, hon. Member. I thought maybe we could do the math. We'll try and do the math. The numbers are staggering. Basically, what it is, though, is that this pipeline will move 700 million cubic metres per year. To just sort of try and draw the parallel, today we sell about a trillion cubic metres, and government revenue is about $350 million a year. We'll get to work on the difference, but it's substantial. It's probably the number of possibly $1 billion or $2 billion or more, because we're obviously going to be selling it for a much higher price.

I remember back in the golden days of natural gas at one point in time as government — I think it was around 2004 or 2005 — when prices were up around $7 or $8. Government was getting a substantial amount more money out of this particular sector, probably another billion dollars. So it is a huge deal for the future revenues, not just to the province but the jobs, obviously, in economic development. It is a huge deal for the future revenues of government as well.

J. Horgan: I agree with the minister; the potential is enormous. That's why it's curious that when we hear discussion about the oil and gas sector and we hear discussion about pipelines, we hear about oil from another jurisdiction. I'm wondering: in light of the answer the minister just gave me and the math that's being done….

I knew it was going to be a big number before I asked. I'm grateful that people smarter than I are actually doing the math. But it seems to me, even with my simple means, that it makes more sense for us to extract and exploit a resource that belongs to British Columbians rather than facilitate the transportation of a resource that belongs to another jurisdiction.

Would the minister agree that if we had to take our limited resources…? I know that the ministry is a shadow of what it was ten years ago, and that's not a partisan statement. I don't want the record to show anything other than that it's not as big as it used to be. Yet the activity is ten times what it was when I was involved in the ministry.

Would the minister agree that if we are going to put our energies into this sector, we should be doing it in the interest of British Columbians and a British Columbia resource, rather than Albertans and an Alberta resource?

Hon. R. Coleman: To the member opposite: don't underestimate the enthusiasm that I have for this particular project or another natural gas project or the support we want to give to this opportunity in British Columbia. I've met with the parties. I've been very positive about what we're trying to do. We've told them we will work with them to try and facilitate it.

At the same time, though, we have to recognize that somebody who wants to build another pipeline does have the right to make an application, does have the right to go through the process. That one will be years in process. Hopefully, this one will not.

[1855]
[ Page 7815 ]

They're way further down the road on their relationships with First Nations and all the things that are going to be important to this project as well as the siting of a plant in Kitimat. I think you'll see even more coming, because we made it pretty clear that we want to work with the industry. We do have this massive resource in the northeast, and we do want to get it to other markets and are prepared to work with the industry to do so.

At the same time, just because we're doing that and we're enthusiastic, it doesn’t mean we shut the door to other jurisdictions, which we share borders with in Canada, to move their resources. If it can be done in a way that those applications can come through and the environmental process can be done, recognizing they've got to get through the First Nations piece, with the consultation and accommodation….

They have to get through the environmental assessment process and the other process — the National Energy Board stuff. They have to do their work to do that. So it's not like we're going to say that we're shutting out our western partners in Canada, but at the same time we're very enthusiastic about the natural gas opportunity.

J. Horgan: I don't want those in this building — not public servants, but those in this building who would want to take my comments and construe them — to be opposed to economic development in the north, because that's not the case.

I recognize the value of this sector, as do most British Columbians, but they are also mindful of the environmental consequences of crude versus gas in terms of…. As someone once said to me: "Oil sticks to stuff; gas just blows up." So once it's blown up or vented, problem solved — unlike oil, which tends to stick around for a considerable period of time. I'm paraphrasing a friend and colleague, so I'll leave it at that.

I do want to, however, speak for a moment, if I could, about hydraulic fracturing, because although we are…. Hon. Chair, the committee will be mindful of the enormous benefits that we have received from the oil and gas sector in British Columbia over the past 20 years.

Even in the dark decade of the 1990s that I'm often reminded of by members on the opposite side, we made tremendous strides in this sector and, in fact, laid the foundation for the successes we've seen in the early part of the decade and, even with a low price, the success we see today. But there are environmental consequences of the activity.

We had some questions raised today in the Legislature, and I'd like to follow on to those questions with the minister, having the opportunity to give him a more complete response in these estimates. Firstly, hon. Chair, what was the minister's response when he heard of Quebec's decision to put in a more rigid set of guidelines than we have here?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, actually, Quebec didn't do that. What Quebec did was put a moratorium on. They put a moratorium on because they started to find out about some shale gas activity, and they had no idea what they were getting into. They did not have an oil and gas commission that had matured over a number years. They had not been doing it for over a decade like we have in British Columbia. They did not understand it.

Quebec actually, as I understand it, has been out meeting with our own gas commission on our regulations and on our environmental standards and those such things, so they can sort of get a grasp of it. That's the decision they made in Quebec on the basis that, quite frankly, this was new to them. It's not new to us. That's the difference between the two jurisdictions.

My understanding is that they've had folks in contact with the Oil and Gas Commission, trying to figure out how they would deal with their type of extraction. They also have a different depth and form of shale evidently. I don't understand all of the geological nuances with this, but I do understand they have some other issues that they're also going to have to deal with.

J. Horgan: Have there been representatives from the province of Quebec visiting British Columbia and the Oil and Gas Commission since the announcement of the moratorium?

Hon. R. Coleman: There have been verbal and there have been phone calls, but they have not come out.

J. Horgan: I suspect they're waiting for January or February. That's usually my experience with those living in the east. If they have to come west for fact-finding missions, it's best to do it in January and February.

[1900]

I wonder if the minister could advise the committee what work has been done in the Peace country to determine rates of recharging for aquifers and the impact of freshwater extraction that is being fuelled by a desire to get water to pads. What has the impact been on the water table, and what studies have been done or what work is planned to give comfort to people in the community that their aquifers are not being drained?

Hon. R. Coleman: We recognize that water is an important factor here. We have enhanced tracking. We actually track the amount that's permitted, the amount that is used. We can probably get the numbers on how much of it is recycled back. We also treat all the other fluids, etc., at the source. They're cleaned, and they're recycled out.

We also liaise with the Ministry of Environment with regards to this. There's a bunch of work done on this by the Ministry of Energy and Mines — not just us but Environment, Geoscience B.C., the Canadian Petroleum
[ Page 7816 ]
Producers and the Oil and Gas Commission. And just so the member knows, if there's a year of drought or water shortage, we're the first to shut down. Environment tells us when there's a concern about water. If it's going to be a low-water year or whatever, we'd be the first to shut down and not be using water.

[P. Pimm in the chair.]

J. Horgan: We're discussing the issue near and dear to the Chair's heart and his community, so he's come at a good time. I know he's going to enjoy the discussion.

The previous minister…. No, I'm sorry. It was only a year ago, but it was three ministers ago in estimates. The member for Peace River South spoke to me about proposals in Dawson Creek to use grey water as an alternative to fresh water and other proposals, and I even actually think that the Chair made reference earlier in the week in a statement in the Legislature to alternative approaches to fresh water.

Can the minister advise the committee what steps are being taken? And if he could also quantify that by comparing the volumes of fresh water used previously versus what's being used today and how much of that fresh water is being displaced by grey water and other already polluted sources?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have all the numbers, but I do have the answer. But I do want to remind the member — I just can't resist — that we should probably tell the people from Quebec what the weather is like in January and February in Fort St. John if they're coming west because of weather.

[1905]

They probably may not know that the Oil and Gas Commission is actually headquartered in Fort St. John. That would be an interesting one if they arrived in Vancouver thinking that's where they'd be doing their consultation. They would be going north to Fort St. John.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, but they won't get the information there. They're going to have to go north, my friend. Go north — right, hon. Chair? Absolutely.

What's going on now with regards to the shale and gas stuff is that there are a couple of projects. First of all, the Shell Dawson Creek grey water treatment plant, which is under agreement. Shell is going to treat the municipality of Dawson Creek's grey water effluent as a drilling and completion water source. They'll be able to use that for all of their fracking operations, so they'll ship it out and use it for that.

EnCana, Apache are doing a Deboltwater treatment plant which uses a Debolt formation water, which is deep saline aquifer water 500 to 1,100 metres below surface — the potable water in the area is at about 150 metres — as a frac water source. They're working through some processes they still have to finish before that one gets done.

They're all aware of it. They're working on alternate sources for the water to reduce the need for fresh water.

J. Horgan: I am pleased to hear that progress is being made on that front.

Just while I've got it in front of me, I want to get back to this, so I'm not leaving it. The minister did mention that our eastern friends, when they come, will have to go to Fort St. John, which can be cold in the winter; I do know that. But we do have at least two offices for the Oil and Gas Commission. There's an office in Victoria and an office in Fort St. John.

There was talk that there might be an office opening in Kelowna. I want to know if that happened. Beyond that, I'd like to know what the staff complement is in the Victoria office and what the staff complement is in the Fort St. John office.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll break it all down for you. In Victoria we have 67 people who are basically there for reservoir engineering, administration, regulatory issues, geology and those sorts of things. In Kelowna we also have seven people. Those folks are basically involved in engineering and things to do with LNG and what have you.

[1910]

Because there are about 600 graduates from the University of British Columbia Okanagan annually, we find that's a good place to tie into some of the university knowledge and work. Plus, the Kelowna space is actually more economical than Victoria is for space. It gives us a reach out into the other communities, like engineers and that sort of thing.

We also have 137 people in Fort St. John at the Oil and Gas Commission. We have smaller offices, obviously, in the same area where the activity is, which is Dawson Creek and Fort Nelson. We have eight people in Dawson Creek and four people in Fort Nelson.

The Fort St. John office would still be the place that our friends from Quebec would have to go if they wanted to learn about unconventional gas, because that's where that expertise resides.

J. Horgan: I'll go to the Kelowna office — seven people. There is a university campus there. They have engineering students. There are university campuses all across B.C. that have engineering students. Why would Kelowna have been selected? Was there any reason?

I mean, you can get low rent in a lot of places. I wouldn't expect that Kelowna would be the lowest rent in the province. I would suspect that Terrace probably
[ Page 7817 ]
looks pretty good right about now if you wanted to get some storefront space, although you've got a long distance to go to a university.

I would like to know who these seven people are. What are they doing — specifically, their titles — and how long have they been there?

Hon. R. Coleman: They've been there about six months. We used to have an office in Kamloops, but our costs of occupancy were going up.

The first thing the member should know is that 20 percent of the assets we regulate are south of Prince George. That's pipelines, plants. For instance, these particular people would be the engineers that would be overseeing this…. You've probably heard of the pipeline that's proposed to go to YVR for the jet fuel. These are the folks that would be the engineers on that project from the Oil and Gas Commission's perspective.

What we have in Kelowna…. We have an assistant deputy commissioner of engineering. We have one engineer that's a manager. We have two facility engineers, one GIS tech and two other engineers with other qualifications.

J. Horgan: When did these individuals move from office space in Fort St. John or Victoria to take up these positions?

[1915]

Hon. R. Coleman: We had five move from Fort St. John, one move from Victoria, and one was hired outside. Through this process we actually kept one engineer in particular, who was thinking of retiring and is going to stay on for a few more years. He's in a highly technical spot, which gives us an opportunity to mentor younger engineers by using his qualifications and his expertise with other folks.

J. Horgan: The minister mentioned that there was a move from Kamloops to Kelowna to save money. Yet of the seven people that are in the office, none of them were from Kamloops. So I'm wondering: what were they doing in Kamloops? Or where did they go?

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason for that is the three people we did have in the Kamloops office at the time were inspectors, and we consolidated our inspectors into Fort St. John. So they went to Fort St. John because we needed the inspector capacity in Fort St. John, and we needed the engineering capacity in the south.

J. Horgan: Now, I know this move happened when…. This was just the last Minister of Energy, who happened to be from Kelowna. I want to give the minister the opportunity to tell me that that had nothing to do with establishing an Oil and Gas Commission office in Kelowna.

Hon. R. Coleman: I will tell the member that there's no way that was the reason for the move. In actual fact, the work had started long before the minister came along. If the members are familiar with the length of time to find space, figure out who's relocating, the business case for what you're doing — and if you know the short period of time the particular individual was the minister — then even from his own imagination he can't possibly draw a parallel to this particular move being tied to that.

J. Horgan: I'm certain the minister doesn't want to dive into my imagination at any point in time, for his own benefit and the benefit of the committee.

I am certainly seized of the frequency with which there are new ministers. In fact, it's not so much on the energy side, the electricity and oil and gas side, although there have been many in the past 12 months — four with the incumbent here today.

On the mining side it's a different matter. In fact, I go annually to the mineral roundup in Vancouver; 5,000-odd people from around North America come to look at opportunity in British Columbia. If there's one certainty every year at the roundup, it is that the Finance critic to my left and myself are there. In fact, the only constant political figures on the mining side are myself and the Finance critic from Surrey-Whalley. So I am aware that there are significant changes at executive council in this sector.

[1920]

I'll leave that aside. I didn't want to go too far into that. But the Kelowna thing intrigued me, and now I know. I can use my imagination however I see fit, and the minister will allow me to do that.

I want to talk briefly about the royalty program in British Columbia, and I want to know if the minister could advise the committee. There was a royalty break when we saw a decline in revenues, in an effort to see more activity, back in 2008-2009. I'm wondering if the minister could advise this committee if there was any benefit from that royalty reduction and if that royalty reduction is still in place. If so, are we now uncompetitive with neighbouring jurisdictions like Alberta?

Hon. R. Coleman: In 2008 during the recession there was a 2 percent royalty break given. It was time-limited for less than a year. That did manage to keep activity in British Columbia and not have it gravitate out to other jurisdictions, like Alberta, and keep some of the jobs here. That expired, like I say, within probably less than a year.

To the second part of the member's question, I know we're still competitive without that, in our programs that we have with regard to incentives around unconventional drilling and that sort of stuff, which have been around for some time. Even when I was in Calgary recently and met
[ Page 7818 ]
with the oil and gas people and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, they made it clear that British Columbia was one of the best places in North America that they looked at to invest.

J. Horgan: Just on the royalty question, as we didn't get an opportunity last year in estimates. Again, I guess it's the nature of the process and the timing that I usually find myself at the end when we're running out of time, just as we are tonight. So I'm not able to fully canvass these questions.

There was certainly an uproar and a change in Premiers in Alberta, and around that time an opportunity to perhaps get more provincial revenue from the resource. Alberta made an attempt. There was a lot of noise from the non-conventional people, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and others. Our response to that was to keep our royalties in place.

Would the minister foresee an opportunity to perhaps increase our royalties to provide even more revenue from this product now? I understand that with prices depressed and the market in a bit of a glut at present…. If we do have an opportunity, as we discussed, with LNG, would the minister contemplate a royalty review in the short term or in the long term to take advantage of increasing opportunities for finding markets?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've been briefed up on the royalty programs, and I think they're competitive. I would want to be in a competitive environment because, obviously, if you're not, then the investment moves very quickly to another location field anywhere else in North America.

[1925]

So in the short term, no. There's no intention as a minister for the period of time that I've been here to go and do a royalty review. Probably in the further term as this matures as an industry and as we get their capital investment in place and start to look at markets, certainly we would — through the discussions with industry and obviously with our own finance people — take a look at our royalty programs. But in the near term, just so the member knows, it is not on my radar as one of the primary initiatives of the ministry right now to spend time on doing a review of the royalty program today.

J. Horgan: Could the minister advise the committee what the differential is, apples to apples, between B.C. and Alberta at the present time?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's no apples-to-apples comparison available on this, because we all have different programs. Alberta, actually, because they're more oil-based, if they have a net profit royalty program, it's more concentrated into the oil sands area and that sort of thing, versus for us it's in our natural gas resource. Obviously, that's our bigger resource.

I don't have anything that would, say, compare our deep-well royalty to their deep-well royalty, their unconventional gas royalty to ours. They don't have the shale size of field that we have, that we're dealing with, which is a more expensive investment for drilling than just the conventional gas.

We have different types of gas, some with more liquids in some areas of B.C. There's a different value added to that because the liquids in the natural gas can be extracted for other uses. We have dry gas in other areas, which are affected by a different value down the value chain. Plus we have the different types of formations. So we don't have an apples-to-apples comparison.

J. Horgan: Well, I was reminded by my colleague from Surrey-Whalley that when Tommy Douglas was the Premier of Saskatchewan and was amending royalties in the oil and gas sector back in the late '50s, Esso decided to up stakes and move on. Tommy was famously noted to say that the bad news is that Esso is leaving, and the good news is that they're leaving the oil behind.

With that in mind, if in fact we don't have apples-to-apples comparisons, wouldn't it be an opportune time — since we have our own orchard — to readjust those royalties to improve returns to the treasury? If the minister can't compare them, then I'm suspecting that industry can't either. So why not take the opportunity to have our distinct asset base here, our distinct profile for the sector, to see if we can squeeze a few more bucks out of our friends who are doing quite well in the sector?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, the evolution of the gas and oil industry in British Columbia is just that. The member will know that over the different decades — and I'm not going to go to a particular decade for criticism; I'm going to just say over time — we've tried to adjust our marketplace in British Columbia with our royalty programs and our taxation to try and attract investment.

We wouldn't be facing the explosion of jobs in the northeast right now, particularly in the Horn River and those particular formations, if we hadn't gone outside the box. If we had stuck in an apples-to-apples comparison, we wouldn't be developing there because it's a more expensive way of doing business, although it has great production coming in with the number of trillion cubic metres or cubic feet of natural gas we're finding.

I really did get the message early on when I met with industry that if we hadn't taken some of those incentives on our net profit royalty program, for instance — that actually over time gets us the same revenue we would have got, but at the front end, to encourage investments, it's a little less — we wouldn't be seeing the opportunities.

[1930]

If we didn't see the opportunity, we wouldn't have had the earlier discussion about the pipeline and the
[ Page 7819 ]
liquefied natural gas plant, because that would be still sitting there, and we wouldn't have encouraged the investment to go and do the exploration and go for the gas. So it's a balance you strike.

When I became the minister, I looked at the programs, and I felt comfortable with the work that my predecessor had done — probably more so that the staff had done — in trying to balance this industry with North American standards to be competitive.

At this stage I'm comfortable with where we sit, so I see no reason to tinker with something that is working. I don't think it's necessary, every time a new minister comes in, to change things, anyway. Sometimes there's been some very good work done, and I think there's been some good work done on this.

J. Horgan: Well, again, the challenge for those who are not steeped in the sector is that there's an expectation that the Crown is always mindful of opportunity to maximize the benefit of a public resource — to convert that public resource into revenue for the Crown.

I appreciate that the minister has answered the question. He took a look at it when he was sworn in. He's comfortable with it and, in the short term, has no plans to change. But I'm wondering, again, with the prospect of new markets because of LNG and an opportunity….

Investment goes where it can get the greatest return — we all understand that — but the advantages in the northeast to tidewater and to this expanding market in Asia are far greater than continuing to flood Oklahoma or Chicago. It seems to me that might well be an opportunity for the minister or for the Oil and Gas Commission to take a sober second look at the opportunity.

I suspect that if we have a facility in Kitimat and markets in Asia, then the activity in the northeast is going to continue to be hot rather than flat. Would the minister agree?

Hon. R. Coleman: So we have the best of all worlds, Member. Our program is designed so that basically, as the investment is repaid, the royalty goes up. At the back end of it, in actual fact, it escalates higher than you would have paid royalties to begin with — because of the program.

The good news around the pipeline and the liquefied natural gas issue and the prices that we'd receive is that our royalties would go up quicker. We'd be paid higher royalties sooner because the return on investment would happen quicker because of price. So it's actually geared to try and do exactly what the member has described.

J. Horgan: Well, as I understand the net profit royalty program…. On the surface, it makes sense to me, but I'm wondering if the time frame that is currently in place is the appropriate one. The minister has answered the question, so I think I'm going to move on. I think we might disagree.

If I had access to the good folks behind you on a more regular basis, I may well be as comforted. But as someone who is paid by the Queen every two weeks to hold your feet to the fire, it strikes me that it's an appropriate question to ask. If there's an opportunity to increase revenue opportunities in the oil and gas sector, we should do so.

I want to talk a little bit about First Nations consultation. The Oil and Gas Commission has agreements in place with the Treaty 8 First Nations. Those agreements, as I understand it, are about to expire, if they have not already expired. Perhaps the minister could update the committee on the state of negotiations for new agreements or what prospects there are for continued cooperation between the various bands in the northeast and the province of British Columbia.

[1935]

Hon. R. Coleman: There are eight agreements. They expired on March 31, with the exception of one which was extended by one of the bands. The other seven are in negotiations. There's a negotiation plan that we've worked on. We're not the lead on this. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is. Our hope and plan would be to have them all finished by the end of this year.

We did offer some interim steps to continue agreements. Those were turned down, but we have provided some capacity dollars so that they could continue to negotiate and basically keep their First Nations operations going while we go through negotiations.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation would be the lead on this. I know that they're ably assisted by ministry staff, as well as Oil and Gas Commission staff. Can the minister advise how many people in the operation are focused on getting these seven agreements in place? Is there a time frame, or is it "when we're done, we're done"?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so the member knows, it's a huge priority for the Oil and Gas Commission to participate and help with this, so they have timelines in place and schedules. They believe they will be able to complete all of these by the end of this year.

There are three people totally dedicated to the OGC. Plus, senior management are engaged as well. Although they have other files, it is a very important piece of their work in the northeast, working with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I don't know how many people at MARR are involved in that. That's the numbers from us.
[ Page 7820 ]

J. Horgan: Could the minister advise how many staff at the Oil and Gas Commission are currently in a position to monitor…? I'm going back to the freshwater issue around hydraulic fracking. How many staff are monitoring the disposal of fracking material once a well has been exhausted and the material has reached its end date?

[1940]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to give the member an answer. Basically, it's from soup to nuts. This really starts at the very beginning, at the approval process, and then it goes to the reservoirs where there's competent material management and treatment of the things. That is actually at the front end. There are 15 reservoir experts that deal with that. Those people also do the follow-up and tracking and reporting of the disposal.

I've met with some of the companies that do disposal and looked at what they do. I'm actually going up to the Horn in a couple weeks to go right on site.

They take that away, and they have these treatment plants where they actually take it right back to sand, clean it, take all the effluents and any contaminants out of it, and recycle all of that material. They have contracts where they go right on site with the plant and do that there. That's also people that are approved and tracked and watched by these 15 people.

There are 20 inspectors on top of that. They're located in Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek. They go out and inspect on site on top of that on a risk basis to see if it's being done properly, to look at the work that's being done. Then we track it through that way as well.

J. Horgan: There are a number of coal bed methane plays that were topical a number of years ago. They've gone quiet. Can the minister give us a status report on coal bed methane exploration and development in British Columbia?

[1945]

Hon. R. Coleman: The coal bed methane is basically dead. There is no activity. There is no drilling going on. There is some well equipment on a suspended state that they will go out and inspect on a basis once in a while, but there's no coal bed methane activity at all right now.

J. Horgan: The Auditor General issued a report on orphan wells. I believe it was 12 months ago, but time is something that I no longer have any control over. It could have been 18 months ago. It could have been six months ago, but it was….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Two years, says the Chair. I thank the Chair for that.

Can the minister advise what progress the ministry and the Oil and Gas Commission have made in trying to realize any deficiencies highlighted by the Auditor General?

Hon. R. Coleman: We implemented a liability management–rating program, similar to Saskatchewan and Alberta, which looks at the production assets relative to the reclamation costs. That determines the level of security required, and that was what the Auditor General wanted us to do.

J. Horgan: There were well sites — I can't remember the number; I don't have it in my notes — that were identified that were basically unfunded liabilities, according to the Auditor General. Has the ministry had any involvement in addressing those issues in terms of reclamation and environmental impacts?

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 21,500 sites in British Columbia, and there are 40 potential orphan sites in B.C. They're all being assessed for the relative risk of each and how to recover from owners that may still exist.

So that would be the number — 40 out of 21,500.

J. Horgan: Does the minister have a dollar figure attached to the potential liabilities for those 40 orphan wells?

[1950]

Hon. R. Coleman: These guys are good, actually. In our financial statement on our financial state the potential total liability would be around $3.9 million. That would be if we recovered nothing.

But in our orphan site reserve fund we have $4.4 million in our reserve to deal with the orphan sites. So whatever we recover is a bonus. We do have the money in our financial statements to take care these sites if we were not successful in finding and locating the previous owners and going back after assets.

J. Horgan: I know the clock is tick, tick, ticking here. I wanted to touch on the oil and gas rural road improvement program. I know it's not a core responsibility of the minister or his staff, but it's a vital part of the sector. It's a Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure program, and as I understand it, it has little or no funding after 2011.

Does the minister have…? Has he been approached by anyone in the sector, whether they be proponents for more resources or from municipalities, to see what he can do to improve that program to address the road deficiencies in the Peace country?
[ Page 7821 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I do know that the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure announced on May 20 that it's extending its commitment to the OGRRIP, which is the rural road program, by investing another $30 million in 2011-12. I understand there may be more activity with regard to that file coming.

This is obviously an issue — the member knows — with regards to this area. The Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road, which is being completed as a partnership with the industry and with government…. There are now discussions in and around whether the access into the Horn should change with regard to how that road will be developed. I've been in some of those discussions with the Minister of Transportation, working out those details as we come through it.

There's no question that when you get huge activity in an area, you have to deal with the road issue as well. That's why my ministry and I work pretty closely with the Minister of Transportation and, actually, the MLA for Peace River North and others to identify issues and needs in that area. I have had some discussion with industry about how we can work together on infrastructure.

J. Horgan: I know. Tick-tock. I want just a last couple of questions on the Williston reservoir and the potential water use for hydraulic fracturing. Have the ministry or the Oil and Gas Commission done an analysis of the value of that water for electricity generation versus the value of that water for hydraulic fracking?

[1955]

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: To the members that have joined us in this chamber from both sides of the House: there is an agreement in here that there would be no effusive excitement in and around any sporting event that might be taking place — through to the member for Westside-Kelowna or others — because the two people that are in debate here are interested in going to see their PVRs later this evening.

Hydro is the one that owns all the water rights in the area. They have entered into an MOU with regard to the use of some water, because they can do that under their water licence, to be used by a company that would like to take some from Williston Lake north. They will not allow any water to go if it would affect any of their power generation. This is what they do.

The thing that happens now is that the Ministry of Environment takes charge of it with regard to the water licence. They are in a community now doing consultation both with First Nations and communities. Then, when that consultation is complete and if the satisfaction is done, there could be a water licence issued, but it's in the process.

J. Horgan: Before we move the vote, I just want to thank the staff from the ministry and from the Oil and Gas Commission for their time this evening.

I want to thank the minister for…. As I said the other day, you should be giving tutorials to some of your colleagues about answering questions in a complete way in a short order of time. I've certainly appreciated that. Five years I've been asking questions. I think that even though we had far less time than either one of us would have liked, we got a lot of material covered.

We have some profound differences on public policy issues, particularly around electricity. We canvassed those fully yesterday. I think we share a genuine belief that the work of the Oil and Gas Commission, which was initiated in the 1990s by the New Democrat government, has served the people of B.C. well and will continue to do so in the future, whether they be in Victoria, Fort St. John or Kelowna.

I want to thank the Chair for indulging my final statement, and I look forward to the speed estimates that are about to begin around 8:01 p.m. I also would like to add my consternation to the member from Kelowna.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you for the debates we've had. The member is aware that as a minister, I've always made it available for a member that if they had issues that they wanted to have canvassed outside of estimates, they can always contact my office — for the critic. I think that's an important relationship with regards to being able to do the business of this House.

At the same time, I think that as we come through the power issues, the member and I may not find we're that opposed on some of the issues that have to be dealt with — as we come through the Hydro review and look at how we're doing the future business of the province and that.

Vote 23: ministry operations, $47,926,000 — approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee report resolution and completion of the Energy and Mines portion of Vote 23.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee will recess for about five minutes.

The committee recessed from 7:58 p.m. to 8:03 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,330,591,000 (continued).
[ Page 7822 ]

C. Trevena: I'm pleased that we are back and have a bit of an opportunity to continue this discussion. I understand now that we've been given 20 minutes to work on this, which is a bit more helpful.

I know that I will be getting a briefing on the residential review from staff, but I wondered if the minister could explain why it's taken so long. I understand that it was supposed to be ready sooner. I just wondered where it was, and why.

[2005]

Hon. M. McNeil: Just quickly before we get started, I do want to introduce those that are with me. We have Stephen Brown, deputy minister, on my right; to my left, Derek Sturko, who is the associate deputy minister and chief operating officer. Behind I am joined by Craig Wilkinson, executive financial officer; Chuck Eamer, ADM, Vancouver Island; and Randi Mjolsness, who is the ADM, policy and legislation, and responsible for children and youth special needs.

In answer to the member opposite's question, really it's a matter of, with the change in transition and getting the new players involved…. I understand now that the draft has been shared and a briefing given to the deputy minister and that I will be briefed as well. Then the member will get it shortly after.

C. Trevena: I appreciate that, and I look forward to the briefing.

One question I have that comes from this is: will the review have looked at what happens to young people and children after they leave foster care, particularly when they age out at 19, and what is happening to them?

Hon. M. McNeil: It's my understanding that part of the review will look at this issue. One of the sections will be on the transition. The plan is for us to use this review to inform our subsequent plans moving forward on how the transition is implemented.

C. Trevena: It wasn't actually the question I asked, though I'm pleased that she's answered it.

Depending who you're talking to, I hear that everything is fine until the young person is 18, and then it gets really problematic. How it works from 17, 18 into 19 is really an issue that will need to be addressed.

My question, though, was the tracking of children who leave foster care. There are some statistics that came out, I believe, in about March or April. About 36 percent of children who left foster care in 2005 and '06 ended up on welfare. That's now gone up to about 53 percent. I was wondering if this is something, again, that will be looked at in the review of children who have come from care and where they're going.

[2010]

Hon. M. McNeil: I want to recognize that the point you're raising is an important one. It's one that is being taken very seriously by Children and Family Development.

I think we work very closely with our partners in Education and Social Development to ensure that there is a transition plan in place. We do have a cross-ministry protocol that has been signed.

There are a variety of services that we have to support vulnerable youth, especially those with special needs, that can assist with the transition into adulthood — be it a youth agreement, or a plan for independence, as it's also called; working one-on-one with a transition worker; a comprehensive plan of care for youth in care; and supported independent living homes or transition homes.

Again, it's something I recognize that the member opposite has brought up that we — and I personally do — consider an area that can be challenging and is one that needs full consideration.

C. Trevena: I'll now switch back specifically to child and youth with special needs, Minister, and the funding there.

There was some discussion last year, I know, on the end to the early intervention therapy for autism and the switch in the government's focus on this.

I have some statistics here that I wondered if the minister could just comment on or reflect on. That is, it's estimated — and I get this from the British Columbia Association of Child Development and Intervention — that the lifetime cost of a child with a learning disability is approximately $2.375 million. The annual cost of providing full early intervention therapy is approximately $4,000 per child.

This estimate is that it would cost approximately $10,000 for early intervention therapy, which would save the province roughly $694,000, almost $695,000.

Really, what is quite clear is that it's saying that no matter how much you're spending each year on early intervention, it still is going to, in the long run, save the province a lot of money because of the returns and because of the success of that.

While I hear the argument regularly that the change is to allow a wider access to autism supports and so on, there is clearly the sense that if you invest heavily early, the benefits are going to pay off with real results.

[2015]

Hon. M. McNeil: I think one thing that is very clear is that we recognize, and we can see through evidence, that early intervention is key. It's important that we do that, and I understand that since 2005 we have increased the funding in this area. We have met demand for service in nursing support, medical benefits and within autism.
[ Page 7823 ]

At the moment what is spent between the ages of zero and six is $22,000 a year per child with autism. From six to 18 it is $6,000 per year. Added to that is an additional $18,300 that comes from Education to the school for each of the children with autism.

C. Trevena: That is saying, again, the fact that the money is spread across rather than in intensive early intervention. There are real problems with the way that it is being spent at the moment. I know that in my school district, children who are severely challenged can't go to school because there aren't the supports there. Even though there is some money there, it's not enough when you are looking at the school budgets. This is why the importance of early intervention.

I know that we don't have much time, so I just want to move on quickly. Again, using my own community as an example, we have Campbell River Community Autism Network. It has a community plan. They work together, trying to find solutions for themselves, their families — and supports. It's very interesting. Their community plan describes who they are, saying, "At present, the community of Campbell River is lacking in services and support available to families following the diagnosis of children with autism spectrum disorder. Individualized funding is available through the Ministry of Children and Family Development to families for the purchase of treatment and services and supports for the child with ASD," as the minister has just said.

Then it goes on to say:

"In reality, the families in the community face the daunting task of identifying and accessing services without the benefit of coordinated support. In addition, services vital to implementing early successful treatment for children, ensuring access for all children's community activities, and supports for transitioning youths to adulthood, are not readily available within the community. As a result, many families are unable to appropriately utilize the funds available to them, and the needs of these children and families are not being adequately addressed."

I think that is the problem and not just in Campbell River. I think that's the problem across the province: give the parents the money. But unless there are the services there to support the children, unless there is a network there that the parents can use to get that support, and unless the school system is set up in such a way that they also get the support, it's not going to help anyone.

[2020]

Hon. M. McNeil: I think that the point that you're making is a good one, and it's one that I have certainly noticed in the short while that I've had this ministry in working with the various autism programs that are out there in different organizations. It's one where I think the autism groups themselves are getting together and trying to figure out how they can do a better job of servicing around.

We announced recently, in 2009, that there would be $1 million annually that would be directed towards a provincial outreach program for young children with autism spectrum disorder. In fact, MCFD met with approximately 100 parents and caregivers and service providers from, as you say, Campbell River, Prince George, Nanaimo, Abbotsford, Kamloops, Kelowna and Cranbrook, and held a teleconference with stakeholders in the northwest as well.

It's something we recognize as something that we as a government can work together with the different partners we have, both outside of government and also those within government — i.e., Social Development and Education — as partners in this.

C. Trevena: I have one last question. I would like to thank the minister's staff for all the help through this and the minister herself for being very accommodating on this. It's been a good session of estimates, albeit short.

The question, again, is children with special needs, not necessarily autism — an estimation that funding has basically dropped by at least 37 percent over the last five years in real terms, not in the figures that we're getting but in real dollar terms. I'd like to have the minister's response and thank her staff.

Hon. M. McNeil: Recognizing the time, I will give as short an answer as I can.

MCFD funding for children and youth with special needs in actual fact has more than doubled since 2001. It's gone from $84 million to $190 million in '11-12. It is recognized that this is an area of need, and we are there.

The Chair: Pursuant to the schedule tabled by the Government House Leader, I'll now call Vote 20.

Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,330,591,000 — approved.

The Chair: We'll now take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 8:23 p.m. to 8:24 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

Vote 40: ministry operations, $2,339,088,000 — approved.

The Chair: We'll take a short recess.

The committee recessed from 8:25 p.m. to 8:26 p.m.
[ Page 7824 ]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

On Vote 41: ministry operations, $806,922,000 (continued).

H. Bains: Thank you, Minister and staff. Welcome back.

I have a few questions about B.C. Rail, considering the time constraints we are put under. I think closure is hanging over our heads, as I understand.

In the February 2010 throne speech the government announced that the B.C. Rail properties would be brought back into the government. It was, at that time, about seven years since the vast majority of B.C. Rail was privatized. During that period of six years the executive and the board of B.C. Rail were paid over $10 million in remuneration.

I guess the question I have is: since B.C. Rail is brought under the ministry care now, out of ministry operations, can the minister say that this would be a good enough time for the minister to do some analysis? What has been the saving, compared to when they were running it, on a per-year basis on the operation side of the cost, compared to what the cost is now, since it is under the ministry?

[2030]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: April 1, 2010, it came in. Over that time, just a little over a year, we have saved about a million dollars thus far. We are on target by 2014 to save $5 million for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

H. Bains: Where does that saving come from? That would be the No. 1 question. No. 2. This is the time, so I'm just going through some questions. By that time the executives were paid $600,000 in severance, when B.C. Rail was brought into the government care. Can the minister answer if there have been any additional severances since that time? Who were they, and what would be the total severance pay since that time?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The cost savings are coming through gradually reducing our staffing levels, all through attrition — so no layoffs. The other cost savings: obviously, reduced legal costs, consulting costs, admin and overhead, board meetings — a number, an array of issues like that. And there has been no additional severance paid to any employees.

H. Bains: Last year the top, head executives, as was reported…. The president's salary was reported at $496,000; the president of B.C. Rail Properties, John Lusney, was $268,000; VP operations, $232,000; and the VP finance was $213,000. Can the minister say if all of those executives are still there? If they are, what are their salaries? Have they received any increase in salaries, and in addition, have they received any bonuses?

[2035]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will go through the list. The president and CEO that you refer to was one of the people that received a severance package and has left. The person, Mr. Byng, my chief operating officer, has replaced him and takes that position now along with the chief operating officer, so there is no cost. He doesn't receive the previous salary. He does it under the salary he receives as the chief operating officer.

The VP of properties that you asked about is also one of the gentlemen that received severance, and he's not replaced. Also, we have retained the VP of operations. That is the individual who actually runs the day-to-day business. And the VP of finance we have retained. That is through the Auditor General's request. He asked us to retain the VP of finance while the transition took place.

H. Bains: Last year it was reported that $600,000 in severance was paid, and that was to the president, as was reported here. Now the minister just reported that the president of B.C. Rail Properties also received severance. But previously the minister said that there was no additional severance. Can the minister clarify: how much was the total severance and to whom was it paid since B.C. Rail was brought under the ministry?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The two individuals you're referring to that we just spoke about are the only two that received severance. The total package combined for both was $595,000. There were no others that received severance.

[2040]

H. Bains: So who is the highest paid individual responsible for operating B.C. Rail right now?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The highest-ranking officer per se would be the VP of operations. I don't have his salary handy. I will get that to you probably momentarily. I know that time is of the essence here for questions. I may have that before the end of this session that we're in right now.

H. Bains: I am told I will have one more question. It is thanks to the government side shutting us down, with so many questions and so many issues to ask questions about. The question that I would have is: how many employees does this highest-ranking officer who is in
[ Page 7825 ]
charge of B.C. Rail supervise — or work underneath — or have responsibility for? How does that compare to when B.C. Rail was not under the ministry?

[2045]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Our VP of operations actually looks after…. Directly, there are 18 staff under him. Indirectly, there are an additional 11 employees he's responsible for, a lot of the 11 based on the port sub type of work there.

Vote 41: ministry operations, $806,922,000 — approved.

The committee recessed from 8:46 p.m. to 8:48 p.m.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

On Vote 16: ministry operations, $351,678,000 (continued).

L. Krog: This may be the shortest performance in political history in the province. Question period gives me more opportunity to get a shot across the bow to the Attorney General. I'll be very quick.

There's not much sense going back over the B.C. Rail corruption trial, because we're not getting any answers, so I'm going to ask a very simple question. The Attorney General is well aware of the problem with the layoff of the sheriffs that my friend the able member for Burnaby–Deer Lake raised in question period today.

He's aware that you have Provincial Court judges making statements in open court such as: "This is a ridiculous way to run a court." You've got numerous judgments from various Provincial Court judges all stating publicly that the lack of appointment of Provincial Court judges, the lack of sheriffs and the lack of prosecutors has basically placed us in a situation where there are estimated to be roughly 2,000 cases in British Columbia that are in danger of being dismissed because of delays.

I'm just wondering: can the Attorney General confirm those numbers, and if so, what steps is he actually taking and what sort of a credible plan does he have to address that looming crisis in our courts?

[2050]

Hon. B. Penner: As we discussed today in question period, it's true that the ministry is faced with a tight budget. That's what happens when you're working to balance a budget on a provincial scale while still increasing health care and education funding.

Mindful of the time, yes, there have been some staffing and scheduling challenges in courthouses, but I do want to correct the record and say that in fact there have not been layoffs of sheriffs. That was not an accurate description. What has happened is that there are a number of auxiliary employees and part-timers who have had their hours reduced or whose services will not be taken up. But strictly speaking, there were not layoff notices issued.

In terms of what we're working to do to try to streamline the court system, I've mentioned it before that in Victoria, for example, we're undertaking a pilot program to try and reduce the number of pretrial appearances to reduce the delay, the post-charge pretrial delay, that currently takes place.

The member will know that in terms of Askov, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Regina v. Askov, counts delay from the time of the charge being sworn. So we're trying to reduce that interval between the time the charge is sworn and the time the trial commences. On average right now, I'm advised that there are still seven pretrial appearances in criminal matters before the trial actually gets underway, so we're working with all partners in the justice system to try and reduce that.

L. Krog: If I could just secure an answer from the Attorney General to my question about the reputed number of cases that are facing dismissal, approximately 2,000 across the province. What does the Attorney General have to say about that? And what steps is he actually taking, given that they're at the limit now? What is he going to do to ensure that gang members and criminals and drunk drivers don't walk free in the streets as a result of this government's failure to address the serious shortages of sheriffs and judges and prosecutors?

[2055]

Hon. B. Penner: I can't confirm a precise number. There are obviously some cases that have been in the system a lot longer than I would have liked, but there's not an automatic rule in terms of what the courts apply in terms of how much is too long. There are a number of factors that are considered. I would expect that each judge would consider each case on its own facts and on its own merits.

As I've indicated, we are working to try and streamline processes to reduce the delay. Prosecutors make decisions every day about cases that they're proceeding with. I've noted previously that we're seeing a dramatic decrease in the number of new Criminal Code impaired-driving charges coming into the court system, a more than 2,500 decrease compared to last year at this time, because of the new penalties for driving while over .05.

What's most important about that is not just that we're decreasing the number of Criminal Code charges for impaired driving clogging the court system,
[ Page 7826 ]
but we're reducing the number of people dying on the streets as a result of drinking and driving. The most recent statistics, which are still preliminary, indicate a 50 percent decrease in the number of fatalities in the first five months since the new penalties came into force, and that's remarkable.

The Chair: Pursuant to the schedule tabled by the Government House Leader yesterday, I'll now call Vote 16.

Vote 16: ministry operations, $351,678,000 — approved.

Vote 17: judiciary, $67,025,000 — approved.

Vote 18: Crown Proceeding Act, $24,500,000 — approved.

Vote 19: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $1,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 48: Environmental Appeal Board and Forest Appeals Commission, $2,075,000 — approved.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee of Supply, Section A, rise, report progress on the estimates of the Office of the Premier; and report resolution and completion of the Energy and Mines portion of the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, Vote 23 only; as well as resolutions and completion of the estimates of the following ministries: the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:58 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