2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2012

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: There are a number of guests joining us in the House today that I would like to introduce. They are all workers that are represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and have worked for Aveos Fleet Performance. Aveos has been the operational entity that maintains the aircraft that we all rely on, on a day-to-day basis, in getting back and forth from our constituencies. These are an incredible group of dedicated individuals who have literally decades of experience in their work. They are going through very challenging times right now.

Christopher Hiscock is the president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. They're joined by Jim Sinclair of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Other individuals that I had the opportunity to meet with just a half hour or so ago — Mike Sangara, who has 23 years of experience; Dan Cook, who has 33 years of experience; Steve Dueschele, who has 39 years of experience; Wes Sim, who has 26 years of experience; Larry Johnson, with 22 years of experience; David Steele, with 26 years of experience; Shelly Cermak, with 26 years; Leanne Seawirth, with 26 years; Gerald Gowans, also with 26 years; Sargit Singh, with 32 years; Richard Gilker, with 23 years; Deborah Cooper, with 37 years; and Philippe Enfente, with 22 years.

I'm sure that all members of the House are eager to work collaboratively with this organization as they face very, very challenging times. I'd ask that all members of this House please make them very welcome.

A. Dix: I wanted to join with the minister responsible for jobs and investment in welcoming the Aveos workers. They represent 350 workers — 55 of them here today. The workers here today, I think, have some 600 years of experience. The minister has talked about that.

I hope what we'll be able to show today together in this House and as we work together on this file is that British Columbia is behind them. That is, I think, what I take from the minister's remarks, and that's what we're going to attempt to do together today. Thank you very much, and welcome.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Joining us in the Legislature today are a number of members of the Consulting Engineers of British Columbia. Joining us are Doug Hinton from Hatch Mott MacDonald, who is the president of CEBC; as well as Steve Fleck from Stantec, who is the vice-president; and Glenn Martin, who is the executive director.

They are down and will be joined by a number of their colleagues tomorrow. As well, they are holding their annual gala dinner on Saturday, this weekend, to hand out the awards. There will be 45 projects that were nominated this year, and they will recognize the best of the best.

On behalf of all British Columbians, not only do I want to say welcome to the Legislature but thank you for the work you do on behalf of all of us.

M. Karagianis: As is the tradition in this House, I would like to announce the latest addition to my family, born yesterday, my grandson, whose name is Book Strummer Flesher. He is the latest, now my seventh grandchild. Although I know there's not a competition going on, I think I've caught up with the member for New Westminster. We are very proud of our little boy, as is his sister, Indiana, and his mom and dad, Devyn and Kurt Flesher. I'd like to make him welcome to the world.

Hon. M. Polak: Joining us in the House today is a voice and personality that will be very familiar to fans of the Western Hockey League. Bill Wilms has been part of WHL broadcasts for the last 15 years. An athlete in his own right and former hockey standout at the University of North Dakota, Bill has represented B.C. eight times at national and international golf championships and has won the B.C. seniors championships three times.

He is in Victoria today to cover the first-ever home playoff game for the Victoria Royals against the Kamloops Blazers, which will be broadcast across western Canada on Shaw TV. Will the House please make him very welcome.

[1340]

C. James: I have a school group visiting us today from a school that's just up the road from the Legislature, South Park Family School, which is the school my children attended and the school I attended as well. We have Ms. Angela Sullivan's grade 4 class here, with a number of adults accompanying them. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I have three very distinguished guests visiting the Legislature today. The first one is retired Lt. Cdr. Richard Nakamura. Mr. Nakamura was born in Comox, B.C. and has served in all three of the Canadian Armed Forces. He has received many awards for his community contributions, including the Canada 125 Anniversary Medal.

We also have Dr. Henry Shimizu. Dr. Shimizu is a retired plastic surgeon and artist, and in 2004 he was
[ Page 10414 ]
awarded the Order of Canada, as well as the distinguished alumni award from the University of Alberta, and he's a recent recipient of the Queen's Jubilee Award.

Finally, Dr. Mas Yamamoto has also joined us in the House today. He's worked as a research scientist and has been a successful entrepreneur. But perhaps his most significant role has been as father to me, my sister Donna and my brother Brian. Those of you in the House who have listened to my responses to the throne or budget speech would know how proud I am of his achievements.

Would the House make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: Also today in the House we have a number of members from the building trades. We have Joe Barrett here, a researcher working with the union, and a special guest all the way from Chile. Her name is Marcela Reinoso, a Chilean. She will be here today joining the building trades attending their convention. She is an active member of the union of independent workers, small and medium businesses, known as ARPYME in Valparaiso in Chile. Please join me to welcome them.

L. Reid: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like to introduce two very distinguished guests who have joined us in the gallery this afternoon: Mayor Dan Ashton, the city of Penticton; and Bill Newell, the chief executive officer for the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

K. Corrigan: I'd also like to welcome my good friend Doug Hinton, of Hatch Mott MacDonald. My friendship with Doug goes back way before his years at Hatch Mott, since university days. We've had many happy family camping trips with the Hintons, including the Minister of Education as well. I hope the House will make him feel welcome again.

M. Sather: Joining us in the precincts today are Brett Chapman and Frank Carr from the International Union of Operating Engineers. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today, and they're here to talk to members about jobs, about safety training and about improving the environment so that we don't have as many accidents as we tend to have. So I'm very glad. Will the House please help me in welcoming them now.

Hon. M. de Jong: Miguel Arias Rozo is a co-op student who is working within the Health Ministry. He has spent the morning in the Health Minister's office discovering how it works, and he's going to tell me about that later, I hope. I hope all members of the House will make Miguel feel welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

POEM BY DOMINIQUE MELANSON
ON CYBERBULLYING AWARENESS

D. Donaldson: I am happy to announce today that grade 12 Hazelton Secondary School student Dominique Melanson is the winner in the Don't Let Cyber Bullies Score poetry contest organized by the Stikine MLA offices.

There were many extremely heartfelt entries, and I would like to thank the judges in Smithers and Hazelton. Dominique has chosen to take her father to the Canucks-Flames game this Saturday night, thanks to Smithers product, Canucks defenceman Dan Hamhuis, and other sponsors including Hawkair and the Gitxsan government commission.

[1345]

Here is Dominique's poem, Love is Louder.

Dominique. Indian. Frenchie. Brace-face. Skinny.

Only I can identify myself.

Not others.

They can think and say whatever they want, but I will not be bullied.

Love is louder than words.

Everyone has a say.

Talk. Be heard. Use your voice.

Chat rooms, e-mails and text messages are where it begins.

Youth are being bullied, tormented, hurt and embarrassed every waking hour.

Bullying. It doesn't just end at three when the school bell rings. It never stops.

Endless pain, thoughts and frustration.

Rumours and gossip constantly being created, 24 hours a day,

seven days a week, round-the-clock attacks.

Bystanders, that's all we are.

Useless.

Looking, doing nothing.

Laughing, thinking of ourselves, not considering others.

Identity is what you make of yourself, not what others say you are.

Emo. Fat. Nerd. Ugly. We're all guilty of saying it. But have you ever been called it?

Stop, think, talk, save.

Social status is what we thrive on, but in the end, is it really worth it?

Cyberbullying affects 13 million teens.

On average, 8 percent of those teens commit suicide. Words really can kill.

Rethink what you're about to say before you do.

End cyberbullying; don't let them score. All it takes is one; speak up.

Congratulations, Dominique.

CHRONIC DISEASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

C. Hansen: There are thousands of British Columbians alive today and leading healthier lives because of an initiative of this government that started exactly ten years ago today. On March 27, 2002, the Ministry of Health,
[ Page 10415 ]
along with the health authorities, the B.C. Medical Association and the Registered Nurses Association, organized a strategic workshop in Vancouver that was the start of a provincewide chronic disease management program.

Over these past ten years, this program brought a prevention approach to individuals with chronic conditions such as diabetes, asthma, depression, kidney disease, congestive heart failure and others. It has meant that family doctors can spend more time with these patients, and teams of health professionals can bring their skills together to keep a chronic condition from getting worse.

Organizations such as the Canadian Diabetes Association, the B.C. Lung Association, the Healthy Heart Society, the Arthritis Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation have all been invaluable partners. The results have been outstanding. British Columbia now has the lowest hospitalization rates in all of Canada for seven of the most common chronic medical conditions. Hospitalization days for diabetes patients are one half of those not on the chronic disease management program.

For people with congestive heart failure the mortality rates have dropped by 29 percent, and 89 percent of doctors using the program feel that they are now better able to care for their patients. Just as importantly, the program has saved the health care system hundreds of millions of dollars.

A recent BCMA report said: "In these areas, B.C. is seen as both a national and an international leader in primary care renewal." I salute the many organizations that have partnered with government on this program, and in particular, the many health professionals who have made it such a success.

CHILLIWACK TOWN HALL MEETING
ON DRIVEABLE PROGRAM

K. Corrigan: Well, I want to take this opportunity to thank the 150 or so people, mostly seniors, who attended a DriveABLE town hall meeting in Chilliwack on March 15. It was very clear that in Chilliwack, as in other communities around the province, there is a great deal of concern about the mandatory screening and subsequent DriveABLE computer and specialized road-testing program.

The attendees said that they felt the screening and DriveABLE testing program didn't treat them fairly. It didn't treat them with respect and dignity. They felt that the process is bureaucratic and impersonal, that there is no flexibility, and of course, there is no appeal process. They also expressed a variety of concerns about the fairness of the tests for a variety of reasons and also a real concern about the lack of access.

I think it is a testament to seniors — but also to others who have expressed concerns about the DriveABLE program, such as many members of the medical community and senior advocates — that the government, the day after the Chilliwack town hall meeting, essentially acknowledged that there are major flaws in this program implementation and processes by announcing changes to the program.

I would like to thank seniors in Chilliwack and around the province, I believe, whose voices were instrumental…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Corrigan: …in government making amendments to the program. However, there are, of course, many questions and concerns and flaws identified by the seniors that have not yet been addressed, and we will continue to press government on this issue.

[1350]

But we do all want to remember that we all agree with the ultimate goal — that we want to keep our roads safe for seniors and for the other people who use the road. We just want to ensure that the process for identifying those drivers is fair, accessible and effective.

R. Sultan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the House the departure from the well-established policy of having two-minute statements as non-partisan in nature. I find it rather difficult to accept a statement from the member opposite which is not only…

Mr. Speaker: Member.

R. Sultan: …erroneous but also in the middle of a by-election.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

If the member wanted to rise on a point of privilege, he could have done so.

TIMBERLINE RANCH

M. Dalton: Tucked away in Maple Ridge in the foothills of the Golden Ears is a popular 73-acre spread called Timberline Ranch. Tens of thousands of young campers and day users have enjoyed the ranch and its Wild West townsite.

What can you do at Timberline? Well, for a lot of people, horses are enough, what with trail riding and horsemanship. But for those with other interests, there is also a swimming pool, an archery range, a skateboard park, challenge courses, a riflery range, a climbing wall, a petting zoo and so on.

Timberline celebrated its 50th anniversary last year
[ Page 10416 ]
and was originally a vision of Cec Leng, or Chuck, and Don Lawrie, or Lefty. They wanted the young people of Vancouver to have an opportunity to enjoy nature at a ranch-style camp and be influenced by the message of God's love for them.

Timberline's goal is to bring hope and to build lives in a safe and fun camping environment. The ranch has deep roots in the community, and many schools use it. Dozens of young volunteers are trained annually to help with the youth camps and the 6,000 people who come there each year.

Tim Adams is the chairman of a dedicated board of directors. Craig Douglas is executive director and, like all staff members, has a handle. His is Strider. There are also Scribbles, Prop, Sparrow, Stringy, Hobbes, Jade and Otto — all of them full-timers who keep Timberline humming.

Timberline Ranch is a big boon for a great many young people in the Lower Mainland, giving them experiences and memories that will last their lifetimes. Timberline is currently expanding its facilities. It's a sign that this ranch will be there for many years to come, and that's a good thing.

ELIMINATION OF RACISM

M. Elmore: Mr. Speaker, 52 years ago, around one in the afternoon in the township of Sharpeville, South Africa, 69 people, including ten children, were shot and killed by police during a peaceful demonstration against racial apartheid. To commemorate this massacre, the UN marked March 21 in 1966 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Racism is defined as a form of interpersonal and structural discrimination, and it causes suffering for millions of people around the world. Racism can be very blatant, like the many physical assaults the B.C. Hate Crimes unit is investigating throughout B.C. In one shocking local case, a Filipino man sleeping on an abandoned sofa was set on fire by members of a white supremacist group. But more often racism is subtle and can be seen more easily in the statistics.

Visible minorities in Metro Vancouver make up 42 percent of the population, but only 12 percent are in senior leadership positions. A colour-coded labour market has also resulted in racialized Canadians earning 81.4 cents for every dollar paid to non-racialized Canadians. Additional systemic barriers are the lack of accreditation for degrees and qualifications earned by racialized Canadians overseas, and racial profiling.

Racialized people in Canada are twice as likely to live in poverty than non-racialized people. All of these challenges work to impoverish racialized Canadians, and as such, poverty is the most pervasive effect of racism.

In commemorating this day, there remains an urgent need for all of us to take comprehensive steps to eradicate racism. We need to constantly value diversity in our society and institutions and recognize the business case for it.

[1355]

To conclude, let us work together, like the hundreds that gathered to protest rising hate crimes against First Nations and people of colour in the Community March Against Racism in Vancouver last week. Let us reaffirm our commitment to stop and bring an end to racism.

VOLUNTEERISM

R. Lee: If you have a friend who is recovering from a car accident and could not get around every day, how can you help? If you know someone who is coming out of a relationship after suffering domestic violence, what kind of advice can you offer? If you need help buying special equipment for a child with a disability, who can you go to?

Burnaby non-profit organizations can come to the rescue. The Burnaby Meals on Wheels Society, the Dixon Transition Society and the Variety Club are Burnaby-based organizations that could offer solutions in these areas. NGOs are an important part of our social fabric. Their work and their volunteers are sometimes not recognized by the public. Wouldn't it be nice to get these NGOs together to showcase their services in the community?

The tenth annual Burnaby Festival of Volunteers is coming to the Brentwood Town Centre on April 14. Limited space is still available for NGOs to provide information about their organizations and to recruit volunteers. The key organizer, Volunteer Burnaby, has done an outstanding job in promoting volunteerism as a right and as a responsibility of the citizens of Burnaby and New Westminster to facilitate community development through volunteering. Organizations include Burnaby Optimist Club, the South Burnaby Neighbourhood House and the United Way. Special thanks go to Amy Sundberg, the event program coordinator.

April 15 to 21 is also the 17th National Volunteer Week. It's the time of year when we pay tribute to the 13.3 million Canadian volunteers who graciously donate their time and energy. Would the House please join me in recognizing the contributions of volunteers in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members that two-minute statements are meant to be non-partisan in nature.

Oral Questions

CALL FOR RESOLUTION ON
AVEOS OPERATIONS AND WORKERS

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, 350 workers from Aveos Fleet Performance Incorporated's Richmond operations are unemployed after Aveos filed for bankruptcy protection last week. Today I met with 55 Aveos workers here, as
[ Page 10417 ]
have other members of the opposition. I know the minister responsible for jobs and investment did the same, and that they were both very good meetings.

I think the matter is too important for partisanship, so I wanted to suggest to the Premier or the minister responsible for jobs that we get together as a House and pass a joint resolution in support of those workers, calling on the Prime Minister to intervene — consistent with federal law and consistent with the importance of these jobs to British Columbia — to protect these jobs. So will the Premier or the minister join with me today in proposing a joint resolution?

Hon. P. Bell: Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for the question and for the offer to make sure this is a non-partisan issue. Those 356 workers here in British Columbia are dependent on this industry, and I would suggest that all of us are dependent on this industry for safe travel across this province and across the country.

This is a rapidly evolving situation. I can tell the member opposite that the minister, Denis Lebel, has recently asked that the transportation committee of the House of Commons convene and review this issue to see whether or not any laws have been broken.

There was a law passed in 1988 as a result of the privatization of Air Canada that required maintenance to be performed in three cities in Canada. Certainly, we want to work collaboratively with the members that were introduced earlier on today, the 256 workers and the leadership of the union. We think it's appropriate for the members opposite to make this offer to work in a collaborative fashion, because this clearly is not a partisan issue.

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

[1400]

A. Dix: In that spirit, I'd say to the minister that we're prepared today to pass just such a resolution or at least to have the House Leaders meet and the critics meet, perhaps with the minister, to discuss what would be in that resolution. I think that's an important statement.

The minister will know that the Quebec National Assembly has passed just such a resolution, and the importance of it here is partly what the minister just said. The Air Canada Public Participation Act, which dates to 1988 during a period when Canadian Airlines was the primary provider in British Columbia…. Those jobs have been in British Columbia for a long time, and they're important jobs here. So I think that says we have to speak with an even stronger voice here in British Columbia.

I want to ask the minister whether he'd be prepared to support just such a resolution — because I think it's an idea that sends a strong message and will work; I'd be happy if the minister himself or the Premier would introduce such a resolution — and whether we'd be prepared to come together as a delegation from British Columbia to go to Ottawa together with these workers to support just that.

Hon. P. Bell: Certainly, we're interested in pursuing the concept of a resolution. We're prepared to have those discussions. Because of how quickly this is evolving, that may or may not be the best option. We're not sure at this point when the hearings may start by the transportation committee.

But what I will commit to the members opposite is that as soon as I have had the conversation with Denis Lebel I have requested, I will communicate with the members opposite and let them know the outcome of that conversation. We can chart a path which is most appropriate to see the 256 workers go back to work and the opportunity to make sure that we have aircraft that are well maintained, maintained here in Canada by British Columbians.

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

A. Dix: I thank the minister for his comments and his commitment. We are sitting until Thursday, so what we don't want to see is the opportunity to send a strong, unanimous message — and that would include, obviously, the independent members of the House as well — from British Columbia that we can take back to Ottawa…. That opportunity is in the next three days.

I appreciate the minister's offer to work together on these questions and ask him whether he would be prepared to join with us and to go to Ottawa together, either with our critic or with a delegation with the workers here — I think he has suggested that he would be so prepared — so we can really have an impact on a debate that could exclude British Columbia if we don't speak with a powerful voice.

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I don't want to rule out any and all options that are in front of us in terms of going to Ottawa in a joint delegation. Perhaps a resolution of the House, other sorts of options…. I do think that it's prudent to first speak with Minister Lebel to find out exactly what his intent and plans are. There's a rapidly evolving situation. We're getting updates literally on a minute-by-minute basis at this point.

I will keep the members opposite posted. I know the two House Leaders, who typically enjoy each other's company, will get together and have the opportunity to discuss this further as well.

COSTS FOR B.C. PLACE AND VANCOUVER
CONVENTION CENTRE PROJECTS

S. Chandra Herbert: Last week the member for Abbotsford-Mission wrongly claimed that there was a
[ Page 10418 ]
$30 million surplus on the massively over-budget B.C. Place. How you could ever believe that you could get a surplus on a project that went hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars over budget — going from $365 million to $563 million in the span of a little over a year — is beyond me. But that was his line.

But he's not the only one using Liberal math. The minister for PavCo claims that there's a $42 million surplus on the mismanaged and way over-budget convention centre, a convention centre that went over $400 million over budget. He claims that surplus will be used to pay for the over-budget B.C. Place.

Can the minister please explain to this House how you get a surplus from a project that is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt?

Hon. P. Bell: It appears that seven minutes of collaboration has quickly disintegrated for the remainder of question period. But it was good to see an initial effort anyway on the part of the members opposite. It's progress, Mr. Speaker. We're moving forward. Maybe we'll shoot for eight minutes tomorrow.

[1405]

The member for Abbotsford-Mission did retract those statements. It was clear they were made in error. The books have not yet been closed off on B.C. Place, but I am confident that it will be delivered at or under $563 million. When the final bills are paid, we'll be happy to share that with the members opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Just a quick reminder to members that you're not supposed to use your BlackBerrys during question period.

The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: I love to collaborate, but I will not collaborate on a process to claim that there are fake surpluses.

So $400 million over budget on the convention centre, $200 million over budget on B.C. Place — a total of about $600 million on those projects over budget. Of course, there was the B.C. Place–TELUS naming fiasco as well, adding more costs to British Columbians. All this…. The minister still claims that there was a surplus at the convention centre.

So the member for Abbotsford-Mission has done the right thing and retracted his comments about a fake surplus at B.C. Place. Will the minister rise in the House today and retract his comments that there was a $42 million surplus at the massively over-budget convention centre?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, it appears the members opposite don't like to look at the value that has been created for British Columbians as a result of these two significant investments.

Just about two weeks ago there was an economic study released as a result of the positive impact from the Grey Cup — $17.7 million in taxation created as a result of one event. These are great facilities. They are attracting people globally. We have the attention of the world, and we intend to capitalize on that and make sure that B.C. is the home for investment for the Asia-Pacific.

AGREEMENT ON NAMING RIGHTS
FOR B.C. PLACE

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, maybe if we had the Grey Cup here every week, the minister would have something to crow about, but once every few years doesn't cut it.

Yesterday the new Conservative member for Abbotsford South, while laying out his litany of reasons for quitting the B.C. Liberals, spoke of reports and evidence that supported the $40 million TELUS Park naming deal. Unlike the chaotic and unsubstantiated rhetoric of the Premier and the minister on this issue, these reports might provide some credible information on this deal the B.C. Liberals killed.

Will the minister release any reports, further briefing notes or other information related to the TELUS Park naming deal so British Columbians can make an informed decision about why the government killed this deal?

Hon. P. Bell: B.C. Place is a facility that has served this province incredibly well for about 25 or 26 years, and it will serve this province for another 40 years as a result of this investment. The investment that was made represents half or less of what it would have cost to build a new stadium.

There are important elements to this stadium that will serve people forevermore. We're now being able to generate up to $100 million in economic benefit each and every year as a result of this, instead of the $40 to $60 million previously.

We hosted the Olympic women's qualifying tournament just in January of this year — 25,000 fans for the final. It's those sorts of investments that will deliver long-term economic support for our communities and deliver the social services that we're all looking for.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: I'm glad the minister tells us we actually have some events in this stadium, or it would be a real problem.

The problem is this. We have with PavCo, because of the actions of this government between a convention centre and B.C. Place, over $600 million of cost overruns on those two facilities with no explanation about how they get paid for and, certainly, no explanation on B.C. Place and the roof. We hear about an offer to bring at least $40 million to the table in the TELUS Park renaming to
[ Page 10419 ]
help pay that bill, but there's still now no meaningful explanation about why that deal was killed.

[1410]

Will this minister stand up and tell us: why did you kill that deal when you have no credible answer for how the bills get paid on this facility?

Hon. P. Bell: I've gone through the numbers over and over again for the members opposite. They don't appear to want to listen. But just as a result of the investment that has been made here, there's a $350,000 annual savings on energy alone just because of the upgrades that were performed in the stadium.

We now have a second major tenant at the facility in the Whitecaps. They're playing in the major soccer league, instead of playing in the lesser leagues, attracting 20,000-plus people per event in that stadium, as opposed to 5,000 or 6,000 at Swangard.

We can host events on a year-round basis. In fact, we have an additional 50 days of use out of the stadium as a result of this investment. It's a good investment. It will serve British Columbians for 40 years.

CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO SALE OF
B.C. RAIL AND PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

L. Krog: Yesterday the member for Abbotsford South rose in the chamber and made the following statement: "To this day there are still serious unanswered questions regarding the writing off of $6 million in legal fees in the B.C. Rail case, contrary to government policy — questions I have been asking for a year and a half, and questions the Auditor General is seeking answers to through the courts."

In light of the member's serious questions, will the Attorney General commit to a full public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail and the write-off of $6 million in legal fees?

Hon. S. Bond: I know that the member opposite knows the answer to this question already because we canvassed this extensively in November. The Auditor General is currently doing a review, and we have been proactive in assisting him in fulfilling that mandate. In addition to that, the member opposite also knows that a statement was provided by the Deputy Attorney General, which is clearly on the record.

I have read from it on numerous occasions, pointing out, in the words of the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy of Finance — and I would quote from that again: "No one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge of this or any involvement." Those are the remarks of the Deputy Attorney General on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: The member for Abbotsford South, who's asking those questions in caucus, is no ordinary member. He is a senior member of this assembly. He sat at the B.C. Liberal cabinet table as the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Safety. Questions he couldn't get answered drove him out of the Liberal caucus.

Surely, this raises serious doubts about the B.C. Liberals' conduct that demand answers. If the province's former top cop does not trust his own government, why should British Columbians? Again, will the Minister of Justice and Attorney General commit today to a full public inquiry into all aspects of the B.C. Rail scandal?

Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite stands in the House to impugn the reputation of the Deputy Attorney General…. The statement is clear. It's a matter of fact. The Deputy Attorney General and the deputy of Finance put on the record the way the matter was dealt with by the government, by the deputies that are involved. Again, I quote from the statement made by the Deputy Attorney General on October 20, 2010: "Legal services branch referred the matter to me and to the Deputy Minister of Finance…." I quote again for the member opposite. "No one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge or any involvement."

[1415]

M. Karagianis: The new Conservative member for Abbotsford South and the former Solicitor General of this province, when referring to the Premier and the B.C. Rail deal, said: "Well, I had certainly raised some of these issues early on when I met with her, and there are times when I raised them in caucus. I raised them with MLAs, but you know, I was basically stonewalled on this." Then he said: "So it's incumbent on all of us to have an independent look at that, and it didn't happen."

Once again, I would like to ask the Premier or members of the government if they would please hold a full public inquiry into the B.C. Rail deal so that taxpayers can get to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we continue, Member, I just want to remind members that there is not a new Conservative member; there's a new independent member in the House.

Hon. S. Bond: As I said in the earlier answer, the Auditor General is currently conducting a review related to the situation with Basi-Virk. We have made every effort to cooperate and, in fact, have responded to all of the requests of the Auditor General. As recently as Friday the Auditor actually sent another letter for requests relating to indemnities in British Columbia, and we are cooperating fully. In fact, I had my staff clarify today with the Auditor General the type of documents.
[ Page 10420 ]

We are working, as we speak, to deal with the latest request for information from the Auditor General. So we continue to cooperate, to work constructively, with the Auditor General as he continues his very thorough review.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: British Columbians were stunned and shocked to see a raid on the Legislature — this very place. We have seen seven years of a corruption trial ending and culminating in a $6 million payoff for those who admitted guilt in this.

Now we have the member for Abbotsford South who has given us a peek into the inside of cabinet — someone who sat as the top cop in this province — calling for an independent public inquiry. It is due. Will the government do the right thing and hold a complete public inquiry?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure which part of the last answer the member opposite didn't hear. The Auditor General is in the process of doing a thorough review. We continue to provide the required documents that the Auditor requests. In fact, we have clearly outlined through a statement by the Deputy Attorney General that two public servants — very professional, I might add — made reference to the fact that "no one outside of legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge or any involvement."

I would urge the member opposite, after her comments today, that if she has further allegations to make, she should step outside into the hallway and make them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

RELEASE OF MEDIA CORRESPONDENCE
WITH GOVERNMENT TO EMINATA GROUP

M. Mungall: Yesterday the minister quoted herself, saying: "…I was advised that a printout of the e-mail was passed along to the office of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. That was done by my ministerial assistant on February 20, and I was not aware of that, nor did I direct that."

Mr. Speaker, questions remain. When did the minister know her staff gave the e-mail to a minister with absolutely no regulatory responsibility on the file? Is she fine with staff passing e-mails along behind her back? And if she didn't give the direction to do so, who did?

[1420]

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We did canvass this thoroughly yesterday in the House. In fact, I read for the record my statement that I made a couple of weeks ago in the House, so I won't do that again. But because the member opposite obviously has failed to hear or read the Hansard transcript or my comments, the part that I will read out again for the member opposite is…. I did say: "I did take steps to find out what exactly had happened. So later that day I was advised that a printout of an e-mail was passed along to the office of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: The truth of the matter is that we've read the minister's statement over and over again in this House, and she's still not coming clean on these issues. She has the regulatory responsibility for post-secondary education. She is supposed to be responsible for her ministry, yet she continues to ignore these questions.

I will ask again, on this very serious matter that I hope the minister takes as seriously as we do on this side of the House and as the public does in British Columbia. I hope that she's going to step up to the plate today. If the Minister of Advanced Education was unaware that her staff shared a printed copy of the Province's e-mail with the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, why does she continue to say it was appropriate?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: Ministers share information with other ministers, with political staff, with our officials and ministry staff and, of course, our communications department. It's necessary, and it's necessary to do our jobs well. Ministers and ministers' offices do not operate in isolation. We're a team. We share information, but it's our expectation that the information is to remain confidential.

C. James: The minister in her explanation of this e-mail leak has said she feels "like I've been let down by a colleague." Well, the people of this province feel let down by a minister who doesn't understand her regulatory responsibility in this issue. That's who has been let down. Again, a very straightforward question to the minister: why was the e-mail given to the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: The member for Burnaby-Lougheed admitted an error in judgment. He has apologized, and he has resigned from his position in cabinet. But again, ministers' offices and ministers share information with other ministers — not only with other ministers, with other ministry staff, with their officials and people in our communications department. We do it because we're a team. We do it because it makes us do our job better, and we can serve our public more efficiently.

But we do share that information with the expectation that that information is to remain confidential. That was not done. The member for Burnaby-Lougheed did the honourable thing and stepped down.
[ Page 10421 ]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: The former Minister of State for Multiculturalism took his accountability seriously and resigned his post. This minister would like to forget the incident ever happened. But I'd like to remind this minister that she is also accountable in this issue, accountable to the universities she regulates, accountable to the students who attend those universities and, most importantly, accountable to the public for answers for this e-mail leak.

So again, the public has a right to know. I would ask the minister: why did her staff share an e-mail that was sent to her office with the former minister, and what was the former minister expected to do with that e-mail?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'll say it again. I guess the members opposite didn't hear. But ministers share information with other ministers. We share it with other ministry staff, and we share it with our communications departments. We do it to do our job well. We do it to serve our constituents and our stakeholders. As I said, we're a team. This is what we do. Our expectation is that that information, though, is to remain confidential.

[1425]

M. Farnworth: Well, the minister says that she's part of a team. One thing that's pretty clear is she's clearly not directing her team. The plays are being called by her ministerial assistant.

The minister says: "We share information. We share information amongst our colleagues." She says on the Monday, the Tuesday and the Wednesday that she had no knowledge, that it certainly wasn't shared by her or any member of her staff. Yet on Thursday the former minister resigns, and the minister has to admit that it was shared by somebody in her own ministry, her ministerial assistant.

Can the minister tell this House: when did she find out that it was her ministerial assistant who shared the information?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I've answered the question, and I invite the member opposite to sit down and read Hansard. It's in there.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: I think the minister needs to stand up and answer the questions in this House. The fundamental question is this, hon. Minister — through the Chair — which you have failed to answer. That is: why was the e-mail shared with the former minister in the first place? What explanation can she possibly give for the ministerial assistant to share that e-mail? She has failed to answer. Stand up and answer.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I've answered the question. If the member opposite would like to read Hansard, I've explained. It is clearly stated in Hansard.

B. Ralston: Did the minister ask her ministerial assistant for an explanation of why the e-mail was shared, and if so, what was the answer?

Hon. N. Yamamoto: We have canvassed this issue thoroughly. I would ask the members opposite to read Hansard. I've stated clearly in the last couple of days exactly what happened. Members opposite — all they have to do is read the Hansard transcript.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon we will continue with committee stage of Bill 20, intituled the Auditor General for Local Government Act. We left off at section 19. If we complete that, we would then move to Bill 15, the Attorney General and Public Safety and Solicitor General Statutes Amendment Act, 2011. Should we complete that, we would then be able to move to Bill 18, intituled Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011.

In Section A in the Douglas Fir Committee Room this afternoon we will continue with the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, and should those complete, we would then move to the Minister of Environment.

[1430]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

On section 19 (continued).

H. Lali: We're not in such a hurry to pass this section yet.

Section 19 is on the role of the audit council, and it sets out the responsibilities of the audit council. I'm going to ask the question to the minister again, because she didn't answer the question. This is very far-reaching, hon. Chair, and setting up another level of bureaucracy. The minister's answers basically said: "Well, the Select Standing Committee on Finance deals with matters related to the…."
[ Page 10422 ]

The Chair: Member, I will caution you on repeating questions you asked this morning.

H. Lali: I'm going to use a different angle on this. It will be a different question. I take the caution. I'm just repeating what the minister had said — that the Select Standing Committee on Finance deals with matters related to this House, that this is a municipal regional district–UBCM matter and that's why there's an audit council and the responsibilities are not given to the Select Standing Committee of the Legislature on Finance.

I understand that. That's what has been set up. My question to the minister is — she didn't answer it, so I'll rephrase it: prior to this being the case, why did the minister not recommend to her colleagues in cabinet that it ought to be? These responsibilities that are set up for the audit council ought to be under the Select Standing Committee on Finance for the Legislature.

Hon. I. Chong: I respectfully accept that the member does not like the answer or is not prepared to hear the answer, but the answer I gave earlier today is, in fact, that the structure of this audit council was designed to ensure that we did consider the independence with respect to the role that the auditor general will play with this council.

We also indicated that this reporting structure — that is, the audit council…. The reporting structure for any auditor general aims to satisfy both the independence and accountability, and that's what this audit council is designed to do.

The accountability of the auditor general is ultimately through to citizens as opposed to this Legislature, which is what the select standing committee is utilized for. It reports through to this Legislature and to the members.

I also indicated, and I will again say for the record, that in speaking with UBCM and with respect to the policy paper they provided to me last September, they did indicate that a reporting relationship to a stand-alone board or committee could be the most compatible with local government autonomy.

The paper further identified that reporting through the Legislature, which is what the select standing committee is designed to do, as "most detrimental to local autonomy." For that reason we have set up a structure that I believe meets the test of independence.

The Chair: Shall section 19 pass?

Member for Fraser-Nicola. Member, I will caution you again. I listened very carefully to the question you posed, and it was a replica of this morning's question.

H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Chair. The minister talked about independence in her answer, and the minister talked about accountability — both of those concepts — in her answer to my question.

[1435]

Now, the way this is set up, the audit council and the position of the auditor general for local government are not independent, and I would argue that the minister is wrong when she asserts that the independence is there.

The minister also has argued that the accountability is to the people of the province. Again, I would say that that's not true. It's not independent, and the accountability to the people of this province is not there.

We've got 85 members in this Legislature, and we are responsible for all the electors that live in every corner of this province — this Legislature is. That's why we have select standing committees of the Legislature. That's why we have officers who report directly to the Legislature.

We have the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the provincial Auditor General as examples. The accountability is there. The openness is there. The independence is there. There's no interference in both of those offices that are set up.

The minister has brought this into the equation by talking about independence and accountability under this. I would say to the minister that when the reporting structure of the AGLG is to both the audit council and to the minister, it is not independent and it is not accountability open to the people of British Columbia, as there would be had this gone through the Select Standing Committee on Finance.

Maybe the minister might want to rethink the answer she had given to her and again answer the question: why is this not truly set up as an independent body — the audit council? And why is it that the AGLG is reporting to the minister, where any reports could be vetted, sent back and redone, rewritten? All sorts of things could happen. The true independence is if the AGLG is reporting to this body, the Legislature of British Columbia.

The Chair: Shall section 19 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I was asking the minister a question, and the minister hasn't answered the question. I'll redirect that question to the minister again to provide an answer. Why was that not done? She talks about independence. She's talked about accountability. Both those items are not there. It's because the minister controls the audit council. Cabinet controls it through political appointees that are going to be made.

All of the audit council here are political appointees that they're going to appoint. The AGLG is either answerable to the audit council, which is a board of political appointees, or to the minister, in terms of all of the reporting that is going to be done.

Where is the independence? Would the minister please
[ Page 10423 ]
inform this House where the independence of the office of the AGLG actually comes into play, with the way the structure is set up? And could the minister also tell this House how the AGLG is actually responsible for reporting and accountable to the people of British Columbia when all reports have to come through the minister as a gateway?

The Chair: Again, I will caution the member that the question has been asked and answered this morning and this afternoon.

[1440-1445]

Section 19 approved on the following division:

On section 20.

H. Lali: Section 20 is about staff resources for the audit council. I understand it's providing resources for the audit council, but the way the subsection is worded, I was wondering if this provides that the minister may actually provide staff resources to assist the audit council. Now, this doesn't refer to her own staff providing resources to assist the audit council, does it?

Hon. I. Chong: There is no subsection — I should just make clarification — in section 20. What this section does provide is the opportunity, if the minister is asked, to provide ministry staff to assist the audit council.

H. Lali: So this is in addition to whatever staff resources are provided to the audit council, set up separately. These would be additional ministry resources from the Ministry of Community Development. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: The audit council, as I say, will be comprised of the five or perhaps more members. They are a council, a board, a committee that meets. They don't have staff designated for them. However, if they require assistance to help carry out their responsibilities, the ministry may provide ministry staff.

H. Lali: The ministry staff, then, who will be assisting the audit council in its deliberations — obviously, there will be a cost attached to that in terms of the time and the resources they use assisting the audit council. Could the minister tell me: does she have any idea how much, in terms of dollars, it is estimated to be on a year-to-year basis?

[1450]

Hon. I. Chong: Given that the audit council is expected to meet perhaps three or four times a year, it's not expected that the resources would be a full-time position. So ministry staff can be made available to assist them when they are actually meeting.

H. Lali: But the minister does agree that there is a cost attached to any help that ministry staff gives to the audit council in its deliberations.

Hon. I. Chong: The cost of that staff person is with the ministry, so the ministry budget does cover off the staff resource.

H. Lali: In an earlier section under the budget I asked the minister about the $2.6 million cost for setting up the office of the AGLG. At that time I asked whether some of the costs would be incurred if there were multiple meetings of the audit council — whether that would add to the bottom line of the $2.6 million. The answer was no, it would not. They'd have to just find some efficiencies inside and prudence to take care of that.

Now the minister tells me there's a cost attached. You know, it could be $5,000 or it could be $50,000. We don't know. We'll know depending on how many meetings the audit council has and what kind of work they need done and how much support the ministry staff are going to give the audit council.
[ Page 10424 ]

My question to the minister is…. Any cost, whether it's a low cost or a high cost to the ministry, is obviously in addition to the $2.6 million that the minister has allotted for the budget of the AGLG. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: Referring back to section 9, which was passed some time earlier when we discussed the budget, it does include the amount in our budget estimates of $2.6 million that will provide for the office of the auditor general for local government. It will also provide for the remuneration and reimbursement of members of the audit council.

The staff support that can be provided to the audit council is, in fact, through the ministry. It is administrative in nature and is entirely within the minister's budget.

H. Lali: I get that, I understand that, but my question is specific. The minister's staff or the ministry staff…. Whatever work they're doing, they will be taken away from that in order to do work for and in support of the audit council. There's a certain amount of time and an amount of resources that will be taken, and there's a cost attached to that. Obviously, that is in addition to the $2.6 million. Is that not correct?

That $2.6 million cost for the AGLG, its office and the audit council contained within — I understand that. But the ministry staff that is going to give the support to the audit council is actually in addition to the $2.6 million. Is that not correct?

Hon. I. Chong: The $2.6 million is what has been allocated for the upcoming year, and that amount will not be changed. The budget that I have through my ministry has also been established, and that amount is not being changed.

H. Lali: In essence, the cost attached to whatever support the ministry staff gives is in addition to the $2.6 million, and it is established separately from the $2.6 million. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, there are no additional costs to the $2.6 million. That is the budget that is established for this vote.

H. Lali: I understand the $2.6 million cost of the office. I know the minister said there's no additional cost onto that budget. But this support that the ministry staff is going to give the audit council is not included in the $2.6 million. Is that correct?

[1455]

Hon. I. Chong: I've indicated, as well, that the staff resources which may be provided to the audit council will be primarily administrative in nature to allow the council to carry on its responsibilities. There will not be an additional cost to the $2.6 million that has been budgeted.

As I've indicated, the cost of that staff comes from the ministry budget, and it is entirely absorbed within the ministry. If the member wants to suggest that there are additional costs associated with the audit council, then he's free to state so. But we are not adding additional costs to our budget in order to assist with the duties of the audit council.

H. Lali: I'll ask a different question of the minister. I understand the $2.6 million for the AGLG's office. It's not a question about that. I've asked several times, and the minister has answered that it's $2.6 million, and that's that. So we'll put that aside. It's not about the $2.6 million.

Let's just look at the support that the ministry staff is going to give to the audit council as a separate entity. There are some costs attached to that. Whatever support the ministry staff are giving to the audit council is within the ministry's budget. There is a certain portion of time and resources that will be used towards that. There is a cost attached to that.

Would the minister then agree that whatever the cost is — it could be $5,000, or it could be $50,000 — that it is actually separate from the $2.6 million for the AGLG?

Hon. I. Chong: Any amount that is calculated with respect to the administrative support is a separate amount from the $2.6 million and is absorbed within the ministry's budget.

H. Lali: If that answer would have been provided, we could have saved 15 minutes. It was a simple question, but the minister chose not to answer it until it was phrased that way.

Anyway, we'll let section 20 pass, and then we'll go on to section 21.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

H. Lali: Section 21 is regarding the business and the meetings of the audit council. It provides that the audit council may make rules governing the conduct of its own business. My question to the minister is: isn't this like putting the fox in charge of the hen house?

Hon. I. Chong: I would expect that the hon. member has himself served on committees and boards and understands the nature of how they are governed. To enable this particular audit council to function, they may need to establish rules governing the conduct of its meetings and other business, even ensuring that they adopt Robert's Rules of Order. It is about ensuring that the conduct of the meetings is done in an orderly fashion.

It also is to ensure that conflict-of-interest guidelines
[ Page 10425 ]
are developed consistent with guidelines developed by the board resourcing and development office and to establish some procedural requirements — for example, the minimum number of meetings they may wish to have. This is about allowing the audit council to at least establish that order, to ensure that they can conduct those meetings as they are convened.

H. Lali: We have determined, as a result of questions back and forth, that the audit council, when it's set up, is going to be made up of a whole bunch of partisan Liberals, because that's the way it's been set up. It's not going to be independent, because the reporting structure is not to the Legislature. It is through the minister and these handpicked people. The minister's own handpicked people will be responsible for reporting to the minister, and somehow we're going to get a vetted report that is going to actually be made public after that.

[1500]

Would it not make sense, then…? In terms of making the rules governing conduct of its own business, would it not be more appropriate and would the minister not agree that this ought to be farmed off? We have a standing committee of the Legislature called the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct.

Would the minister not agree that perhaps it's this committee that would set up those rules governing the conduct of the audit council? And that would be truly independent.

Hon. I. Chong: I will not let the comments that the member made go unchallenged. The audit council will not be made up of a group of, as he indicates, partisan members. The audit council will comprise qualified individuals who meet core competency requirements, as has been indicated in the posting that I mentioned earlier.

I know that the member refuses to accept that. I understand that he wishes to disagree. But the member is completely wrong to suggest that the audit council will not be independent. He is also wrong to suggest that the audit council will not have people who have qualifications that allow them to serve in this fashion. He also continues to perpetuate the idea that the audit council should be a part of another structure. There is another point that we will disagree on.

If he wishes to ask questions with respect to the nature of these sections, I will endeavour to answer them, but if he continues to pursue his questioning in that he wishes it to be different than what the act has laid out, than I will just submit that I've answered all his questions on that regard.

H. Lali: Well, these questions are very relevant in terms of the conduct, and I asked a specific question, which the minister didn't even bother to touch upon. I mean, this audit council is being set up in a similar way. When the democratic TransLink board was put aside by the former Minister of Transportation and he brought in a new board of appointees, political appointees, very highly partisan, we know what the result is in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. It's chaos. They can't make any decisions on anything regarding the fares of TransLink.

So the dangers are already there in an audit council which, again, is going to be appointed in a similar fashion that the TransLink board was appointed. The minister chooses not to believe it's going to be political or partisan, and the minister might say that the opposition chooses to believe the opposite — that it will be.

But the minister still hasn't answered a question. Why would the minister…? Why would this Liberal government not farm this making of the rules governing the conduct of the audit council's business off to the Select Standing Committee of the Legislature on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct?

There's a reason why that committee is set up and those key words, "ethical conduct," are in there. I would imagine the audit council and the minister would also want to make sure that the proceedings of the audit council are done with conduct that is very ethical and of a high standard and that the meetings there go on without any kind of hitches. So it's in everybody's best interests to actually send this off, in terms of setting up these rules, to the Select Standing Committee of the Legislature on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct.

That's a specific question. Would the minister agree that that's what ought to be done? And if the minister disagrees, can she give some rationale why she disagrees, please?

The Chair: Does the hon. member have a new question? Shall section 21 pass?

If the member has a new question, he can continue.

H. Lali: Well, after myself, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake will. Hon. Chair, I'm not making a comment, and I know the minister doesn't want to hear that, in terms of the makeup of the audit council. So put that aside. I'm not asking a question about that. I'm asking a specific….

The Chair: Member, I have listened carefully to your submission on numerous occasions. Do you have a new question?

H. Lali: Yes, I do. The specific question is — and the minister hasn't answered: would she be willing to send this off to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform and Ethical Conduct to actually make the rules governing the conduct of the audit council's business?

The Chair: The question has been asked and answered.

Member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

[1505]

K. Corrigan: To the minister: I was out of the chamber for a few minutes, so I apologize if this question has been asked already. I wanted to ask whether or not under section 21(2), where it says the audit council must meet at least three times each fiscal year, there is any limitation on the number of times that the audit council can meet in a year.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not actually sure where the member is going with the question. Subsection (2) is quite clear: the audit council must meet at least three times each fiscal year. That is legislated.

K. Corrigan: Well, what I'm concerned about is oversight and accountability, financial accountability. I know, for example, that recently there has been a great deal of concern expressed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities about the increasing costs of policing. That was a primary concern in renegotiating the contract with the RCMP: somehow having some kind of control over the costs of the RCMP.

Similarly, when the audit council is making a determination about how many times a year it's going to meet, with no oversight and no limits…. And, presumably, the audit council members are going to be paid a fairly hefty meeting rate. I think the rate for…. Some of the other boards that are within the provincial jurisdiction are being paid, you know, $1,000 or $1,500 a meeting. Assuming that we're talking about, say, a stipend of $1,000 a meeting, I think it's important to have some kind of financial oversight and some kind of limit when the board seems to be deciding itself how many times a year it needs to meet.

There doesn't seem to be anything, certainly within this section or within the Auditor General for Local Government Act generally, that could put the reins on the audit council meeting. I'm not saying that the audit council would do anything but meet when it's necessary, but you know, $1,000 a meeting, and there's no control over it. I'm wondering if there is any control on the number of times that the audit council would meet per year.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm hoping that the member is not comparing this structure to the others that she has mentioned. The audit council, in this particular case, is — what I say — going to be quite unique and independent. They must operate within the $2.6 million budget set up for the auditor general for local government. Their remuneration and their expenses are covered within that, so they cannot go beyond that.

I did indicate earlier that the amount of the remuneration or the per diem that is anticipated for the chair will be $350 per meeting and for the members at $250. So if all four members and the chair make the meeting, it would be a $1,350 cost. If they met the minimum of three times a year, you could see that would be roughly $4,000 a year to operate the audit council.

K. Corrigan: I'm actually quite pleased to hear that that's the range, because a lot of the boards and so on that are operating in this province…. I believe the TransLink board…. I may be wrong, but I think they make two or three times that amount per meeting, so I'm actually quite pleased to hear that. I could be wrong, but I think they make considerably more than $250 a meeting, and this is actually more in line with what some of the councillors that they will be auditing for city councils make for meetings — maybe a bit more, but not that far off. So I'm pleased to hear that.

[1510]

Nevertheless, the question still remains. It's not $1,000 a meeting. It may be $250 to $350 a meeting. But if there is no oversight….

I'll ask the minister, then. The minister talked about having to work within that $2.6 million budget. What accountability is there within the audit council itself to say that you are going to stay within this fiscal framework? I don't see it. I may have missed it in the act, but it's not in this section.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to correct for the record…. The member earlier commented that the amount was reasonable, which I appreciate. She said it was in line with what the members who are being audited…. I just want to make it clear that the audit council members are not auditing. It's just the auditor general who is auditing. I just didn't want any confusion on that part, so I want to correct that for the record.

The audit council meets to…. Through a number of functions, you know, they make recommendations. They meet the auditor general if it's required to deal with their performance audit reports. They also consider matters requested by the auditor general. So again, that will dictate how many times a year they need to meet. If the auditor general requires more meetings of the audit council he may request those. At this point I don't know if there will be additional meetings required, but at least a minimum of three times a year, which we feel is an adequate amount if everything runs, I would say, quite smoothly.

The area that we canvassed earlier with respect to the budget is in section 9. At that time I indicated that the budget for the office of the auditor general for local government as provided in the votes is $2.6 million. Of that $2.6 million, the amounts that are paid to the audit council…. That is where the amounts will be paid from. So the audit council has to be mindful of the fact that they are included within the budget of the auditor general for lo-
[ Page 10427 ]
cal government. The total amount is $2.6 million.

K. Corrigan: The minister has said more than once that essentially, we need to trust the process. We need to assume that things are going to be done appropriately, that the appropriate qualifications are going to be there, that there's not going to be political imprint on the makeup of the board and so on.

Personally, I don't want to have to rely on the goodwill of everybody involved in order to make sure that this operates effectively and efficiently. So I want to just ask one more time whether or not…. We've had a general answer, but specific answer: is there anything in the act, this section or any other section of the act, that limits the number of meetings that the audit council can convene? Apart from any good sense about what the budget is or anything else, is there anything that limits how many times the audit council makes a decision that they want to sit in a particular year?

I'll give an example at the very beginning, perhaps, of their first term. The audit council is going to be adopting a code of conduct and ethics, as mentioned in section 21(6). My assumption is that in adopting a code of conduct and ethics that that is going to be done. The discussion about what that code of conduct is going to look like will be done at meetings of the audit council.

I could see there being eight or ten meetings to take care of that business and the other initial business in terms of setting up how the audit council is going to be run and managed. So in the first year alone I could see, you know, a dozen meetings, and it adds up. So I'm just wondering whether there is anything in the act, other than the goodwill and the good sense of the audit council, that is going to restrict the number of times that the audit council could meet in any given fiscal year.

[1515]

Hon. I. Chong: It's not inconceivable that in the first year there would be more than three meetings, obviously, to get the audit council members together to discuss the code of conduct. If the member suggests there could be as many as 12 meetings, that could be likely if they wanted to meet each month to ensure that was taking place.

But the expectation is that once the audit council is underway and the auditor general has been established and they have established a forum in which they can meet and discuss issues of concern, the number of meetings will be minimized. We would want the audit council to have an opportunity to meet at least three times a year so that they can ensure that the role they're playing with assisting the auditor general for local government can be done effectively.

Regardless, however, the amount that they can spend will be subject to the maximum of the budget that has been established for the office of the auditor general for local government, and that is the $2.6 million. The majority of those dollars are obviously for the purposes of the auditor general, so it is not designed to provide additional dollars simply for the audit council to meet at will.

So again, I would say that the $2.6 million is being provided to run the office of the auditor general and to remunerate and pay for expenses related to the audit council, and they will have to ensure that they fall within those parameters.

B. Ralston: I understand from news reports that the audit council and the auditor general's office will be somewhere in Surrey. So will these meetings take place in Surrey?

Hon. I. Chong: I guess the short answer would be not necessarily, because it is possible for the audit council to conduct meetings electronically, which means that they may not have to meet in a certain place. It is also conceivable that because of the makeup of the audit council, because they don't know geographically where they will be located, they may choose a place where it's convenient so that if they do want to meet in person, they come to a place where the majority of the members, perhaps, are located geographically. So there isn't a requirement that they meet in Surrey.

B. Ralston: Well, given what I understand, again from news reports — the minister could confirm this — the intention is to lease premises in Surrey. Obviously, there's a cost to that. Yet we hear that that space may not be even used for the meetings of the audit council, incurring additional expense elsewhere. Can the minister confirm that, one, there is a signed lease for the premises in Surrey? Secondly, what's the annual cost for that lease?

Hon. I. Chong: The location in Surrey that has been chosen is one that will be for the office of the auditor general for local government, not for the audit council as such. The audit council, as I say, can meet electronically or by other means.

[1520]

There is currently no signed lease for any office space in Surrey. We are still looking into space and, obviously, looking at space that is similar to what government's needs have been in the past to ensure that we are able to find a space that is suitable for an office of that nature.

B. Ralston: Just further, then, on this particular section, can the minister advise what dollar amount in the $2.6 million budget is pencilled in for the annual cost of the lease?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated earlier, we have not signed a lease, and we are still looking for space, so we would not have a figure that I can provide to the member
[ Page 10428 ]
as to what the amount would be until such time as the space actually is acquired.

Again, the $2.6 million was the amount that was determined that would allow an office of the auditor general to be established, allow for the hiring of staff, allow for even some contracting out for services if in fact the auditor general is not able to hire up staff. It does provide room for that. Because the office will need to conform to the parameters of that budget, they will have to ensure that the costs associated with the office can fit within that budget of $2.6 million.

B. Ralston: But surely there must be some rough estimate of the likely lease cost. The $2.6 million, I take it, didn't come from nowhere, so there must have been a rough costing. Again, the minister wasn't able to confirm what the salary of the proposed auditor general would be, doesn't seem to be able to give any kind of an answer as to what the lease cost would be, yet there is a figure of $2.6 million.

Is the minister saying that it's not necessarily $2.6 million, that it might be $5.8 million or $10.9 million or $15 million? There must be some basis to the figure that's been chosen.

I appreciate that it's a rough figure, that it's an estimate. But surely, for planning purposes, there is an estimate for this cost. I can't imagine that a responsible public servant would present a draft budget without an estimate of the annual lease cost. So can the minister dig a little deeper there and provide an answer?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, with debating the legislation…. At the moment we don't have the figures that comprise the calculation of the $2.6 million because I am debating legislation. I know that when we get back to the budget estimates of the vote, I may be able to provide the member with more detail at that time. But I just don't have that information at this point.

K. Corrigan: The minister has confirmed that a site in Surrey is being considered for the headquarters, the office, of the auditor. Can I ask the minister: is the E division headquarters being considered as the office site for the auditor general? Is there a specific site, and if so, is the E division headquarters under consideration?

[1525]

Hon. I. Chong: I cannot advise the member what site is being considered. We are utilizing the services of Shared Services B.C., who are looking into possible sites that are available in Surrey. So I, unfortunately, don't have any information that I can provide to the member at this time.

K. Corrigan: Considering that we're looking at the cost related to business and meetings of the audit council and the auditor general generally, I'm wondering if it's possible for the minister to find out that information and share it — if it's possible to be shared — with us?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, with Shared Services B.C. looking into possible sites, I'm sure that once they make it known to us, then we will all be made aware of what site has been chosen.

K. Corrigan: But just to confirm, the decision has been made, and I assume by the ministry. Or perhaps the minister can clarify that. How was the decision made that it was going to be centred in Surrey? Was that a decision of the ministry? And why Surrey, if that's the case?

Hon. I. Chong: As the auditor general for local government and his or her staff will likely be travelling to various locations throughout the province, Surrey is well located to allow for easy accessibility to communities. Surrey is also an affordable Lower Mainland location that offers a number of amenities to support the recruitment of staff, while being cost-effective and well situated. That played into the consideration of why Surrey was being looked upon as a chosen site for the office of the auditor general for local government.

H. Lali: Subsection (3) — the meeting of the audit council can be convened "by the chair or by 2 members of the council with prior notice to the chair." Is there a limit as to how far ahead the notice has to be given?

Hon. I. Chong: This goes back to about the audit council and making rules governing the conduct of its business. So that would be something that they would set as part of their procedures as to what notice is required.

H. Lali: Under the same section, it says that the meeting of the audit council "must be convened as soon as is practicable." And section (ii) under that — it's section (3)(b)(ii): "if there is no auditor general or there will be no auditor general within 12 months…." I'm just sort of a little confused. If there is no auditor general, why wait up to 12 months to have a meeting? I wonder if the minister can explain what is really meant here by that section.

Hon. I. Chong: In a case like this, it's really designed to deal with the auditor general who may be coming to the end of his or her term. It's to ensure that the audit council, because of the important work that they do, is convened as soon as is practical to ensure they are able to meet in the event that there is no auditor general because that auditor general has concluded their term. So that is the purpose of subsection (3)(b)(ii).

H. Lali: I mean, on the one side there is, from the
[ Page 10429 ]
government's perspective, this real big need to put in an auditor general. Say the auditor general finishes their term. You want to wait up to 12 months if there's no auditor general?

[1530]

I mean, why is the limit 12 months there? It says "within 12 months," but it could be 11 months and 29 days. If there's no auditor general, would it not actually be more practicable to try to get an auditor general in place as quickly as possible?

The audit council ought to meet and not have to wait 11 months and 29 days — you know, within 12 months. Would the minister not agree?

Hon. I. Chong: With respect, I think the member is not reading this correctly. It's not that there is no auditor general. It's basically trying to convey that there will not be an auditor general within 12 months.

So if we are coming to the last year of the term of the auditor general, you know that at the end of that year, within 12 months, there will not be an auditor general. Therefore, the audit council needs to convene meetings as soon as practical in order to be able to start the recruitment process to have an auditor general in place.

If it is, say, January, you know that by the end of the year, within 12 months, there will not be an auditor general because that term, or the end of that year, is coming up.

H. Lali: Actually, the section is badly worded. Anybody can read that and make two meanings out of it. But thanks for the clarification.

Again, under the same subsection (3), meetings of the audit council actually must be convened "at the request of the minister to consider suspension or removal of the auditor general." What if the request comes from the UBCM? Is it only the minister or, as it's outlined, the audit council that would convene?

Why couldn't requests come from the UBCM? After all, the AGLG is put in place to look after the affairs in terms of auditing of member organizations of the UBCM. Why would a request from the UBCM not trigger a meeting of the audit council in the same way that it would with the minister?

Hon. I. Chong: To clarify subsection 21(3)(b), these points — (i), (ii) and (iii) — are there to provide for, I would say, circumstances which are not frequent but are more unique in nature — for example, at the request for consideration by the audit council of a matter specified by the auditor general; or in cases where, within 12 months, we know that the auditor general's term will come to an end; and thirdly, "at the request of the minister to consider suspension or removal of the auditor general."

Those would be specific circumstances. The audit council will not be required or is not called to meet at the request of the minister for any general purpose; nor are any other representative bodies. So it is to deal with very specific circumstances.

H. Lali: Okay. In this case I'll be more specific, then. What if the UBCM wanted the consideration of suspension or removal of the auditor general? Could they not trigger a meeting under this section?

[1535]

Hon. I. Chong: Earlier in our debate I indicated there could be circumstances where an auditor general is removed for cause or for incapacity. If circumstances like that have arisen, then the audit council must be convened as soon as practical to deal with that circumstance, to consider that suspension or removal so that they can continue on with taking a look at what the next steps are.

Again, it is meant to deal with a specific circumstance in order that when those circumstances occur, the meeting of an audit council is convened as soon as practical, that they do not allow the circumstances to exist without coming together and dealing with the matter.

K. Corrigan: Again, I apologize if this has been canvassed earlier, because I wasn't in the House at all times. My question for the minister: will the meetings of the audit council be held in public?

Hon. I. Chong: I indicated earlier that the audit council is on the supervisory role. It is an advisory body. Therefore, they are not a decision-making body, so they would not be compelled to meet in public, nor likely will they.

The objective of the audit council is to allow the auditor general for local government to meet with the audit council with respect to, as I say, reviewing some of their draft performance report, considering recommendations of that nature. So it is advisory. For that reason, they would be meeting primarily with the auditor general, or if they have to meet themselves to discuss their conduct of their running of their meetings, they can do so on that basis.

K. Corrigan: I'm thinking of, for example, the Public Accounts Committee, which receives reports from the Auditor General for the province of British Columbia. The Public Accounts Committee consists of members from this House. Certainly, those meetings are absolutely public.

I don't quite understand given that — we'll deal with this later — under section 23 the audit council "may provide comments to the auditor general on the proposed final performance audit report submitted under subsection (3)." So there is going to be discussion in these meetings about the content, I presume, of these audits of municipal governments. Surely there would be interest
[ Page 10430 ]
from either the public or the municipal councils that are going to be affected by these audits.

I'm wondering if the minister can explain — given 23(4), there will be discussion on the content of the reports and questions, I presume — why these meetings are not being held in public.

Hon. I. Chong: The member has already skipped forward to section 23 where it talks about performance audit reports. That is perhaps a correct lead-in as to why the audit council does not meet in public.

[1540]

The objective, of course, is for the auditor general for local government to be able to present draft audit reports and speak with the audit council. To have those meetings made public while the draft audit reports are being considered could compromise the independence of the auditor general and the report.

When his or her report is made public, that is when that information should be made available to the public. So obviously, you do not want an auditor general who is considering and dealing with the draft report to have undue influence as a result of public and open meetings, because that would in fact compromise that report.

The member makes reference to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I believe that when reports are brought forward to Public Accounts — I have served on Public Accounts myself — those are when the reports have been finalized and brought to the attention of the members of Public Accounts. So it is after the reports are finalized, when they are made public, that the members have access to those.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering: will there be any mechanism by which the local governments will have any knowledge whatsoever of what kind of input the audit council had into the final report of the auditor general?

Hon. I. Chong: I think this is where sometimes it does get confusing, because members are trying to equate this to a select standing committee, which is not what this audit council will be performing. The audit council is not designed, through its responsibilities and mandates, to go into the substance of the report of the auditor general. Rather, the audit council is there to review and consider the performance and monitor the performance of the auditor general.

The substance of the report is that of the auditor general. The auditor general, therefore, has the ability to issue that report, make it public, once he or she has determined that all of the information that he or she wants to make public can be published.

K. Corrigan: I should probably ask this in section 23, but just to finish off this piece about the business and meetings of the audit council. But section 23 does clearly say that the….

The Chair: Member.

Section 21 approved on division.

On section 22.

H. Lali: This section with the annual service plan provides that the "auditor general must prepare a proposed annual service plan and submit it to the audit council" for their review and sets out what must be included in the annual service plan.

That's a lot of power being afforded to the audit council, and all of these sections we've seen are putting a lot of power into the hands of the audit council, an appointed body. It's not even elected. Even if it was appointed from elected officials within the municipalities and the regional district, it would be one thing. But these are political appointees who have a lot of power to do a lot of things that often select standing committees of the Legislature don't even have.

So I'm just wondering: if you've got the audit council doing all of this, what's the role of cabinet in all of this?

[1545]

Hon. I. Chong: I know the member likes to be partisan and continues to suggest that the audit council are political appointees. While they certainly are going to be appointed through order-in-council, I want to assure those who are watching and listening to the debates that those who are selected will in fact have core competency requirements and will have to act in a most professional regard. I do not want to impugn the audit council members prior to them being selected.

The objective of section 22 here, with regards to the annual service plan, is to remind the member that the service plan is in fact a high-level document that provides overall direction for the auditor general for local government's operations in the upcoming year. The audit council may make comments or recommend changes consistent with their role in reviewing and monitoring performance of the auditor general for local government.

As well, the audit council, being made up of knowledgable experts, may have useful input for the auditor general for local government in preparing his or her service plan. The legislation provides sole discretion to the auditor general for local government to select the performance audits that will be conducted, and the audit council's comments to the auditor general for local government on the service plan are non-binding.

So contrary to what the member has suggested, the audit council is able to review and make recommendations, but they are non-binding. The auditor general for local government will in fact be able to make the determination, ultimately, of what his service plan should
[ Page 10431 ]
look like.

H. Lali: Subsection (4) under section 22 states that the "audit council must review the proposed annual service plan and, subject to subsection (5), may provide comments and recommend changes to the plan as the audit council considers appropriate."

Again, that's handing over more powers to the audit council in terms of the annual service plans. It's frightening to see how an unelected body of political appointees handpicked by government, by the minister, is having so much power to be able to do this. We've gone through some of the other sections, where we know the way the criteria are set up for the selection of these appointees. It's very heavily favoured towards one sector, and that is the business sector.

It's putting a lot of control into the hands of the business sector, the genesis of which — the municipal auditor general — was when the Premier made a promise to a group of business people when they lobbied her during the leadership. So it scares me when I see a section such as this handing over so much power.

How can the minister assure this House and, through this House, the people of British Columbia that the audit council is not going to be the tool by which business tries to get its way with locally elected municipal councils and regional districts?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I acknowledge that the member has his message box. I feel that he is trying to impugn the professional conduct of audit council members even prior to them being selected. That's unfortunate, because I am looking forward to this audit council, who are experts with skills and experience that will provide, I believe, valuable work for the benefit of the auditor general for local government who eventually will provide good value-for-money audits that assist local governments in the best way possible.

However, we will continue to disagree on how this position will come to exist and the kinds of benefits it provides. I accept that that disagreement will continue. I have said on a number of occasions that the audit council may make recommendations but that those recommendations are non-binding. So on more than one occasion, the member has alluded to the fact that they are these sweeping powers when I've again indicated that they are non-binding.

[1550]

If he were to look further in this section 22 and drop down to subsection (6), again, it states: "The auditor general must consider the comments and recommendations provided by the audit council…." "Must consider" does not say that they must accept the recommendations. Again, I state for the record that the recommendations that the audit council makes are non-binding. If the member persists to suggest otherwise, then he is fabricating that in his own mind.

H. Lali: The hon. minister said that I was casting aspersions on a body of people who aren't even appointed yet. I'm just going to draw a corollary here to give the minister an example that it's not just the members of the opposition. There are people out there who are very concerned.

Here's a release from the UBCM dated February 10 of this year. It's from Heath Slee, who's the president of UBCM, and it's regarding the province…. It says: "Province to Review Municipal Taxation and Local Government Revenue." Here's where I'm going to make the analogy. The first one is the expert panel review of business taxation, and this states here:"The guidelines for the expert panel state that 'the review will include an examination of municipal property taxation of business and its impact on business competitiveness and investment. Recommendations must address issues of affordability and sustainability for local governments within the framework of the Community Charter.'"

Then the panel members are…. You know, you'll see them. There's the chancellor from UBC, the chief financial officer from Goldcorp, the senior vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. There's a Canadian managing partner with KPMG; a managing partner with Ernst and Young; the vice-president, academic, from University of B.C.; a former deputy minister, province of B.C., adjunct member. That's Dale Wall in there.

Then the second group is the local government revenue sources review. Both of those were both announced earlier. In the UBCM's own newsletter, this is what it says about that:

"Both reviews were topics of discussion during the meeting of UBCM's executive of February 3, 2012. During a portion of the meeting where we were joined by" — he names the minister — "the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, the executive noted that local governments would be concerned that a panel investigating municipal taxation lacks local government representation. The executive also commented that the composition of the expert panel might lead to questioning of its recommendations."

Hon. Chair, people out there are going to be audited and investigated by the AGLG in the municipalities and regional districts. You have so many people that work there. You have elected officials. You have senior staff that they hire. You have workers, who do all the groundwork, and support staff. There are so many people that are out there thinking the same thing here.

The UBCM put that in the letter that I just read regarding the two other panels that were set up. Now you have an audit council which is not going to have any representation from local government. Yet the UBCM's letter that Mr. Heath Slee, the president, sent out on February 10 talks about the expert panel review of business taxation and the local government revenue sources review, complaining of the very same thing that members on this side of the House have been complaining about for
[ Page 10432 ]
months and months to this minister and to this Liberal government.

You have a problem on your hands — it's what we have been saying to the government, hon. Chair — and the problem is one of trust. It's an issue of credibility for this government. And the government's credibility, its very credibility, is being questioned time and time again.

We've seen it happen with the TransLink board when elected officials were thrown off that board — fired — by a previous Transportation Minister and political appointees were appointed to the new board of TransLink. You would think that this minister and this government would have learned something from that debacle. We've seen what's happening at TransLink — its chaos, indecision and everything that's taking place there — and they're complaining.

Interjection.

H. Lali: I'm glad my friend from Peace River, the Minister of Transportation, is listening attentively to this debate. I'm glad he is listening, and I hope that better judgment prevails. I've known this member for 20 years now. I hope that in this case, better judgment prevails.

With TransLink, one of the biggest complaints, they're saying, is that there's no democracy there. There are no locally elected officials on that board. They're political appointees that the government chose to make so they could have control over it. It's the same thing with the audit council.

[1555]

The Chair: Member, I'm bringing you back to section 22.

H. Lali: The context of this section is that we've seen this happen elsewhere. I'm asking the minister whether the minister has learned anything here in terms of the outcomes that they expect and why those outcomes would be questioned even before the audit council is put in place. The minister said that I'm casting aspersions as the critic in questioning before the audit council is even hired and put in place.

There's a rationale for it. Would the minister not agree that perhaps it is time not to put political appointees on the audit council and rather have some democracy in this to make sure it's done in a fashion that is not going to have people questioning? UBCM is questioning the previous two panels.

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I understand we're on section 22 dealing with the annual service plan. The question that the member poses is a question that he has posed with other sections we've previously debated. Again, I respectfully accept that we will agree to disagree and that he does not accept the facts that members who will be selected to the audit council will be chosen based on their experience and based on some core competencies, that it is an open process and that anyone who wished to be on the council could have applied based on the postings that were made available.

I am waiting for a question with respect to the annual service plan.

H. Lali: In the previous answer the minister said….

The Chair: Member for Fraser-Nicola with a new question.

H. Lali: On subsection 22(6), when the minister responded — not to this last question but two questions back — she quoted subsection (6) and said: "The auditor general must consider the comments and recommendations…." It doesn't say that this is written in stone, that they have to do it. It says "consider." Why would the word "must" be in here, not the word "may," in subsection (6)?

Hon. I. Chong: Allowing the audit council to review and comment on but not to approve the annual service plan does in fact balance the audit council's status as a separate body through which the auditor general reports with the auditor general's need for independence in carrying out the duties and exercising the powers of their office — which, as I say, does allow for the auditor general to consider but not accept those recommendations if he or she chooses not to.

K. Corrigan: On the working of subsection 22(4) and subsection 22(6), where we talk about comments and recommendations for changes to the annual service plan by the audit council…. The minister said earlier that oversight by the audit council was intended, I believe, to be considering the performance of the auditor general. But I just want to confirm that the minister is not suggesting that the audit council could not make comments and recommend changes to the plan that were substantive.

Certainly, I want to make sure the minister agrees that the audit council could, for example, when considering the annual service plan, say: "I think you should do a performance audit that looks at the advisability of doing public-private partnerships as opposed to, for example, providing water services in-house." That would be within the jurisdiction, and appropriately within the jurisdiction, of section 22(4) of the audit council, would it not?

[1600]

Hon. I. Chong: I don't recall that I used the word "oversight." Perhaps the word "monitoring" is what I used. There is a difference, because the objective of the audit council is to monitor the performance of the auditor general for local government. I just want to make sure that
[ Page 10433 ]
we don't substitute, I guess, a more direct action that is not there.

I want to make it clear here, though, that the purpose of the audit council, in making recommendations, is such that they may make recommendations to the auditor general for local government's service plan, but they cannot do so….

That is contrary to a number of items, which are listed in subsection (5). "The audit council may not recommend changes to the proposed…service plan that would (a) affect the estimate as approved by Treasury Board under section 9." Nor can the audit council make certain recommendations that would "result in the omission of a matter referred to in subsection (2) (a) or (b)…." Nor can the audit council make recommendations that would "contravene subsection (3)."

As you see in subsection (3): "The proposed…service plan must not specify the local governments whose operations will be the subject of a performance audit."

Once again, the audit council is not there to dictate to the auditor general what audits will take place, nor which local governments will be selected for audits. That is the sole discretion of the auditor general for local government. I wanted to ensure that the member is aware that it's not about the substance of the audit. That is up to the auditor general for local government to make those determinations.

K. Corrigan: Well, I'm reading the same sections that the minister is reading, and I don't see that particular limitation in subsection 22(4). I don't see any limitation that would prevent the audit council from making the recommendation that I mentioned in my last question.

[D. Black in the chair.]

To make it more concrete, could the audit council make a recommendation that the auditor general should, in the coming year, look at whether or not it would be better for local municipalities to contract out or go into a P3 type of agreement as opposed to doing it in-house? That's particularly if the audit council were to say: "You are going to be concentrating on this project. It's probably going to cost you half a million dollars to do it. We can't increase the budget, the approval that we already have. We think that a priority should be in this area instead."

Could the audit council make that recommendation?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the audit council may make recommendations. They may make any variety of recommendations, but the auditor general for local government is not bound by those recommendations. As I've stated on several occasions now, they are non-binding.

Take a look at section 22(2)(b)(ii) and (iii). You will see, very specifically, where it states: "(ii) the general criteria that the auditor general will consider to determine the need for and priority of performance audits, (iii) themes on which some or all performance audits may be based…."

Certainly, there could be discussion on the themes that performance audits may be based on. There could also be discussion with respect to the need for and priority of performance audits, but again, all that in the context of the audit council making those recommendations, providing input. But the auditor general for local government, because of this independence, has the sole discretion to either accept or reject, because they are non-binding recommendations.

B. Ralston: Further on section 22, and this arises out of a comment that the minister made. The minister said that members of the audit council have not yet been appointed.

[1605]

I understand that on Friday, February 3, the government announced that it was seeking nominees for the audit council, so that's been almost two months. Can the minister advise how many applications she's received, and is there a plan to approve those recommended five or so people soon?

Hon. I. Chong: Unfortunately, I don't have the figure for the member. That process is being handled through the board resourcing and development office.

B. Ralston: Well, as the minister responsible for the file and as the minister directing the legislation through the Legislature, is the minister saying that she's not aware of where that's at and whether selections are ready to be forwarded to the minister for her consideration?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, there is a process that has been underway. The posting did take place. It is closed. Those applicants who are interested are now being handled through the board resourcing and development office. Their due diligence is occurring. Once they have completed that, I expect to be notified.

H. Lali: I know yesterday…. It was during questions and answers. The deadline for the AGLG position closes tomorrow, I understand. Could the minister tell us how many applications have come in for the AGLG position?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, that posting is being handled through the Public Service Agency. Because it is not yet closed — it's still an active posting — I don't have that information.

H. Lali: Section 22(7) — I want to read it. "After finalizing the annual service plan, the auditor general must, (a) as soon as is practicable, provide the annual service plan to the audit council and the minister, and (b) after
[ Page 10434 ]
having provided the annual service plan in accordance with paragraph (a), publish the plan."

Almost all of this reporting is to the audit council. Almost everything that the AGLG is going to do or publish is going to go to the audit council. Everything is going to the audit council. Again, a general theme that is forming, not just in every section but in the subsections, is the amount of power that this government is actually giving to the audit council.

Here we have another section where it just keeps talking about more and more power that is given to the audit council — to be able to review everything, to give recommendations and that the minister must consider recommendations. Here we talk about the annual service plans, and then the audit council can recommend changes to this service plan.

I mean, isn't this just a little bit too much power given to the audit council? Perhaps some of that should have been with the cabinet itself.

Hon. I. Chong: No.

H. Lali: Well, that was a pretty succinct answer from the minister. I don't agree with the minister's answer, but we'll move on from there.

Subsection (8) says: "Sections 13 and 16 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act do not apply in relation to the auditor general." Could the minister explain what is meant by that?

[1610]

Hon. I. Chong: The member probably is aware that all ministries and agencies through government are required…. There are provincial requirements for service plans for all ministries and other government organizations.

Given that we have set up the service plan's requirements here in the legislation very distinctly…. That is the reason why it does not fall within the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Otherwise, we would have the auditor general for local government having to provide two public service plans, one as required through legislation and then one required through the BTAA.

That is the reason why it does not need to comply — because it is legislated on how its service plan is to be prepared, with respect to the legislation in section 22.

Section 22 approved on division.

On section 23.

H. Lali: Section 23 is about performance audit reports. Subsection (2) says: "The local government may provide comments to the auditor general on the proposed final performance audit report within the time given by the auditor general, which time may be no less than 45 days." I commend the minister for actually putting that in there.

My question is: for instance, if, after an audit, there are some comments regarding whatever was being investigated for that municipality or the regional district or was being audited — that is, there's a chance to fix something — then is the municipality or the regional district allowed to take the remedial action that may be recommended by the auditor general?

After having done the remediation, would that then form a part of the final report of the auditor general — that whatever the problem was has been fixed and that the municipality or the regional district was able to cooperate in a good-natured and friendly way to fix whatever problem was there?

Hon. I. Chong: In regular business audits, I guess what does occur is that the auditor has an opportunity to meet with the management of the entity that's being audited and to provide an opportunity for a response.

What we are trying to provide in section 23 is in fact that same opportunity by allowing the audited local government to review and comment on the draft performance audit of their operations. That ensures that those most affected by an audit are aware of the matters that will be raised in the report and provides an opportunity to bring inaccuracies or other issues to the auditor general's attention.

As the member has indicated, providing a minimum time period for comments ensures that local governments will have adequate opportunity to discuss a proposed draft audit report. Also, as the member will see in subsection (3), requiring that a summary of those comments be included in the final performance audit report ensures that the public are aware of the local government's perspective.

So it does provide for that interaction, and I think that is what local governments would want to have.

H. Lali: That actually leads me to subsection (3), which the minister alluded to just now.

[1615]

When the local government does reply…. It says here: "The auditor general must include in the proposed final performance audit report a summary of the comments given by the local government…." Is this an unedited summary by the local government, or is the auditor general going to provide a summary of whatever main comments the local government has made? Basically, the summary — is it edited, or is it going to be unedited?

Hon. I. Chong: The summary would be one that is prepared by the auditor general, which is normally the circumstance when an audit is provided to an entity and there is a report back. Then the auditor general takes that information, provides a summary and produces that. So
[ Page 10435 ]
that is normal in the circumstances of an audit.

H. Lali: On this section here's my last question, and then we're going on to the member for Surrey-Whalley. So the summary. Will the local government have a chance to actually view the summary and say, "That's fine," or is it that the auditor general is not going to even show that summary? Because there might be some error in the summary.

Hon. I. Chong: That would, again, be up to the auditor general. The objective, of course, is to provide an opportunity for the local government to correct or have adequate opportunity to discuss the report and an opportunity to bring inaccuracies or other issues to the auditor general's attention. You would expect that if the auditor general has matters or issues brought to his or her attention, especially those that are inaccurate, the auditor general would, in fact, include those and incorporate those to ensure that the perspective of the local government is included in the summary.

It will be up to the auditor general to do that, and I would expect that their professional conduct would require them to ensure that an accurate depiction of the audit is there.

B. Ralston: Can the minister explain the purpose of subsection (4), which gives the audit council the opportunity to provide comments? I understand — and that's certainly normal practice — that the body or organization that's being audited has the opportunity to examine the report and provide comment that would be appended to the report. Can the minister explain the purpose of this subsection?

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of subsection (4) is, in fact, to ensure that the audit council can fulfil its role in reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general.

What the audit council may be able to provide comments on…. If they feel that the auditor general, for example, has gone outside the scope of their authority…. If the auditor general began to investigate financial matters when clearly its objective is to do value-for-money performance audits, then the audit council would need to provide comment to the auditor general and advise the auditor general that, in fact, they have gone beyond their scope.

Therefore, the audit council, who is responsible for reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general, needs to make that known to the auditor general.

B. Ralston: Well, I think I can understand the obligation of the audit council to supervise, in a general way, the performance of the auditor general. But this is a provision that gives the audit council the power to comment on a specific report prior to its publication, prior to it becoming public. I mean, despite the minister talking about the so-called hallmarks of independence, this seems to me to be a substantial infringement upon that independence. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by it.

[1620]

Would the minister agree that this compromises the independence of the auditor general? The minister has assured us that this person will be someone of the highest calibre and professional integrity, yet this gives the opportunity to the audit council to interfere.

Hon. I. Chong: The audit council…. As I said, one of their primary functions and roles is to review and monitor the performance of the auditor general. So the audit council can or may provide comment to the auditor general. Again, the auditor general may not take into consideration those comments.

If the audit council felt obliged to make comment as to the recommendations that an auditor general may be publishing in the report that were outside the scope of the work that he or she is doing, I think it's fair to say that the audit council would want to bring that to the attention of the auditor general.

For example, if the auditor general were about to publish a report that had recommendations that clearly questioned the policy decisions of a local government, which we canvassed earlier and said that it is not what the auditor general is permitted to do, or if the auditor general has gone outside the scope of their responsibility and began an investigation into financial matters — which is, again, beyond what they are able to do — the audit council would at least be able to provide that comment to the auditor general and suggest that they have gone beyond their scope.

That allows them to perform their duty in terms of reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general. The auditor general, then, would know that his or her performance is, in fact, being reviewed, that he or she is, in fact, going beyond the scope of the role that has been created for the auditor general for local government.

Again, the audit council may provide comments. The auditor general may choose to ignore those. This at least will provide the audit council with the ability to perform its functions of review and monitoring.

B. Ralston: I don't find the example that the minister has chosen very compelling. I mean, surely the minister speaks of a highly skilled professional, likely going to be paid over $200,000 a year, a leader in the field — although not from the B.C. audit office, which is the national leader — and her example suggests that that person would make an elementary mistake about the scope of their inquiry.

Really, isn't the purpose of this provision to provide a political screen by the audit council to a report before it gets published in a way that might embarrass some of the
[ Page 10436 ]
government's political friends in municipal government?

Hon. I. Chong: The answer is no.

B. Ralston: Well, I can see that the minister didn't want to answer that question, particularly.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Usually the answers are a little more fulsome.

Anyway, looking again at subsection (4), because the ambit of debate in these matters is fairly narrow, as the minister knows, it says that the audit council may provide comments. Would those comments — and it's not clear from the way this section is drafted — be published along with the report?

It looks like there's a provision that says a summary of the comments given by the local government. Would these comments by the audit council be published along with the report so that the public could know what the concerns of the audit council were with the report, if that's the case?

Hon. I. Chong: The audit council may provide comments. Those are not comments that are included or published with respect to the final audit report.

B. Ralston: Would those comments be subject to freedom-of-information requests?

[1625]

Hon. I. Chong: The appropriate place for comments that the audit council makes would be in the annual report. If there are comments that the audit council deems are important with respect to its role in reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general, they would make that information a part of the annual report.

B. Ralston: Well, this section is a bit more specific than giving the audit council the power to make comments in the annual report. This is a comment on the proposed report in advance of its publication. That's a very different thing from the general comments that one finds in an annual report.

My question is: would the comments provided to the auditor general about his or her report or proposed report be subject to freedom-of-information requests? In other words, I find it surprising that the minister wouldn't want the concerns of these highly skilled members of the audit council to be public. I just want to know now — in advance, before the legislation proceeds — whether those comments will be available to the public through the mechanism of freedom of information.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps we're jumping forward to subsection 24(3), where there is reference to when the audit council comments may be made public.

I just want to go back, because the member has indicated or appeared to indicate how important this subsection was with respect to the final performance audit report. I think that would lead people to believe that the comments made by the audit council would in fact deal with the substance of the final performance audit report. Again, the final performance audit report will be what the auditor general decides to publish.

The audit council cannot influence the substance of that report. The audit council provides comments with respect to the report only to ensure that its function to review and monitor the performance of the auditor general is considered. Otherwise, they would not be fulfilling their obligations.

That is one of the reasons why the audit council felt it was important to make comment with respect to the performance of the auditor general. They would be able to make those comments. The substance of the final performance audit report is one that the auditor general has control over in terms of what is published.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister says that the audit council won't provide comments on the substance of the report and will only provide comments on the scope and the performance generally of the auditor general. That's not what the section says. It doesn't limit the comments in any way. It says: "…comments to the auditor general on the proposed final performance audit report submitted under subsection (3)." So the scope is open.

Is the minister going to propose an amendment to limit the section's interpretation in the way that she has suggested she thinks it should be, or is she going to retract her comments?

Hon. I. Chong: The ability for the audit council to make comments is limited to the role that they have as indicated by section 19. Section 19 spells out the role of the audit council, so their ability to make comments is in fact restricted or limited based on that. This is not, as the member suggests, the audit council making comments with respect to the substance. Even though he suggests that this is not clear, the clarity of the role of the audit council is in fact in section 19.

[1630]

B. Ralston: Well, the minister now seeks to take refuge in section 19. Here's what section 19 says: "(1) The audit council is responsible for…(e) commenting to the auditor general on a performance audit report." There's no limitation on the scope of the contents, the substance, the conclusions whatsoever — none.

Will the minister reconsider her comments and retract them? Clearly, what she's saying about the proposed interpretation of that section is not borne out by the text
[ Page 10437 ]
that we have before us. There's just no basis for making that claim.

Hon. I. Chong: I hesitate to go back to section 19, but unfortunately, we do need to take a look at that. If the member continues to look further down, in subsection (1)(j) it does say that the audit council is responsible for "reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general, including, without limitation, the performance of the auditor general in respect of the annual service plan." Therefore, the objectives that they have would be to make comments with that in mind, because they are responsible for reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general.

Once again I want to say, for the record, that the comments that are made by the audit council, with respect to the final performance audit report, are not designed to deal with the substance of that. Eventually, once the final performance audit report is public, those comments will then also be made available through the next section — which we will see in section 24 when we get to that section.

B. Ralston: Well, the minister proposes in her comment here, under "Response to questions," a limitation on the interpretation of the ambit of the words "may provide comments." Will she consider an amendment that would make it clear — "provide comments but not on the substance of the report," so that it's clear?

When it's interpreted and the auditor general and the audit council are wrestling with these issues, they may not have the benefit of the minister's wise words here in the Hansard. Perhaps it should be in the statute. It would have more force, since that's clearly what she's suggesting. Otherwise, I think the minister's comments really should be reconsidered.

Hon. I. Chong: With respect, I don't intend to make a change to this subsection. Again, the concerns that the members may have with respect to the comments that are provided by the audit council…. If they are concerned about them not being made available, when we get to subsection 24(2), we will see that the ability for those comments to be made public, in fact, are there. So if the members feel that those comments should be made available, they can be.

Again, the audit council may provide these comments to the auditor general. The auditor general will make a decision as to how he accepts those comments there, again for the benefit of ensuring that the audit council is able to fulfil its mandate of reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general.

H. Lali: On the same subsection I know that earlier in the debate the minister had said on the record that the ongoing administration of the AGLG's office would be subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act. I would ask the same question: what about the affairs of the audit council? Are they subject to the same rules of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act?

[1635]

Hon. I. Chong: The audit council is subject to FOI. We will see that in section 39 when we get there. However, I do want to say that section 24, which is the next section, does provide very specific rules and restriction on, as I say, the use of information that is gathered as a result of the performance audit and the draft performance audit report.

So for certain information that is gathered, there may be some restrictions on that, and you'll see that highlighted in section 24. But in general if the member is asking about the audit council, he will see in section 29 that they are covered under FOI.

H. Lali: Subsection (3). There will be a summary of the comments of the local government, which will form a part of the report to the audit council, as it states here.

I understand there's the annual report, which comes out every 12 months, but are the full comments of the local government subject to the FOI requests? If I were to put in a request and wanted the full comments of the local government as opposed to the summary, would I be able to access those without having to wait for the annual report 12 months later?

Hon. I. Chong: If we take a look at section 24, we will see that the comments are not available…

H. Lali: Sorry. Are, or are not?

Hon. I. Chong: Are not.

…while this is a draft report. But once the report is finalized, then the information is made public. So while it is still in draft report, obviously, the comments are…. Well, it's in a draft report. They would not be available for publication.

So you will see the information in section 24 and the restrictions there. Again, when you are in a draft stage, it can be very different than the final stage of a report. So it's important that what is eventually published as the final report is in fact the appropriate information that is available for the public.

H. Lali: Just for clarification, the minister is talking about publishing the final audit report as opposed to the annual report. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to make a clarification. What we're referring to here is performance audit reports, not the annual report.
[ Page 10438 ]

[1640]

So with respect to the performance audit reports, which the local government is looking to conclude and make public with respect to the entity that has been audited…. In relation to that report, the local government can make comments. Those comments are not available while still in the draft stage.

Once the report is finalized, the full comments can then be released and made public. So that is the objective here. Obviously, with comments, while work is still ongoing and the local government is providing comments and, as I say, the draft report is still being considered, it would not be appropriate for those to be made available. Once the final performance audit report is concluded, then a summary of those comments will be made available, along with the report — or can be made available for the public.

H. Lali: I thank the minister for that answer, but my question was not about the summary but the full comments of the local government.

So when your final performance audit report is made public — I'm not talking about the proposed report, but rather the final report of the performance audit — I understand that it's in a summary that's attached to it. But my question is more specific. Would the full comments of the local government also be made available?

Hon. I. Chong: We are now moving into section 24. So if the member is prepared to pass section 23, we can get into the details, because we are now into section 24. So I'm just wondering what the desire of the member is.

H. Lali: I can wait to ask that question under section 24.

I want to move to subsection (4) here, and these are the comments by the audit council. On the one side, we've got comments that are going to be released in summary form from the local government under subsection (3). I think the minister said that the summary of the local government's comments would be included in the report that would be published, the performance audit report.

So in subsection (4) there are also comments from the audit council. I know that my colleague from Surrey-Whalley had asked the question whether those comments would be made available through FOI, because they don't seem to be…. The comments of the audit council aren't going to be published, but a summary of the comments of the local government will be published, so there's a distinction here — why one would be published and not the other.

So the question is — and I don't believe there was an answer given by the minister: would the comments provided by the audit council be made available to a member of the public or someone like myself? Once the performance audit report has been published, would those be available through FOI request?

Hon. I. Chong: The answer is yes. I don't believe you need an FOI request, because "comments prepared by the audit council for the purposes…" may be made public once the audit report is published by the auditor general. Again, we are getting into section 24 now with respect to all of that, so I would ask that if we have further questions on 23, we deal with those first.

K. Corrigan: On section 23. I'm specifically referring to subsection 23(4): "The audit council may provide comments to the auditor general on the proposed final performance audit report submitted under subsection (3)." I agree with the comments made earlier by the member for Surrey-Whalley that there is nothing in the wording of this subsection that, to me, indicates a limit on the scope of the comments that may be made. But that's been canvassed by the member for Surrey-Whalley.

So I would like to know if the minister is aware of any comparable provision in British Columbia in the Auditor General Act, or in other jurisdictions where there is a similar type of ability to comment by an organization that is not subject to the audit.

[1645]

Hon. I. Chong: The difficulty, of course, is there is not a similar model of a municipal auditor general, an auditor general for local government across Canada, with respect to how we have modelled ours.

So the municipal auditor generals in other jurisdictions…. Many of them relate directly to those municipal entities. They directly have them coming under those bodies, so they don't necessarily have an audit council. I can't give the member a similarity because there aren't any similarities across the country.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think what it does is it highlights the problem that we have with having this kind of hybrid model, which is new. It goes right back to the governance that is set out in the Auditor General for Local Government Act, of course just remembering that the UBCM thought that the governing body should be composed of representatives from the local government system, supplemented, if needed, by performance audit expertise. That is not the model that this government has chosen.

Then we end up with a problem where we have an audit council that the minister says is supposed to be commenting on the performance of the auditor as opposed to making substantive comments on the recommendations or conclusions that the auditor may have in a performance audit report, where clearly the wording of the section does not limit the scope to performance but instead could include comments on the recommendations and conclusions. I think it's very unfortunate, and it points
[ Page 10439 ]
to a lack of independence.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell me: if there's nothing comparable anywhere else, why is it that the minister simply did not include that kind of provision? It's not necessary, given the comments that the minister has made that this is going to be a highly professional individual that understands the scope and mandate of what that person is supposed to do.

Given that the usual reporting mechanism and the way that reports are built — my understanding of auditor's reports, being on the Public Accounts Committee — is that…. What happens is the Auditor General creates a report, and that report does, in fact, go to those that are being reported on — in this case, the local governments or regional governments — and then there is some back and forth. But that's it. I'm wondering why there was any necessity to have the relationship be any different than it is with any other auditor.

Hon. I. Chong: When the member uses the comparison of the provincial Auditor General, I think the provincial Auditor General has much more latitude with respect to the kinds of audits that he is able to perform and conduct. We said very clearly that the auditor general for local government is required to perform value-for-money performance audits, as was canvassed in the past, and that the auditor general will not call into question policy decisions, taxation issues — those matters.

So the objective here, of course, is to allow the audit council, in reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general, to be able to provide or make comments — as I provided earlier to the member for Surrey-Whalley — if they do feel that, in fact, the auditor general has gone beyond the scope of his or her responsibilities, has in fact commented on or questioned the policy decisions or taxation issues, has in fact gone beyond the performance audit and started doing investigative financial audits.

Therefore, it would be appropriate for the audit council to suggest and make comments to the auditor general that perhaps he or she needs to consider the nature of the audit report.

Again, the auditor general may decide to ignore that information, and that is the purview of the auditor general. Once the report is made public, those comments by the audit council, as we will see in section 24, will be made available so everyone can see the concerns that an audit council may have raised with respect to the report.

[1650]

K. Corrigan: Surely the minister is not suggesting that the audit council is not capable of proposing an auditor general who would be capable, him or herself, of understanding what their mandate is. I have never heard of such a thing in the world of an auditor general — that there has to be oversight, that there is oversight by any body saying: "Look, we need to review your work because you don't understand what your mandate is."

Of all people, I believe that it is certainly auditors that are very careful about what their mandates are, what their structures are and what the rules are. Surely the minister is not suggesting that the auditor that is selected by this audit council would not be capable of understanding what the limits of their mandate are.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, that is certainly what the desire would be, that the auditor general would, in fact, know — that he or she would know entirely — what their limitations are, that they are not to question, as I say, or call into question policy decisions, taxation issues, financial issues of that nature. However, should that take place, this would provide an opportunity for the audit council to make comments.

The audit council does not have to make comments if, in fact, there are no comments to be made. But if, in fact, there is a concern that the audit council has…. The audit council is required through its mandate to review and monitor the performance of the auditor general and to be able to make those comments and, therefore, make those comments public when the performance audit report is also made public. So this is an additional provision, but if it's not necessary to be used, then it won't be used.

K. Corrigan: If the intention, as the minister repeatedly says, of this section was to ensure that the auditor general did not operate outside of the scope of his or her mandate, would the minister consider an amendment that would make that clear? In other words, the audit council may provide comments to the auditor general on whether or not the proposed final performance audit is within the scope of his or her mandate, or something along that line — if that's the intention.

Hon. I. Chong: The examples I gave were to help the member understand and clarify as to why there may be comments made by the audit council. That may not be the only circumstance in which the audit council may feel compelled to make comments. So to make changes to that, to specifically state that, would eliminate other possibilities, and we'd have to start considering all of the ranges that may exist and, therefore, have to include all of that.

The objective here is to allow an audit council the ability to make comments if they felt that they needed to make those comments with respect to the audit report, the performance audit report, in ensuring that they have conducted themselves — that's the audit council — properly in reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general.

K. Corrigan: The minister is essentially acknowledging that although the minister has repeatedly pointed
[ Page 10440 ]
to the example of the audit council being able to comment…. The purpose of this section is so that the audit council is able to comment on, for example — I think the only example that's been used — whether or not the auditor is acting outside of his or her mandate under the act.

So that's what has been repeatedly said, but I understand from the minister's comments now that that, in fact, is not a restriction that is in the act. I would assume the other things that the audit council could comment on, then, would be comments about the conclusions and recommendations and the substantive portions of the report.

[1655]

If there's anything else that the minister could be referring to, could you please let us know what other things, other than the report itself and the contents of the report, could be commented on by the audit council?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I think it's important to just read subsection (4) into Hansard for the record, because I think the member is adding more to it than there needs to be. "The audit council may provide comments" — not must, but may — "to the auditor general on the proposed final performance audit report submitted under subsection (3)."

So if the audit council felt it was necessary to provide comments, they may provide comments — not must, may. What we have here is the opportunity for the audit council, if they made a determination that they needed to…. And I gave those examples. I don't have an exhaustive list because I don't know what it is that may occur that an audit council may feel compelled to provide comments to the auditor general when the auditor general is proposing a final performance audit report to be published.

Obviously, as we get to section 24, we will see how those comments are going to be made public. So the audit council, I would expect, will watch very carefully what comments they make because those comments will then be made public.

With respect to the statements made by the member in terms of the conclusion and substantive nature of the audit report, again, I would say that those are not the purview of the audit council. The conclusions and the recommendations and the substantive report, which the final performance audit report is, is under the discretion and the direction of the auditor general for local government.

K. Corrigan: I hope this will be the final question on this subsection, Madam Chair. Okay, so it seems to me, though, that the minister is saying that the audit council can, if it so desires, provide comments on the substantive recommendations and conclusions of the report. They are not compelled to. But would the minister agree that there is nothing in section 23(4) that precludes the audit council from making those kind of comments?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would respectfully suggest to the member that the objective here for the audit council is to allow those members to provide comments — not require or compel them — if they felt it was necessary to provide comments to the auditor general on the proposed final performance audit report that is being submitted, to be able to do so. Then once the final performance audit report is made public, those comments will also be available, made public.

The objective is not for the audit council to direct recommendations of the performance audit report. The objective of the audit council is not to change recommendations of the auditor general's report. As I say, the auditor general in his or her role, as being an independent auditor, is provided the sole discretion to publish his or her report.

Throughout this, though, you will see — and as we have provided for — that in so doing, you do not want the auditor general to provide a report that may have inaccuracies or issues that a local government may wish to submit comments on.

That is the purpose of this section 23: to allow for the opportunity, before a final performance audit report is published, for the local government to make corrections or to bring inaccuracies to light, and also then for the audit council, if it felt it necessary, to highlight those concerns that they may have, should there be concerns, with respect to the final performance audit report.

K. Corrigan: Well, it sounds to me from the answer that the minister has given that there was a negative comment to my question about whether there was anything that precludes the audit council from providing commentary on the recommendations and conclusions. That's my assumption, and I'll look at the transcript later.

[1700]

I haven't heard anything that says that the audit council is precluded from making those kinds of comments.

Now, the minister has just said, though, that the point of this is not to create changes in the report of the auditor. If that is the case, then why, if the audit council decided to make comment on the recommendations, the substantive portions and the conclusions of the performance report…? If the minister is saying that that's not the purpose, then why is this included as part of the section?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll try one more time. The member continues to refer to the audit council making comments with respect to the substantive nature and the conclusions or recommendations that the auditor general may wish to make in his final performance audit report. That is not what the audit council is there to do.

Audit council may provide comments with respect to the report, not necessarily to the conclusions in that report or the recommendations in that report. If that's what the member is concerned about, let me make it clear that
[ Page 10441 ]
that's not what the audit council is there to do.

The audit council, as I say, has a function to ensure that they do review and monitor the performance of the auditor general. If, in terms of receiving or having a look at the proposed final performance audit report, the audit council feels that they need to make comment — and I gave those as examples, but they're not necessarily exhaustive — that the auditor general has gone beyond the scope of their authority, then the audit council has the ability to make those comments.

Of course, when the report is made public, then those comments that the audit council has made with respect to this report will also be available, as we will see in subsection 24(3). I'm hoping that the member understands that these are not comments that are going to change and direct the conclusion of the report, but the auditor general will know that those comments made by the audit council will in fact be available for public view.

K. Corrigan: This will be the final question on this subsection. My question to the minister is: what specific words in subsection 23(4) does the minister believe limit the audit council in any way from making any kinds of comments that it wants to make on the proposed final performance audit report that is submitted, including recommendations, conclusions, substantive pieces of that report?

Hon. I. Chong: I think perhaps the best way to clarify this for the member is that, while I know sometimes it seems important to focus in on one section or subsection of the act, I do believe it's important to consider the legislation as a whole.

When we went through section 19, where we dealt with the role of the audit council, we made clear the functions that the audit council has. Therefore, with regard to section 19…. I think you need to read subsection 24(3) in that context. This is to allow the audit council, through subsection 19(1)(j), their ability to provide comments, because they are doing so in the reviewing and monitoring of the performance of the auditor general. That is what I think is important to keep in context.

K. Corrigan: I'm sorry. The minister has raised another issue, referring back to section 19.

I know we're not dealing with section 19, but since the minister has referred back to section 19 in relation to section 23, I would point out that in subsection (1)(j), the audit council, yes, is responsible for "reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general, including, without limitation, the performance of the auditor general in respect of the annual service plan."

[1705]

In addition, subsection (f), "commenting to the auditor general on the annual report and other reports prepared by the auditor general," and subsection (e): "commenting to the auditor general on a performance audit report."

There is no restriction in those subsections on the scope of the comments that can be made by the audit council.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, with respect to section 19…. As I say, I hesitate to go back there, but section 19 gathers in the role of the audit council that will be throughout the legislation in one place, the kinds of areas of responsibility that the audit council has. So that's why, in reference to subsection 23(4), you will know that that is placed in that section because that is provided through the role of the audit council in section 19(e).

Again, the audit council is permitted to make comments, provide comments. But as I've indicated earlier in our comments with regard to the establishment and appointment of the audit council, the purpose is to ensure that the audit council is able to meet with the auditor general, provide important input and feedback but not dictate as to the final performance audit report.

I've made that very clear. The member disagrees. That's fine. I've made it clear on a number of occasions through the legislation at this point.

Section 23 approved on division.

On section 24.

H. Lali: Before the performance audit report is published, there are restrictions, according to this section, on disclosure of performance audit information.

For instance, the first subsection puts the restrictions on local government that they "must not disclose the following records or information contained in them: (a) a proposed final performance audit report provided by the auditor general to the local government for comment under section 23 (1); (b) comments prepared by the local government for the purposes of section 23 (2) and other records created by the local government to prepare the comments."

Then, of course, the next section puts the restriction on the audit council and the staff of the audit council in terms of disclosure until such time that the final report of the performance audit has been published.

Could the minister explain what the penalties or sanctions are if any one of these parties actually makes a breach of this particular section?

[1710]

Hon. I. Chong: The goal here in section 24 is about ensuring that the integrity of the audit process is intact. It is not about prosecuting; it is not about penalties. So there are no provisions for that, bearing in mind that at the end of this process, the audit process, the auditor general will be able to publish a final performance audit report with
[ Page 10442 ]
recommendations or his or her findings for the benefit of the local government to consider or not.

Again, this is about having the auditor general being able to keep the audit process secure and the integrity of the process secure to ensure that they can get to the final outcome, which is the production of a final performance audit report.

H. Lali: I thank the minister for that. Now, I understand that this section 24 is about actually keeping the integrity of the process and of the report intact until such time it is actually published. I understand that.

But my question is specific and, if not under this section, then…. Could the minister tell me what would be the recourse, or the punishment, or penalty, or whatever you want to call it, if perchance one of these two parties were to make the proposed report, or any portion thereof, or any comments public prior to what this section states? This law, this bill, will state that they can't do so until the report is published.

Hon. I. Chong: If I understand the member's comments, if he's suggesting that we need to have a penalty provision here, that certainly would cause concern for local governments. If the local government made public information that did compromise the audit process, then the local government would find itself having to defend itself for making that information available prior to the audit report being concluded and therefore, as I say, jeopardize the integrity of the audit process.

We are not looking at this section to provide penalties. It is just to ensure that people understand that there is an audit process and that when there is an audit underway, there not be information that is made public that would impair or challenge the integrity of that audit. That is really what section 24 is designed to do.

It sounds like, though, if the member is suggesting that there had to be a penalty, local governments could themselves be penalized. I don't know if they want to penalize themselves for compromising the audit. I don't think that's what his intentions are, so I just want to make that clear.

H. Lali: I don't want the minister to mistakenly get the picture that I'm actually advocating for penalties or punishments on that. That's not the purpose that I'm asking this. I'm just asking if there was some sort of a breach of this act, if there was going to be anything.

Well, the other party under this section that the restriction is on is the audit council.

Interjection.

H. Lali: I don't think so. I have a ways to go yet.

The other party is the audit council in here. What if there is somebody on the audit council as an appointee who's got an axe to grind with a particular municipality or a regional district, and they make the mistake of making something public before it's published?

[1715]

What are the minister's feelings on that? What would be the recourse? What would happen? You know, what does this act say about somebody who actually breaks the law and does this?

Hon. I. Chong: The audit council, as we've canvassed earlier today…. We did speak to their rules that they develop with respect to their guidelines and the conduct of their meetings. Because of that, they also will have developed ethical guidelines, and they would be guided by that. So this is about ensuring, as I say, that the integrity of the audit process is kept intact.

If the audit council did, in fact, cause harm to the outcome, it would be pretty obvious — the public would see that very clearly — and may give cause to the minister to consider whether that audit council would be reappointed in the future. There are important ethical standards and guidelines that need to be adhered to, especially for the audit process to be considered complete and accurate.

H. Lali: I thank the hon. minister for that answer. Obviously, it's specific in the section in terms of the restriction on local government. It's also specific in terms of the restrictions on the audit council as well, for not disclosing any information. Is there any such restriction on the auditor general himself or herself, in terms of release of any information until the report is made public?

Hon. I. Chong: The restrictions on the auditor general were canvassed in section 16.

H. Lali: Okay, well, it seems like it's been weeks since we started this. It just seems that way.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Two days — I know.

But anyway, I guess I'll have to go back to section 16 to be able to do so. I'm wondering if the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake has any questions on this one.

K. Corrigan: The minister has said that there are no penalties attached to this act. I'm wondering if there are any potential penalties related to the conduct of a local government under this act, for example, by contravening subsection 24(1)(a) or (b).

For example, if the local government were to release comments prepared by it or release other information which it's precluded from releasing prior to the release of the final performance audit, are there any penalties that would be applicable or any provisions under the
[ Page 10443 ]
Community Charter that could affect either the council or the individual councillors that release that information?

Hon. I. Chong: There is nothing in section 24 that would cause a penalty to occur under provisions of the Community Charter, if that's what the member is asking.

K. Corrigan: Not quite. The minister said that the intention of this act is not to penalize.

[1720]

But my question is: if an individual contravenes section 24, are there other penalties that would apply to that individual?

Hon. I. Chong: No.

K. Corrigan: Section 24 also provides that information that is gained through the conduct of the performance audit — either comments made by the local government or comments and information provided by the audit council — or the draft report itself cannot be released. My understanding is that after the report is finalized and published, it's okay, for example, for local governments to publish its comments and perhaps commentary.

Can I just ensure that that is the case — that after this process is over, local government can basically say anything that it wants to about the performance audit and release any information that it has related to the performance audit?

Hon. I. Chong: That's correct, and that is so stated in subsection (3).

K. Corrigan: Would that include documents that have been received by the local government during the preparation of the performance audit — any documents that the local government may have received?

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I'm not specifically sure where she's going with information she says that local government will provide. This section, as I say, section 24, is to ensure that the integrity of the audit process remains intact. It is to ensure, while things are in draft form and information is received, that those are not released or disclosed until such time as the final report is made available and made public.

In the context of subsections 24(1) and (2), it is important that that information is what we're talking about in terms of the disclosure of performance audit information. Local governments will always be required, as a matter of course, to keep secure any other information that is relevant to them, whether or not it's a part of a performance audit, and that will also be subject to FOI for that local government.

This is about the performance audit. This is about the performance audit information received — especially, received when still in the draft form. Not until it's completed can information, therefore, be made public.

K. Corrigan: The comments and input provided by the audit council — will those comments be made available to the local government either during the performance audit process or afterwards?

Hon. I. Chong: I think the member will see in subsection 24(2)(c) — "comments prepared by the audit council for the purposes of section 23 (4) and other records created by the audit council to prepare the comments" — that they are available for release if in fact the local government requests them.

[1725]

These are comments which are, as I say, made generally, as we've canvassed earlier. As a result, if the local government wishes to see those comments, they may request those. It's not that they have to be published, but if they are requested, then they can be made available.

K. Corrigan: That's good news. I just want to be clear that the local government can request the copies of the comments made by the audit council, the input provided by the audit council to the auditor general. Then that would become part of the records that the local government has, and after the performance audit is completed, the local government would be within its rights to publish those comments.

Hon. I. Chong: I think there might have been some confusion. Comments made by the audit council while the performance audit is still underway and under draft are not available. However, once the final performance audit report is published and comments prepared by the audit council are made, those are what the local government may request if they so desire. They are not comments that are made to the auditor general while the draft performance audit report is still underway. I want to be clear on that.

K. Corrigan: Just to be perfectly clear, then, the minister is saying that the comments made under subsection 23(4) — i.e., "The audit council may provide comments to the auditor general on the proposed final performance audit report submitted under subsection (3)…." Is the minister saying that those comments will not be made available to the local government either during or after the performance audit?

Hon. I. Chong: Just to be clear, the comments made by the audit council to the auditor general, as we discussed in subsection 23(4), while the audit is still underway and the final performance audit report is not yet made pub-
[ Page 10444 ]
lic…. Those are not available. Once the performance audit report is published by the auditor general, then those comments may be made available, and the local government may request them.

It is also in relation to that local government. Local governments are not to be requesting, necessarily, other comments that the audit council makes with regard to other local governments, unless those eventually are made available, as well, for that particular audit.

I would reiterate that there will not necessarily always be comments made by the audit council, as I indicated. Section 23(4) said that the audit council may provide comments. If there are no comments — if the local government requests them and there are none — that could very well be the case.

K. Corrigan: Sorry to be so specific, but the minister just used the word "may." I want to be really clear. Those comments made by the audit council to the auditor general, I understand, are not available, and I certainly appreciate that they wouldn't be available, necessarily, during the audit.

[1730]

Since the minister said "may," does the local government, which had a performance audit performed with relation to a matter, have a right to see those comments made by the audit council once the audit is completed and finalized?

Hon. I. Chong: I think I did answer that a local government may request them.

K. Corrigan: Well, the local government may request them. Is the audit council required to provide them, or is somebody required to provide them? They can request them, but do they have to be provided?

Hon. I. Chong: If they're requested, they would be made available. I just wanted to be clear. I didn't want the member to think that the comments by the audit council will necessarily be published with the audit report. If the local government decided that they wanted to see those comments, yes, they may request them. Then they could be provided.

K. Corrigan: So to complete the loop, the local government decides they want to see — and I think they probably would…. A lot of these audits, I believe, are not going to be audits that the local governments are happy about, and they're going to want to have as much transparency as they can. So if the local government makes the request for the council's comments, it seems from what the minister said that those will be made available to the local council.

According to this section, once the audit is complete, it would not be out of the authority of the local government to then publish the comments that the audit council had made. That would be up to the local government at that point. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: I just wanted to make sure that…. If the local government does request those comments and they choose to do what they want with them, then they are able to do that.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

H. Lali: Section 25 deals with annual reports, and subsection (3) reads:

"Before publishing the annual report, the auditor general must submit the proposed final annual report to the audit council and the audit council may provide (a) comments to the auditor general on the proposed report, and (b) a statement about the exercise of powers and the performance of duties under this Act by the auditor general, including the performance of the auditor general in respect of the annual service plan."

When I read this in the act, in section 25, my first comments are: "Whoa, what's going on here?" What is with all the checks and balances and looking over the shoulder of the AGLG with this minister's appointed audit council? This is what I see, and it really raises the hairs on the back of my neck when I read the amount of power that this minister and the Liberal government are giving to, well, a board of appointees appointed by the minister and cabinet.

First you have, obviously, the municipal and regional district. There are lots of processes already in place: inspector of municipalities, the Community Charter, the Local Government Act, the existing provincial Auditor General. There's so much there — the minister and the minister's office. Then, of course, they decide to hire an AGLG to look after that. Even municipally they have their own audits that they perform every year, required, and their meetings are open at the municipal local level.

[1735]

But that wasn't good enough. You're going to hire an AGLG, and then, in order to look over the shoulder of the AGLG, is going to be the audit council, in terms of all these annual reports that are there. Then, of course, you have the minister, too, who the audit council and the AGLG report to.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

It seems to me there is just too much of a leash put on the auditor general by the business interests, which dominate the audit council — especially if he or she gets out of line. I mean, with all of these processes, why even bother to have an AGLG, when the audit council has been given so much power?
[ Page 10445 ]

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to make it clear what section 25 is accomplishing here. The audit council's role, as I've indicated in the past, involves reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general for local government. The annual report, therefore, is the most appropriate place for the audit council to exercise that function, as the report is about the activities of the auditor general for local government over the past year.

The public and local governments have a legitimate right to know how well the auditor general for local government is doing. So the annual report will be published, and the audit council has an ability within that annual report to make the appropriate comments with respect to the exercise of their functions in reviewing and monitoring the performance of the auditor general for local government.

H. Lali: Obviously, we have annual estimates, so the annual reports and the estimates of the AGLG would form a part of the minister's estimates. Would the AGLG, then, be accompanying the minister, such as other top public servants are? When we have those estimates, are we able to question the AGLG on the annual reports which will form a part of the minister's estimates?

Hon. I. Chong: The auditor general for local government will not be part of the budget estimates process, and with respect to that, it's a separate vote. Therefore, I would be answering questions with respect to that vote.

H. Lali: Just to clarify, the minister said that the AGLG will be a separate vote, and the minister is responsible for that side of estimates as well? I think it was a yes. So thank you.

If on an annual basis we're going to be able to, in this House, question the estimates of the AGLG through the minister…. And then you have the audit council with so much power given to them to be able to look over the shoulders of the AGLG on a continuing basis.

Again, the question that keeps coming to my mind is: what is this Legislature here for if we are going to be doing that sort of stuff — having an audit council of political appointees in place, not for any other reason than to basically look over the AGLG to keep him in line? Is that the main purpose of the audit council? I'd like the minister to clarify.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not sure what the question has in relation to the annual report. Again, I think the member still is expressing his disagreement with respect to the role of the auditor general for local government and with respect to the audit council. But that has no relevance to section 25.

H. Lali: Subsection (4) says: "If the audit council provides a statement in accordance with subsection (3) (b)" — which we just talked about — "the auditor general must include the statement in the annual report."

What if the statement by the audit council is very critical or in contradiction of what the auditor general is going to put forward? Would that report be included in its entirety?

[1740]

Hon. I. Chong: It's not a report. It's a statement.

H. Lali: Okay. So in other words, that statement would be included in its entirety, even if it's contrary to what the auditor general is saying?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, that's correct. It could be a contrary statement, it could be a positive statement, but it's a statement nonetheless, and the public has the ability to see that.

Section 25 approved on division.

On section 26.

H. Lali: This section is regarding other reports which the auditor general may publish. Again:

"(2) Before publishing a report referred to in subsection (1)" — of this section — "the auditor general must submit the proposed final report to the audit council and the audit council may provide comments to the auditor general on the report.

"(3) After finalizing a report under this section, the auditor general must (a) as soon as is practicable, provide the report to the audit council, and (b) after having provided the report in accordance with paragraph (a), publish the report"

Again, with all of this reporting to the audit council and looking over the shoulder, is this not a form, really, of censorship of the activities of the auditor general who, as the minister has said on many occasions here, will be somebody who will be very well qualified in their field, will be of the highest order? Then to have a group of political appointees looking over the shoulder of the AGLG looks and really smacks of some sort of censorship.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, this is the ability for the audit council to make comments. They are not comments that the auditor general is required to necessarily take under consideration or to include. I refer back to section 19, where we have the role of the audit council. Under 19(1)(f), I think, it is allowing "commenting to the auditor general on the annual report and other reports prepared by the auditor general."

So as I indicated in other comments, we will see, through other sections of the legislation, how section 19, which is the overall section that brings into focus the role of the audit council…. Then they will be placed in other parts of the legislation.

I just want to share with the member that this section is really allowing the auditor general to draw conclusions
[ Page 10446 ]
on recommendations and best practices from the conducting of one or more performance audits and publish those recommended best practices in a stand-alone report for use by local governments.

If the auditor general in his or her role has conducted a number of performance audits of a similar nature and has found some really great best practices or standards that are being used, it would certainly be helpful to local government. Therefore, he or she should be allowed to prepare a report and make that available to local government.

So that is the ability for the auditor general — providing him or her with the flexibility to do that — and for the audit council, if they wish to make comments to the auditor general, to also do that, but not a requirement that the auditor general take those comments under consideration.

Section 26 approved on division.

On section 27.

H. Lali: We're on section 27, yes. These are some of the general provisions, the power to make regulations, and they authorize the Lieutenant-Governor to make regulations on a number of items.

Specifically, I want to talk about subsection (k): "specifying a minimum period of time before the auditor general may publish a performance audit report after providing it to a local government and to the audit council under section 23 (5)." Could the minister tell me: what is that minimum period of time?

[1745]

Hon. I. Chong: There is not a minimum period of time that's specified. This subsection 27(1)(k) is there to allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make a regulation with respect to time period if it is felt that a time period is needed.

If it is taking a particularly great length of time for which a performance audit report is provided and it's not in a timely fashion, then that's when it may be necessary to make a recommendation to put those time periods in specifics. So there isn't a specified time period at this moment because we're not anticipating this should be a problem, but should it be a problem, then we will have the ability, as a result of this regulation, to go in and establish a time period.

The objective is to have performance audits that are conducted and have those audit reports be published in a timely fashion for the benefit and use of the local government. This is what will allow us to make sure that occurs, if there proves to be a problem.

H. Lali: Subsection 27(1)(l) is regarding specifying "a minimum period of time before the auditor general may publish the annual report after providing it to the audit council and the minister under section 25 (5)." Again, would the period of time envisaged be the same under both sections (k) and (l)?

Hon. I. Chong: The short answer is no. These are all various different time periods that are here in the reg-making abilities, if in fact it is felt that we need to establish some time periods. Each one of these would be for different time periods, based on the requirement as to what is necessary.

Again, they are not specified…. They are not minimum periods of time that we're were contemplating, until such time as we run into a problem where we need to have some time periods to ensure that the objectives of providing performance audits can be met. That's what the purpose of these various subsections is.

H. Lali: Sections (m) and (n). Under (m), it requires that "the annual report be published (i) within a specified period of time after the end of each fiscal year, or (ii) by a specified date." And under (n): "specifying a minimum period of time before the auditor general may publish a report referred to in section 26 (1) after providing it to the audit council under section 26 (3)."

Again, I would hope that these reports, over the periods of time specified, would be appropriate and timely so that local governments — the municipalities or regional districts — that would be the subject of these reports could get on with carrying on their day-to-day activities and, if there's a cloud hanging over them, be able to clear the problems, if that's the case, and get on with life and get on with performing the duties that their electors have elected them to do.

Would the minister not agree?

Hon. I. Chong: The reason why you do want to have time limits is precisely for…. As the member indicated, you want to be able to have timely reports for them to be useful, and this regulation-making ability is to allow us to consider those, if in fact we are not getting the timely reports.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

H. Lali: I see a couple of members of the Liberal caucus are quite anxious to pass this bill, but we have some questions still to go.

[1750]

Interjection.

H. Lali: "Take another month," the hon. member for Chilliwack says.

Section 28 is regarding the Offence Act. It provides
[ Page 10447 ]
that section 5 of the Offence Act, "General offence," does not apply to the act or the regulations. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of that here. I'm wondering if the minister could explain this particular section of the act.

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of section 28 is to not have, as I say, section 5 of the Offence Act apply to this legislation. The reason for that is that this is not a piece of legislation that is looking to apply penalties.

If, for example, it is an offence not to prepare an annual report, the objective is not to apply the Offence Act to have a prosecution or a penalty apply. The objective is to not have the Offence Act apply in this particular case or in this legislation because that is not the objective of what this legislation is about. It's to allow the reports and all the other functions to take place, not to look for penalties.

H. Lali: I want to thank the minister for that explanation. Earlier on I talked about if, before a performance audit report is published, either a local government or the audit council made any information related to that subject public, and I asked if there were going to be any penalties or any kind of recourse.

Obviously, I understand we're not looking at major offences here that require somebody to be taken away in handcuffs. But there are certain obligations that are put on the audit council and, as well, on local governments that information not just leak out or be put out until the time is right and the publication takes place.

Still, what is the slap on the wrist or the penalty under any of these sections that could be put on bodies if they don't follow the law, especially if it repeats itself under different circumstances?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, just for clarification, this legislation is not about prosecuting. This is legislation that's brought in that will enable and allow an auditor general to select at random those local governments that he or she wishes to consider for a performance audit — to select that particular service, to do that audit, to be able to then prepare a report with recommendations and, therefore, to provide that information to the local government. We're not looking to have this legislation complete with penalties, for prosecutorial activities to take place.

[1755]

It really is, as I say, about enabling the activities to allow the performance audits to be conducted and to allow local governments to have the benefit of that. There did not appear to be a need to include offences in here, because that is not the objective of this legislation.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

H. Lali: I think we have a member on the opposite benches who hits the reset button every time there's a section coming up.

Section 29 deals with the review of the act. It provides: "After this Act has been in force for 5 years, the minister must begin a review…of (a) the effectiveness of this Act, and (b) the functioning of the office of the auditor general." I believe this is a good thing that is in here. For anything you bring in, something new, you bring it in for a number of years or months or whatever it is, and you want to be able to have an effective review of this.

Could the minister perhaps provide some details as to what that review would look like, what would be encompassed in terms of the scale of the review and what kind of terms of reference they might have? I'm not asking for anything written in stone but a general idea. And who would do the review as well? Who would be assigned to do the review of the act?

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for his comments that he is in agreement that this is actually a good section that is included in the act.

We would agree that it is important from time to time to make sure that legislation does not sit on the books and that a position created for a particular purpose is in fact accomplishing those objectives. So after five years we will look at the effectiveness of the act and the functioning of the office of the auditor general.

I can't give the member any specific details because we are still in the very early stages of developing that, but I would imagine that over the course of the next number of years we will hear back.

We will hear back from local governments. We will hear back from taxpayers. We will hear back from people as to whether they think that the act in fact has been effective. We will perhaps hear back, as well, whether they feel the function of the office of the auditor general is useful and is providing the benefits that it was designed to provide.

Based on some of that feedback and input, I think, it will give us a basis from which to start the review. I expect that kind of feedback to not be five years hence. Each year leading up to those five years, I'm sure, people will provide us with feedback, not unlike local governments that are audited and have had a great experience or local governments that maybe have not had a great experience. UBCM will likely provide their feedback on this as well.

We'll take all that into consideration so that, when we are ready, we have a basis of information which we can consider when we review the act.

H. Lali: Would the minister agree that any review after five years that does take place ought to be independent?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I can't speculate, but it will de-
[ Page 10448 ]
pend upon the nature of what we've heard in that number of years and what kind of feedback and input we've received. I think it's important to really wait and see whether we get feedback, whether people have felt that this has been an effective process, an effective piece of legislation, and whether the office of the auditor general is in fact valuable to local governments.

I think we would need to start with that input and that information first, before we decide on how we proceed with the review. I'm not going to suggest that it can't be independent, but I'm not going to suggest that it will be independent, because that I don't know until such time as we develop some baseline from which to start that review.

H. Lali: In order for a review of the act to be truly independent, it ought to include members of both sides of the House, and we have three independents in the House as well.

Would the minister not agree that having this review farmed off to a select standing committee of the Legislature, which is truly bipartisan or multipartisan now, would be the way to go in order to maintain a degree of independence so that you can get outcomes, conclusions or recommendations that would be formed in an independent way, without any kind of influence?

[1800]

Obviously, after the next election, the two sides of the House could change, and it would be an NDP Premier and cabinet in place.

I think the member for Chilliwack is dreaming of being re-elected again. But in any case, things change, as we know. Nothing is constant in this world.

A truly independent review would be in the best interests of the taxpayer, would be in the best interests of the people at the municipal and regional district level — no matter how much the member for Chilliwack might want to laugh at that suggestion of the independence of a review.

The only way to make it truly independent would be to actually have a select standing committee of the Legislature that would look at it. Perhaps the minister would be willing to actually make an amendment to section 29 to put it into effect, to put it in here so it would guarantee to any opposition in five years' time that it's going to be an independent review.

Hon. I. Chong: As I said to the member, I am not excluding that it will be an independent review or that it will not be an independent review. What I've said is that I think it's important to make a determination once we get closer to the five years. At that time we will have received, I think, good feedback on this act and on the effectiveness of the office.

I think, though, with respect to his persistence about using the select standing committee, and I'll grant him that he is persistent, it would be something that for the local government — UBCM, in fact — may be a concern, because they did express that they did not feel that the select standing committee was the appropriate body through which they should have this reporting requirement. So by that same token, I don't expect that they would want a review to be undertaken by a select standing committee.

Again, there is nothing set in stone at this time other than the fact that in five years there will be a review.

K. Corrigan: I'm wondering if the minister included this section in the act because the minister foresees that there could be some concern, particularly from local governments that have had audits or are facing performance audits by the auditor general for local government.

Is the minister foreseeing that there could be a fair level of discomfort, that perhaps there may be some concerns about the audits that are taking place, that there may be controversy about it? Is that part of reason why the minister included this section in the act?

Hon. I. Chong: I just think it's good practice that in five years we do review the act.

K. Corrigan: Is there a similar provision in the Auditor General Act for the provincial Auditor General?

Hon. I. Chong: My recollection, having been on Public Accounts Committee in the past, is that there isn't, and I think one of the problems the provincial Auditor General has had in the past is getting changes and amendments made to his legislation. My recollection, when I was on Public Accounts back in the '90s, was that it did take a number of years before his legislation could be amended and brought up to date, to the 21st century.

That perhaps is lacking in his piece of legislation. I can't determine whether that will change or not. What I do know is that I thought it important that we do have this review process after five years, and I would think that the local governments think it would be a good idea as well.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister putting in place any kind of either accountability mechanisms or information-gathering mechanisms so that there is an ongoing record of concerns that would be documented and recorded and kept so that when the review happens in five years, it's not simply going back and saying: "Okay, we're now going to start thinking about what happened in year 1, year 2, year 3"? Is the minister putting any structure in place in order to prepare for that review?

[1805]

Hon. I. Chong: I don't think a structure needs to
[ Page 10449 ]
be in place. I expect that once this is underway we will be hearing from people. Staff in the ministry, I expect, will collect that information and have it ready at hand, knowing that in five years we'll be reviewing the legislation.

Therefore, as I indicated to the member for Fraser-Nicola, when the review is undertaken in five years I think we will have a baseline with which to take a look. We'll have a look at all the comments that we've received — good, bad, indifferent — and therefore be able to use that in an objective way with respect to the review.

Sections 29 and 30 approved.

On section 31.

Hon. I. Chong: On section 31, I wish to advise the committee that an amendment to delete section 31 is standing in my name on the orders of the day. The reason why section 31 is not required is it was included for the possibility of the legislation proceeding in the fall of 2011 and the auditor general for local government being appointed in the 2011-12 fiscal year. If the legislation passes, the auditor general for local government would now be appointed in 2012-13 fiscal year, thereby eliminating the need for section 31.

The Chair: Hon. Members, if I might advise you, the practice in this House, rather than amending to delete, is simply to vote against that section.

Section 31 negatived.

On section 32.

Hon. I. Chong: I move the amendment to section 32 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 32, by deleting section 32 and substituting the following:

Transition – annual service plan

32 In respect of the annual service plan for the first fiscal year,

(a) the estimate referred to in section 22 (2) (a) is that approved by Treasury Board for the first fiscal year, and

(b) the auditor general need only make reasonable efforts to fulfill the requirements of section 22 (2) (b).]

On the amendment.

Hon. I. Chong: The current section 32 was drafted for the possibility of the legislation proceeding in fall of 2011 and the auditor general for local government being appointed in the 2011-12 fiscal year. Again, if the legislation passes, the auditor general for local government will be appointed in the 2012-13 fiscal year instead. This amendment to section 32 is required to ensure that the adequate transitional measures are in place for the auditor general for local government to appropriately complete the service plan for the 2012-13 fiscal year once he or she is appointed.

Amendment approved.

Section 32 as amended approved.

On section 33.

K. Corrigan: I'm not sure in which of these sections I should ask this question. I think I'll ask it now because it is a question about the first year's budget. I hope that it's appropriate to ask this question now.

The first year's budget — or the annual budget, at least to start with — that has been proposed by the minister is $2.6 million. I'm wondering: if the minister expects that if the office is not in place, if the auditor is not appointed, if the audit council is not appointed, is that budget going to be prorated according to when the work actually gets started? Say it doesn't start until May or June. What is the expectation?

Hon. I. Chong: There would not necessarily be a proration. What it is, is that the spending cannot occur until such time as we are able to have in place an auditor general and an audit council. Then spending can take place.

[1810]

What will take place is that once that occurs and we are allowed to spend, the $2.6 million is the budget that has been afforded. Of course, if the amount is not required for the year, as the member will know, then the ministry will have a return of dollars to treasury. But it's not required to be prorated at this time.

K. Corrigan: Thank you for that answer. But let's say the office of the auditor general for local government does not get up and running until July — which is a possibility, considering we're at the end of March now. We have to appoint the audit council first, and then the audit council has to make a selection of the auditor general. Who gets to decide whether or not that full budget is going to be used? The budget for the first year — my understanding is it's being proposed by the minister. It's in the subsequent year that the auditor general will do an estimate of the cost.

But surely if the fiscal year is not April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013, but instead is only two-thirds or three-quarters of that amount, would the amount that is available not be adjusted down accordingly?

Hon. I. Chong: The amount has already been approved in my votes and my budget, so the dollars are there for us to be able to spend if that's required. Obviously, if the money is not required, then we will not be spending it. Again, it's not required to be prorated. The money has been approved by Finance.
[ Page 10450 ]

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

On section 35.

H. Lali: Section 35. I know that in previous sections, there's a minimum requirement, I think, of three meetings per year for the audit council. But this upcoming being the first year, the audit council will obviously meet to go through resumés and all the applications that have come in for the AGLG, so they will be meeting more than three times. Obviously, that would be included within the budget as well — would it not?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the costs associated with the audit council are within the $2.6 million budget.

H. Lali: One of the things in terms of these meetings and the costs attached to them…. I would expect that not all members of the audit council are going to be from the Lower Mainland or the lower Island. Obviously, the applications would come in from across British Columbia. It's not inconceivable that a couple or three of the members would be from the far reaches of British Columbia.

Obviously, the costs of the travel — and I would imagine they'd be travelling by air and having to come down to the Lower Mainland and stay in a hotel room as well — would be a part of those costs. Obviously, the costs in the first year are perhaps going to be higher for the audit council than they would be in subsequent years.

Hon. I. Chong: That is a possibility.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

On section 37.

H. Lali: Section 37 amends the Community Charter — "a review of a proposed final performance audit report for the purpose of providing comments to the auditor general on the proposed report under section 23 (2) of the Auditor General for Local Government Act." It basically adds the requirement that part of a council meeting must be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered actually relates to a review of the final performance audit report for the purpose of providing comments to the auditor general on the proposed report.

Would it be correct to also say that other areas in what is considered in camera would be land, labour and litigation?

Hon. I. Chong: The member will know that there is a list of matters that, through the Community Charter, are required to go in camera. This would fall under that.

[1815]

Just to be clear, this consequential amendment is needed to ensure that discussions of draft performance audit reports by municipal councils and local government boards are not open to the public — again, to be held in camera. That will enable the application of the exemption to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act given in section 24 of the act. Again, as we discussed, that was to protect the integrity of the audit process.

So the member, I think, is correct in suggesting that this part would be where this would allow the Community Charter to be amended to allow this to go in camera.

Section 37 approved.

On section 38.

H. Lali: Hopefully, this'll be the last question.

Interjections.

H. Lali: The member for Chilliwack is already excited. My friends from Kamloops and Prince George are all excited, and here I thought they were so excited listening to the debate. I finally woke these guys up, hon. Chair — finally woke them up. I thought the only two people that were awake of the three were the minister and her staff, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake and myself.

Anyway, section 38 is a consequential amendment to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection Act, section 3. It provides that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act will apply to "a record that is created by or for, or is in the custody or control of, the auditor general…and that relates to the exercise of his or her functions."

The next section adds the provision that the sections of the act referred to in section (3) apply to the auditor general and his or her associates or employees, as though the office of the auditor general was a public body.

Could the minister please tell the House if this also includes, the FOIPPA also includes, relevance regarding contractors and folks that are hired on fee-for-service?

Hon. I. Chong: What this section is doing is ensuring that the operational records of the auditor general are provided with a similar exemption under FOI that is provided to other similar officers to the Legislature, like a provincial Auditor General — just providing that same protection and exemption from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

H. Lali: I will have no further questions on this act, and we can have that vote. Before I sit down, I want to thank you, hon. Chair, and the Clerks, and I want to thank the minister. For the last two days now we've been debating this bill.

But I especially want to thank the minister's staff, who've had to sit here and listen to us going back and forth. I know the staff do a great job on behalf of the people of British Columbia and that they take a lot of
[ Page 10451 ]
pride in the work that they do. I know they come to work on a daily basis, and they're very professional. So I want to tip my hat and thank the staff for the last two days for having been a part of this debate.

Sections 38 to 42 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I do want to thank the member for Fraser-Nicola, the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake and others who have participated — Surrey-Whalley — in this debate. I appreciate their questions. Again, we have disagreed from time to time. However, it is important that we have the opportunity to debate.

I would agree with the member. I want to thank Nicola Marotz, Rena Bindra and Gary Paget, who have been with me for the last two days and who have done an incredible amount of work with this piece of legislation.

With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

[1820-1825]

Motion approved on the following division:

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 20 — AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACT

Bill 20, Auditor General for Local Government Act, reported complete with amendment.

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

Hon. I. Chong: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — AUDITOR GENERAL FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ACT

Bill 20, Auditor General for Local Government Act, read a third time and passed on division.

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

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Thornthwaite in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $52,314,000 (continued).
[ Page 10452 ]

The Chair: Good afternoon. We are currently looking at the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture.

Hon. D. McRae: In my effort to introduce not only the opposition but the television public to ministry staff members, I would like to introduce a new player in the Ministry of Agriculture estimates. It is Grant Parnell, who is assistant deputy minister, strategic industry partnerships division. Welcome, Grant.

V. Huntington: Before we recessed for lunch and bells and votes, I was asking the minister about the terms of delegation from the ALC to the Oil and Gas Commission. The minister had mentioned that yes, indeed, there was a delegation agreement in place and that in fact an audit had taken place of that agreement in 2009.

Would the minister be able to explain to us what some of the terms of that delegation agreement are and what the audit itself found?

[The bells were rung.]

Hon. D. McRae: Quickly, as I did last time — I have practice now — in regards to the audit back in 2009. Copies of the audit are on the Agricultural Land Commission website, as are the terms of reference.

The Chair: And after saying that, I think we're going to be calling another recess for a vote. We'll be back.

The committee recessed from 2:39 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.

[J. Thornthwaite in the chair.]

V. Huntington: Just a couple more questions, seeing as how apparently everything is on line. I just jumped up on this when I heard that there were only three delegations, so I thought I would pursue a little bit about what I thought was a fourth at least.

Could the minister tell me: during these delegations does the Agricultural Land Commission retain any authority at all, and do they maintain numbers on the decisions made with regard to the ALR that the delegated authorities make?

[1450]

Hon. D. McRae: First of all, I guess maybe the member opposite came in a bit late earlier. We had a situation where we were talking about delegation agreements with Fraser–Fort George, and that's why we were talking about the municipal side of it. So the Oil and Gas was a different issue, I guess, but maybe you were there for part of that — or not.

In regards to local government, exclusions are not part of local government delegations. That's something that will not be part of that agreement. So no exclusions. Local government files all their decisions with the ALC, and the ALC's job is to make sure that decisions are consistent with the delegation agreement. The ALC also has the ability to provide resources, staff and support to local governments who've entered into these delegation agreements.

V. Huntington: In the case of a delegation to a commission such as the Oil and Gas Commission, that delegation will be primarily to enable non-farm-use permits. So if that is the case, is there enabling legislation that goes along with a delegation of that nature? Does the ALC review those permits, or is the delegated authority absolute?

[1455]

Hon. D. McRae: The ALC Act enables a delegation agreement with Oil and Gas or a municipality — or it could be a First Nations group, in theory — to exist. The delegation agreement could enable non-farm use, but then the ALC could have non-farm use be passed through the actual regional panels right now as well. It's just delegating that potential power in this case to a municipality or the Oil and Gas Commission.

V. Huntington: Okay. I'll just pursue one other aspect on the Oil and Gas Commission, and then I'll have a few other questions on the agrifoods stability paper.

The audit — the 2009 audit, the member for Cariboo North informs me — determined that there was a weakness in the area of determining the cumulative impact, if you will, of the decisions regarding non-farm use on the ALR in the Peace. Can the minister tell me now how much land has had a non-farm-use permit issued for pipelines, seismic lines, water storage, water burrow pits, drilling pads, roads, work camps, compression stations and the like? What is the cumulative impact of those non-farm-use permits in the Peace oil and gas fields?

Hon. D. McRae: A complex question, one we didn't bring with us in our back pocket today. However, if you were to contact the Agricultural Land Commission, they would do their best to work with the Oil and Gas Commission to come up with a number.

My understanding is that the Oil and Gas Commission reports annually, but the annual report does not actually say the amount of land taken out. It just talked about the number of projects. For that reason, we don't have easy access to it, but if it's important, by all means, please contact the ALC. They've committed to doing their best to give you the answer in a timely manner.

V. Huntington: I'd like to say, Madam Chair, that that is an extremely nice reply to receive, because it was apparent to us that the cumulative impacts of these decisions are not top of mind with the Oil and Gas Commission. I think it is something that the minister and the Agricultural Land Commission should take under
[ Page 10453 ]
advisement and work very steadily and quickly to get a handle on, especially if they're going to be reviewing the terms of agreement on the delegated powers.

I'd like to switch to other questions regarding ALC from the Oil and Gas Commission right now. In the B.C. jobs plan agrifoods strategy that was published on March 16, it says that the government will take certain actions to protect the agricultural land base. It will "work with the ALC to strategically manage ALR lands, preserve farmland and encourage farming through measures such as targeted boundary reviews."

[1500]

Can the minister foresee a strategic boundary review that could lead to a reduction in the amount of class 1 lands in the ALR in favour of port-related uses?

Hon. D. McRae: To the previous question, you were mentioning about some of the concerns about the Oil and Gas Commission. That's why we are actually having that review of that delegation agreement with the two parties. The world changes fairly rapidly in that sector. It's important to make sure that the ALC and the delegation agreement are meeting the needs of the region.

In regards to boundary review, too, it's always important to note that the Agricultural Land Commission acts fairly independently. With the dollars that they have, both with budget and with extra dollars being resourced to the Agricultural Land Commission, their priority right now is to look for boundary reviews where lands are relatively marginal. Two areas that they've seen as priorities are the southeast corner of British Columbia — the Kootenays — and the northwest area of British Columbia, where the lands are arguably marginal at this stage.

If the Ministry of Agriculture can provide other resources to assist them along the way, whether it's staff support or technological support that we have, we would do so. Right now there is no desire — as far as I'm aware of, anyway — with the Agricultural Land Commission to review class 1 soil.

V. Huntington: Well, perhaps if I read another statement from the strategy, the minister will have an idea of why I asked the previous question. Strategy: in its push to expand international markets, the B.C. government will "capitalize on unique transportation requirements for B.C. agrifoods exports as part of the expanding Canada Pacific Gateway."

Can the minister…?

Interjections.

The Chair: Could we just be a little bit more quiet on the sidelines? Thanks.

Go ahead, Member.

V. Huntington: Would you like me to repeat it, Minister?

Hon. D. McRae: Yes, please.

V. Huntington: Okay. I'm quoting from the strategy again. The B.C. government will "capitalize on unique transportation requirements for B.C. agrifoods exports as part of the expanding Canada Pacific Gateway."

Can you explain what that statement means and whether the ALC, your department or yourself feel that this contemplates new infrastructure and could contribute to the loss of agricultural lands?

[1505]

Hon. D. McRae: Obviously, it's important that we get B.C. agriculture product to market, whether it is domestic or international. There are some unique opportunities we have in British Columbia. One is China Southern Airlines, which is flying out of YVR right now, direct-flying cargo from YVR to mainland China, which is always an opportunity we wish to support. It's important to have a strong transportation sector.

As for specifics to do with gateway 2.0, I think those questions would be better directed towards maybe estimates within the Ministry of Transportation. At this stage, we're not looking to deal with the ALC and see those expansions taking place.

V. Huntington: I'd like to be relieved, but it was in the agrifoods strategy document, so I'm a little worried about what that actually means. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether the ALC has had any discussions with third parties or a party regarding port-related uses for ALR land in Delta.

Hon. D. McRae: According to the staff to my right, there have been no conversations that have taken place recently. If the next question is, "Well, what does 'recent' mean?" it would be a year or two.

However, I do ask members opposite, if possible…. These are questions that we could use budget estimate time to ask, but the ALC is more than willing to have these conversations at your leisure, if you wish to call the ALC. They will spend time with you, using not this forum to have these discussions but maybe perhaps leaving you not worrying about time constraints.

It is a fair question to ask and one that if the member opposite feels is important, it is. It has nothing do with the 2013 budget, but if it is important to the member, I have found the ALC to be very good in talking to individuals, whether they are elected or non-elected in British Columbia. In regards to the organization, I'm sure they'd be more than willing to assist.

V. Huntington: I will be going on to another question, but just in response to the minister: my understanding
[ Page 10454 ]
is that there have been some discussions, Minister. From my perspective, they're troubling.

I think there needs to be some recognition by the minister and his department that the ALC, the ALR, in Delta, a goodly chunk of it, is under severe and significant threat at the moment. And I see no response from the Ministry of Agriculture to warrant my feeling confident that threats to the ALR — that the lands will be protected. I'm very concerned about it. I would rather canvass it in another forum perhaps, but there is a problem out there, and I don't see anybody in government trying to resolve it to the benefit of the agricultural lands.

I'll ask one other question. There are many others waiting here. I'd like to ask the minister whether he has initiated discussions regarding the amalgamation of the Agricultural Land Commission and the farm practices review board and whether such an amalgamation would impact his or their budgets in any way.

[1510]

Hon. D. McRae: A good question. It's an issue that's been raised several times, I think, over the years, about the potential for this sort of amalgamation. When the chair of the ALC came to me and suggested that that was something they wanted to explore, with the blessing of B.C. FIRB, I said: "By all means, put the heads of your two organizations together, come back, and if there are some administrative savings which would allow resources to be better used for the betterment of the mandate of both organizations, by all means."

But decisions haven't been made. It's coming back with a recommendation and a report to the ministry. If there is an opportunity for savings, at the same time making sure that both organizations can continue to be strong in doing their mandate, I'm willing to consider it. But I haven't seen the report yet.

V. Huntington: I will, perhaps, put a couple of questions together here. Are similar discussions going on between ALC and the Agriculture Council? If so, and if such an amalgamation between the Farm Industry Review Board, ALC and/or the Agriculture Council were to occur, will it require enabling legislation? What would the status — in my mind, especially, and the Farm Industry Review Board for the farming community — be under that new legislation?

Who would chair it? Would it be a totally combined, whole new amalgam of an organization with different terms of reference? How does the minister anticipate such a flowing out of any recommendation to amalgamate?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm not aware of any discussions, nor is anybody else with the B.C. Ag Council. I'm assuming that's the group you're talking about, the Ag Council. You know, I think the vision is that perhaps there is some opportunity for some administrative savings — a shared photocopier, that kind of element here. It is not about changing the terms of reference for the organization.

As for potential legislative changes, I haven't even seen the report that would come forward from the ALC or B.C. FIRB at this stage, so I don't anticipate it. But until the report comes forward, I can't really comment on that.

G. Gentner: I want to talk a little bit about Richmond and Mayor Malcolm Brodie, who's very concerned about Port Metro, who wants to rework the ALR land there. He really sees it as a demonization by the port. The CEO of the port has said that the agriculture land reserve farmland should be sacrificed in some way to make room for more port expansion.

I would like to know what exactly is the correspondence, the relationship the commission is having with the port relative to the erosion of ALR land in Richmond — in particular, that of Gilmore Farm.

Hon. D. McRae: There is no active correspondence between the port authority and the ALC, as far as I'm aware.

However, Chair, I do ask that we are talking about budgets 2012-2013 here, not about this particular issue. Again, I'll reiterate, the ALC is more than willing to answer questions from either elected officials or the general public on any issue they wish to bring forward, but I thought we were here to talk about budget estimates.

G. Gentner: I certainly am talking about estimates, and there is some staff time that is obviously being conducted in the area of Richmond and the activity being put forward by Port Metro Vancouver. Is that not correct?

[1515]

Hon. D. McRae: There are no active files between the ALC and Port of Vancouver.

G. Gentner: There is no active file between the Port of Vancouver and the Agricultural Land Commission? I find that most surprising indeed. It's an unbelievable comment, knowing in fact that land is being purchased in places like Delta. And of course, the port — buying land that is in the ALR for port development…. Yet this ministry doesn't seem concerned.

I want to ask the question, therefore, that in this instance, for example…. The port is one example where they are buying up agriculture land…. Does the port have the ability to overrule the Agricultural Land Commission relative to taking land out of the ALR?

Hon. D. McRae: The ALC does not track who actually purchases individual land, be it in Richmond, Delta or the Peace River. However, the ALC does have the expectation that if there is a proponent who wishes to have land removed from the agricultural land reserve, they would
[ Page 10455 ]
follow the processes as laid out by the organization and past practice.

G. Gentner: We know the port, therefore, doesn't have to make exemptions or can basically take land out, and so can cabinet. We saw that, obviously, with the Transportation Financing Authority.

Just for the record, I want to make it clear that on February 10, 2012, at the greater Vancouver regional district regional planning and agricultural committee regular meeting, a delegation by Richard Bullock, chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, and Brian Underhill, executive director, Agricultural Land Commission, talked about the relationship between the port authority and, to quote from the minutes, building "potential areas of collaboration between the Agricultural Land Commission and Metro Vancouver."

Would the ministry like to comment on whether or not these comments were discussed at a GVRD meeting?

Hon. D. McRae: Since this is a conversation between Metro Vancouver and Chair Richard Bullock and I was not privy to those conversations, by all means, I encourage members opposite to actually give the chair of the ALC a call and find out those specifics.

You're right. Cabinet can remove land from the agricultural land reserve. However, it's not something I wish to do, and I'd like to remind members opposite that the last time, I think, a substantial part of the land was taken out by cabinet was the Six Mile Ranch in the Kamloops area, which was for the Tobiano golf resort, which was during the time of the NDP.

G. Gentner: I think the TFN agreement saw 500 acres removed. We also know that the collaboration with various entities found a huge chunk of land taken out of the ALR through the South Fraser perimeter road process.

But I find it most unusual that the…. Of course, it's not unusual at all that the regional government is quite concerned that the GVRD or Metro Vancouver has admitted…. There's a suggestion, nevertheless, that there has been some collaboration between the quality of farmland taken out of the ALR by Port Metro Vancouver.

[1520]

I am basically quoting a discussion that was done then, yet there seems to be reluctance to share that information here today with the opposition and, of course, the open camera, if you will, in front of the people of British Columbia.

I'm also concerned that Mr. Silvester, CEO of the port, has said that it was willing to overrule the ALR, although it would be its last resort, not its first preference. I'm wondering: can the minister confirm that when land was taken out of the ALR in Delta to accommodate the South Fraser perimeter road, in a decision of collaboration, if you will, there was a sort of no-net-loss example whereby in exchange there was a boosted need for irrigation in order to take land out?

Now, that was an example put forward by the finance authority of the transportation and, of course, the gateway people. Is this now the policy of the Agricultural Land Commission, to continue this type of compromise?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, we are dealing with the estimates of 2012-13.

The ALC is an independent organization. This is a decision made not through the Minister of Agriculture but by the panel members and the chair of the ALC.

The Chair: Member, I remind to you stick with the estimates debate.

G. Gentner: Absolutely.

The Chair: The minister has answered your question.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

In the budget, page 51, there is mention of finding $707 million in assets — selling of assets of British Columbia. In that page it references the need to sell transportation corridors. Now, the Agricultural Land Commission had agreed earlier to allow the acquisition of land for the development of the South Fraser perimeter road.

Since it is in the budget that transportation corridors will be sold to find more moneys, how much of the land that was taken out of the ALR to service the needs of the South Fraser perimeter road will be sold back, and how much of that land that's being sold back will remain in the agricultural land reserve?

Let me try this again. The land that was acquired to build a freeway through Delta is now — what's left, known as surplus — going to go back or be sold off. My question is: how much of that land taken out of the agricultural land reserve that's now going to be sold back on the block will be put back in the agricultural land reserve?

Hon. D. McRae: While the South Fraser perimeter road will have impact on farmland that it is built on, the land is actually still within the ALR itself. It has not actually been removed from the ALR. However, any questions that you'd have with regards to the release of assets for economic generation should be directed to the Ministry of Finance estimates.

[1525]

G. Gentner: I got it for the record there for that. All of the land that was acquired for the development of the South Fraser perimeter road is still in the agricultural land reserve, including the pavement. Is that what you're saying?

Hon. D. McRae: Yes, and that is also why there was
[ Page 10456 ]
mitigation worked out, in terms of farm improvement, soil removal, irrigation projects — to mitigate those losses of land.

G. Gentner: A similar question. What was left of the B.C. Rail lands was acquired as well, and there's now ongoing evidence to show that the land is and has been purchased by the government. My question therefore is: is that land that was acquired by B.C. Rail…? Or now, of course, it's within the Ministry of Finance. Is that land — all lands that have been assembled for what's left of B.C. Rail and/or port development — still within the agricultural land reserve within Delta?

Hon. D. McRae: Yes.

G. Gentner: Can the minister confirm for me that there have been in the last year — the budget year of last year and the upcoming part of this year — any applications in Delta to take any further land out of the agricultural land reserve?

Hon. D. McRae: That's not a budgetary question for the estimates of 2012-13. The ALC is an independent organization and does so without involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture.

G. Gentner: My understanding is that any staff time that's dealing with an application is part of the budget. Am I not correct?

Hon. D. McRae: We don't have the applications in front of us. However, like I've said many times in these estimates, if the member opposite or any member of the public wishes to ask a question of the Agricultural Land Commission, I highly recommend they call the ALC offices, and the staff there will do their very best to provide timely answers.

G. Gentner: This is a public discussion, not a private discussion with the ALC. I think the public has a right to know. The minister has, therefore, agreed that there are applications, there have been applications before, and staff time has been used in order to process those applications.

Hon. D. McRae: We brought many things today. We did not bring that level of detailed information. However, if it's desired, the ALC will provide that information to the member opposite.

L. Popham: I actually stopped by the minister's office last week and requested a list of applications in process, sorted by municipality. I'm wondering if the minister brought that information today.

Hon. D. McRae: My understanding is I wasn't there, obviously. So no, I don't have it with me today. The ALC does not actually break down those applications by municipality. They break it down by regional district. I'm sure the ALC will be providing them to the member opposite through my staff, I would assume, very quickly.

L. Popham: This will be my final question before I wrap up the discussions on the Agricultural Land Commission. Have there been any discussions around a delegation agreement for the township of Langley?

Hon. D. McRae: The township of Langley has not made any discussions with the ALC as to entering into a delegation agreement.

[1530]

L. Popham: That was my final question. I'd just like to say in closing with this vote that the $1.6 million not showing up in the estimates for the Agricultural Land Commission, for me, is a disappointment and is a reflection on how the government values the Agricultural Land Commission and the ALR. If there was a commitment, that would have shown up in the budget.

It's almost as if that was given to appease some discussion around the cabinet table in order to move on to the next year without a commitment that the Agricultural Land Commission is important to this province. It's extremely important.

I also feel as though it will be difficult for me to vote on this budget because I don't think it's a real budget. If there's $1.6 million not showing in the commission budget, then, for me, I'm not sure what we're approving here when we're moving forward. It's coming from somewhere else. It may show up somewhere. It's in Vote 45. Why isn't it in the Agricultural Land Commission budget, and why isn't there a commitment for this funding to continue until all of the questions are answered that I have brought up today?

The answers around the plans have been quite vague from the minister. I haven't seen financial commitments that specifically address the questions I've had. So I don't feel a lot of confidence that the cash injection that the minister is claiming was made is really a commitment. I think it's money that's given to the commission to try and get through the next little while, but I don't think it's a commitment to the future.

I give a lot of credit to the commission for the hard work they do. I know having an underfunded commission must have been extremely difficult to work within. I think they've done the best job they can. I think of the enforcement officers who are put on the spot and have been stretched to the limit. I think about the chair having to deal with a commission that was barely making it year after year, and now we have some very big challenges because of that.
[ Page 10457 ]

We have an agricultural land reserve which is being challenged in every way, and it's because of the underfunding. So if there was a real commitment to the commission and to the reserve and to the support of the Agriculture Ministry, then I would see funding increased in the budget.

We can close this part of the questioning and move on to Vote 14. But it's very difficult for me to support the budget that I see. I think that publicly, when the public looks at these books, it's going to be very hard to understand how they could also support that.

Moving on to Vote 14, I'd like to start with some questions related to the message from the minister and the minister's accountability statement contained in the Ministry of Agriculture's 2012-13–2014-15 service plan as they relate to the descriptions contained in the budget estimates. I'll start with some questions around market access, market development and market promotion, and I'll just check to see if the minister has that staff available.

Hon. D. McRae: Chair, I'd like to introduce Grant Thompson, director of agricultural policy and legislation branch, to my right.

L. Popham: So from the message from the minister's accountability statement — I'm reading. Market access. "We continue to work with the federal government and the government of China to expand market access for B.C. producers and are optimistic B.C. beef and cherries will be available to Chinese consumers this fiscal year and that 2012, just like each of the two years before it, will set a record for exports of B.C. food to China."

[1535]

The B.C. agrifoods strategy identifies three goals and nine actions for expanding international markets, which seems very ambitious. My question is: where is the ministry sourcing the funding for these actions — reallocation within the existing budget or from the federal government?

Hon. D. McRae: To access overseas markets, we're going to use existing ministry resources, but we're also looking forward to working with Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. They have committed to having a dedicated agricultural trades specialist sector within their department, so we're looking forward to accessing expertise from other provincial ministries. We're also keen to work with the federal government, either with their market access secretariat or their trade commissioners overseas and, of course, working with the existing Growing Forward agreement.

L. Popham: Where would one find the provincial budget for market access work?

Hon. D. McRae: We're planning on using existing agricultural staff and resources in the Ag policy and science division. We also are looking forward to working with the Jobs, Tourism and Innovation Ministry. However, questions relating to their budget requirements will best be asked of them during JTI's estimates.

[1540]

L. Popham: On which line on the tables on pages 22 and 23 of the Supplement to the Estimates does the budget reside, and approximately what percentage of that budget line is attributable to that activity?

Hon. D. McRae: Approximately four FTEs will be devoted towards this action. It works out to approximately $400,000.

L. Popham: What percentage of B.C. agrifood exports does China represent, and how much do you expect it to grow by?

[1545]

Hon. D. McRae: In 2010 we exported $118 million of exports to China. In 2011 it was approximately $150 million of exports. This year we're hoping for growth of between 5 and 10 percent. But it's outside of our control oftentimes. It's making sure we have willing sellers and willing buyers.

L. Popham: Can the minister tell me how many beef slaughterhouses are in British Columbia that are able to have a federal inspection where the beef would be able to be sold to China?

Hon. D. McRae: Chair, is this a question about estimates in 2012-2013?

L. Popham: Is the minister being serious? Is the question being acknowledged?

Hon. D. McRae: The answer is zero. I'm surprised the member doesn't know that, but that's fine.

L. Popham: Well, I thought perhaps the minister didn't know that, since the strategy around exporting B.C. beef to China was one of the main messages coming out of the agri strategy.

My question is…. Our B.C. beef, without any choice, cannot be processed in British Columbia. It must go through Alberta or other avenues. How do we know that the ranchers who are selling their beef through that option, because there's no other option, are getting the best price for their product?

Hon. D. McRae: Right now it's nice to say that the cattle producers of British Columbia are experiencing record prices for their product. As we sell to China, it is an
[ Page 10458 ]
agreement between the federal government of Canada and the Chinese government for market access.

Yes, the product is processed in Alberta, but at the same time we are having success getting market access between Canada and China, I guess it is.

[1550]

L. Popham: Okay. Given that B.C. cattle go into Alberta feedlots and slaughter facilities, how can we be assured that it is in fact B.C. beef that's making its way to the China market?

Hon. D. McRae: A couple of things. The traceability levels that we have, which we're so proud of in British Columbia and in Canada, are one of the reasons we are actually able to sell our products with confidence, both internally and externally, from this province.

Furthermore, though, the reality is that the Chinese market is not necessarily looking for B.C. beef but looking for Canadian beef. Our producers will get the benefit of this, because we have quality product that is raised in British Columbia and finished, often, in Alberta.

L. Popham: How much money is Alberta making off of our cattle?

[1555]

Hon. D. McRae: Sorry it took so long, but it's not a stat that we track, and we were talking about how we'd get the information. Probably our best source would be through the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.

However, one of the things I'd like to say is we have about 200,000 head of cattle in British Columbia right now. It's fallen from about 400,000 at its prime, and it's fallen for reasons often outside of B.C.'s control — things like disease and drought and also closing of borders through agripolitics. However, I'm sure the member opposite is aware that in the southern United States and northern Mexico the cattle industry is now experiencing difficulties of its own, which also in turn leads to some increased prices for commodity in British Columbia.

We're looking forward to growing the number of head of cattle in British Columbia. We have about 6 percent of Canada's total herd in our province. As we can grow the herd to larger numbers, perhaps there will be opportunities for processing in British Columbia.

L. Popham: Is it my understanding that there is no work being done right now to ensure that we can slaughter our cattle here in British Columbia to send to the Chinese market?

Hon. D. McRae: All provinces are involved in a national meat hygiene standard. We are currently supporting one project in the Dawson Creek area, which is Lawrence Meats. Money for this project came from the Ministry of Health. We're looking at opportunities to raise our meat processing up to federal standards, which would allow for exports.

L. Popham: What's the timeline of that?

[1600]

Hon. D. McRae: The pilot in the Dawson Creek area is currently underway, and it will be reviewed at the end of the year. I also wish to remind members opposite and the viewing public that abattoirs are under the Ministry of Health, though obviously they're important to the agricultural producers in the ranching community in British Columbia.

L. Popham: Given that they are so important to the Ministry of Agriculture and the cattle industry and other livestock, how much work is the minister doing to correct the meat regulation debacle that is happening in British Columbia for the domestic market?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sure the members opposite may know that on January 1, 2014, the federal government will no longer be involved in meat inspection. The CFIA is transitioning away from this. The Ministry of Agriculture is working with the Ministry of Health on the new meat inspection system, and we are currently helping coordinate consultations around the province to make sure that various communities and stakeholders have an opportunity to make their opinions known.

L. Popham: Well, this has been going on for quite some time, so I'd like to know the timeline of that.

Hon. D. McRae: I can't speak to the length of time that the Ministry of Health has been working on this transition. However, I know that the Ministry of Agriculture asked to become involved about two months ago, in maybe mid- to late January. Consultations are currently underway. We're hoping to end them in less than six months, and then the Ministry of Health will make recommendations as to where they will see the meat inspection changes happen.

B. Simpson: Is there a public discussion paper on what the government's intentions are with respect to how they're going to shift away from federal inspectors?

Hon. D. McRae: The Ministry of Health made the report public — again, because it wasn't our report, you'll have to excuse my memory — in, I think it was, mid-January 2012. On the paper, there are two options, but there is also potential for a hybrid version as well. That is why we're having consultations around the province, I believe in eight locations — everywhere from Nanaimo to the Peace River.
[ Page 10459 ]

[1605]

B. Simpson: Is one of those options passing the costs on to facility owners for the inspection if B.C. takes it over? Are the facility owners going to have to bear the costs of inspecting that meat?

Hon. D. McRae: The report mostly deals with the options for how the inspections would be done, not how they would be paid for. That might be a question best forwarded to the Ministry of Health during their estimates.

L. Popham: How many FTEs in the ministry are devoted to marketing and promotion of B.C. beef in the domestic market?

Hon. D. McRae: Right now in the ministry we have four staff dedicated to promotion of B.C. agriculture product and production, in the Ministry of Ag. However, I don't want to lead the member opposite on, thinking that these are directed to one particular product area.

We also have good partnerships with groups like the B.C. Cattlemen's. The Ranching Task Force has been successful in finding opportunities as well, and we're also looking forward to working with groups like the BCAC in some promotion of British Columbia product.

As well, there are literally hundreds of people in the Ministry of Agriculture who…. When we need some of their expertise to assist with an opportunity that we find is important, they can use their expertise, whether it be in Nechako Lakes or the Kootenays, to help promote products. But this, again, is not their primary responsibility.

L. Popham: How much is spent on activities encouraging local consumption of B.C. beef, compared to exporting to China for consumption?

[1610]

Hon. D. McRae: When we look at the agrifoods strategy, which will basically guide our actions going forward, we think there's a good balance between domestic and international markets there. We're definitely not trying to play favourites. We would like to grow the markets in both places.

We know there's value when British Columbians get access to the good-quality, high-value products that we produce in British Columbia. We also know that the world will benefit from it.

The key thing we want to be sure of is that the farmers of British Columbia have an opportunity to sell their product and make sure that they have the best chance at making a living on the land.

L. Popham: I think that answer is kind of vague, so I'm going to ask my question again. What percentage of the budget is going towards the domestic market, and what percentage of the budget is going towards the export-to-China market?

[1615]

Hon. D. McRae: Approximately $500,000 a year is spent on market promotion. It's split roughly 50-50 between domestic and international. However, on the international side we don't break it down today with numbers based on country nor commodities.

For international opportunities we also rely on the expertise and resources of the Jobs, Tourism and Innovation Ministry. They have a larger budget and expertise in this area. Furthermore, we also like to work closely with our partners in agriculture in British Columbia, be they industry organizations or sector groups, to look for opportunities. We help support them with some expertise and resources as times go through.

B. Simpson: I just want to canvass a few questions around the ministry's agricultural plan that they just released and around some of the issues that the member for Delta South and I experienced when we were up in the Peace during the break. It's specifically around the agricultural land involved in the Site C dam proposal.

One of the stated objectives of the agricultural plan is to "ensure a safe, secure food supply." Another one, under "Competitiveness," is to "provide a sustainable land base for production." Does the Minister of Agriculture know how much productive land will be lost if the Site C dam proposal proceeds as planned?

Hon. D. McRae: The Ministry of Agriculture has had staff engaged with Ministry of Energy and Mines in regards to this project to some degree, but it is still very early in the process. I think we are years away from solidifying the actual plan.

I wish the member from the ALC was still here. I don't think he is. I don't think they've had any engagement between the ALC and the potential mine application yet, but I'm not sure of that because, again, they've left the room. Until we actually have a surety as to what the project will look like and its scope, we don't have the ability to give a clear answer.

B. Simpson: I don't mean to be nasty, but the minister's answer is quite bizarre. We're in full consultation. The plan is there. The floodplain is there. The amount of agricultural land and the classifications of the soils are all known.

The member for Delta South and I had a potluck dinner on prime agricultural land, including a large portion of prime market garden land that is all going to be underwater. The answer just simply doesn't make any sense relative to where we are in the stage of planning. If there is any movement whatsoever, it's in the margins of the floodplain area and the flood reserve. It's not in the
[ Page 10460 ]
actual agricultural land that is going to be underwater.

My question isn't an ALC question. The question that we were asked when we were up there was: "Who is the champion of the agriculture potential that is going to be lost as a result of the flooding that is going to occur if that Site C dam proceeds?" The minister's own government has indicated it has every intention of moving that project forward and is the driver of that project.

[1620]

My question to the minister is straight-up. It's a business question. The agricultural plan indicates that it wants to be competitive. It has food security.

We had an irony. We sat with the city of Fort St. John, which has a strategic initiative of food security and is looking at turning some of their flower boxes into things for growing edible plants. We went that evening and sat on a farm that has been there for over a hundred years — it's going to be underwater — that could actually provide food to Fort St. John.

My question to the minister is a question we were asked when we were up there. Who is making the business case to counter the energy business case on what the actual agriculture potential is that will be lost if that valley is flooded? Who's that champion?

Hon. D. McRae: I guess the easy answer is the Minister of Agriculture will be the champion. It's important to make sure that you have a balance. Obviously, as Minister of Agriculture, you know, I want to make sure we have good farming practices in British Columbia. We have had great practices in farming in British Columbia.

Through the ministry staff and myself, if I happen to be Minister of Agriculture, if the project were to be approved — and that's still a long way into the future and making many assumptions — you'd look for as many agricultural benefits that would come out of it as possible.

But again, I think we're very early in the process, and the scope of the project has yet to be fully designed and has yet to be actually approved. At that time the ministry staff will continue to advocate for good agricultural practice, knowing that they have a special region and climatic zone up there, especially in an area like Hudson's Hope.

B. Simpson: Because of time, I won't be able to pursue this further, but again, I think the minister is mischaracterizing or misunderstanding what's happening. B.C. Hydro is now going into the next phase of public consultation. I suggested…. And I know the minister has been up in that area, but you may want a briefing from Hydro, if you haven't had one already, on what the plans are. The project has been scoped out. The siting has been done. The floodplain is known. There's some question about flood reserve, but that's all.

A Voice: And approvals.

B. Simpson: Well, the approval process, Chair, is a very different process. What the agriculturalists along that valley want to know is: who is putting the cumulative potential impact on agriculture? Who is putting the business case into the current public hearing process on behalf of the total agricultural potential that exists in that valley?

[1625]

Individual landowners will have their own little bit to say about it. Part of the difficulty is because of the possibility of Site C. That agricultural land is actually not at full productive capacity, because people have not been willing to invest in what the soil is capable of doing, because they have been uncertain as to whether it's going to end up underwater or not.

But what we were asked very specifically is: who has done the work so that the province, during the consultation process….? When it's making a deliberation of what values need to be retained and what the net effect is going to be, who is putting the agricultural business case, in its sum, into the consultation process?

I've heard the minister say he's the champion. So a straight-up question to the minister: when will a full agricultural assessment be done on that valley? When will that be completed and given to B.C. Hydro as part of the consultation process so that everybody knows what will be lost if that land goes underwater?

[1630]

Hon. D. McRae: It's still very early on in the process, and I know there are people in the Peace who have been concerned. I've been concerned, I think, for decades about this potential project.

You know what? I guess the idea is: when is the best time to really engage? I'll tell you what. We've had talks about it, but I will commit to getting updated briefings both from the ALC and B.C. Hydro on this particular issue, making sure that the agricultural issues are being brought up.

We also have senior staff, including deputy ministers of the various resource ministries, working on a continual basis, making sure that they have full understanding of where projects are. But it's a fair question, by all means.

I think that the residents I've met with — council from Hudson Hope and from Fort St. John and Dawson Creek and, actually, Fort Nelson, which is a long way from Site C but in the Peace — have raised the concern. It's still, I would argue, many years away from the project, if it were to be approved to go forward. However, you know what? The reality is that it is a fair question to ask, and I will commit to getting a briefing and act accordingly.

L. Popham: It's my understanding that there was actually a cumulative impact study done in the 1980s by the Ministry of Agriculture, and those figures are available, but they're in 1980 dollar figures. So I think that if the minister was to look back in history, he would be able to
[ Page 10461 ]
find that information.

But it really does beg the question of the whole idea of food security in British Columbia. The question that was brought up around the cumulative impacts of development on agriculture, and any other stakeholder groups on agriculture, is really something that I'm very concerned about.

When I'm looking at the investment of promoting domestic agriculture and international agriculture being 50-50, it worries me. The reason why it worries me is because I don't think that you want to have the same focus on the international market as you do on the domestic market for the reasons that the minister brought up himself — those being the vulnerabilities of the international market.

[D. Horne in the chair]

We saw what happened with the B.C. beef industry on the international market when BSE came in. We see that there are vulnerabilities there. The problems that are happening down south are something that…. They are more vulnerable because they are depending on an international market and an export market.

I am in full agreement that we need to have an export market, but — and I've stated this for the record many, many times — if you don't focus on the domestic market, on building that and making that stable, it's like building a fancy house without a foundation. You can always fall back on the domestic market.

We have four million people in British Columbia. They eat, sometimes three times a day. If that's not a market that we want to build around, I'm not sure why. What other focus could we have if we're building a strong agriculture sector?

That being said, I'm going to ask a few questions before we move on to aquaculture. I'm going to ask a few questions about something that's absolutely critical for food security, and that's honeybees. I don't know if the minister needs to have any other staff available for that. He's shaking his head, so I'll continue on.

[1635]

The honeybee industry in British Columbia. I've been having quite a lot of conversations over the last year, and they feel that the B.C. industry is pretty badly served by the Ministry of Agriculture. They don't feel that it's a priority, and, given the threats to the honeybee colonies worldwide, they feel that there needs to be a focus there.

So my question is: how much funding is going into research to better understand colony collapse or disease problems among bees in British Columbia?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: Hello, Chair. Good to see you.

The honey issue is something I've been involved with, as well, far before I became Minister of Agriculture. In fact, I think it would have been in the spring of 2010. Issues were raised, and I was very pleased to see the Ministry of Agriculture and the Minister of Agriculture, back in those times, recognize the importance. It made sure that there was good communication between the bee community and the ministry, including coordinating several meetings, with the ADM from the Ministry of Agriculture assisting.

We have one full-time-equivalent bee expert in the province, and we also have the animal health and plant lab, which assists the bee industry as well.

The other thing — which is not really under the Ministry of Agriculture, though I am very pleased to bring up this issue — is that the government of British Columbia over the past several years has given approximately $75 million, I believe it is, to Genome B.C. As part of their work, they have done research into issues like colony collapse in British Columbia.

The other issue I'd like to bring up is that I recently attended the B.C. Honey Producers AGM and had conversations with their executive. I am sad to hear that you hear that the honey producers are feeling they're not being adequately served by the Ministry of Agriculture, and I encourage you, through them, to contact the ministry.

I'm more than willing to meet with the honey producers. They do play a central role in British Columbia, and colony collapse — whether it is in Atlanta, Georgia, or in Quebec or on Vancouver Island — is an issue and one that is not easily solved. But if they have issues or concerns, I would definitely like to talk to them.

L. Popham: I think I canvassed this during the last estimates process. The reason why some of them may feel that they're not being served is because they found out about a Vancouver Island quarantine being lifted through the newspaper instead of through contact through the ministry. That might have something to do with it.

My question is: how much of the $75 million is going towards the honeybee studies?

Hon. D. McRae: When the government has given money to Genome B.C., we haven't told them how to spend their money. It is our understanding that they're working on issues like colony collapse. It's one that they took on. But the Genome B.C. staff are independent, and I think the best case is that how much they spent would be best asked of them.

L. Popham: Given that the honeybee study and the interest in honeybees is arm's-length from the ministry, how much money is the ministry directly spending on honeybees and studies?

[1640]

Also, I'll add into this question: how many apiary inspectors are working in British Columbia?
[ Page 10462 ]

Hon. D. McRae: For the honeybee program, we basically continue to support surveillance of honeybee diseases in key beekeeping areas. We support laboratory diagnostics of the honeybee diseases. We continue to support training and educational program activities. The cost of running this program is approximately $200,000 a year.

We have one full-time program manager, Paul van Westendorp, and we have approximately eight part-time auxiliary staff to support him in these duties. However, our staff is…. I'm going from memory here, and if it is not eight, we will let the member know.

As well, I know that the quarantine issue was an issue. The way it was brought out was done, perhaps, not with the best policy that government could have done in the past. However, either as Minister of Agriculture or as MLA, I have not heard much about the quarantine issue in the last year, and I've raised it and asked about it, both to Vancouver Island beekeepers and at the AGM.

L. Popham: I think the minister probably hasn't heard anything about it because once a quarantine is lifted, there's not really much you can do. So that probably is the reason.

The idea that there are part-time inspectors is curious to me given the fact that bees are so critical for our food security system and agriculture. Why is there not a decision to have full-time employees inspecting our bees in B.C.?

Hon. D. McRae: The bee activity is seasonal in British Columbia. Obviously, it's busy in the spring and into the summer and then will slow down into the fall, and as the bees winter in the winter months, they are not as active. So to have full-time staff would probably not be the best use of staff resources or ministry resources.

L. Popham: Could the minister please tell me how much provincial money is spent, is being invested, in the apiary industry?

[1645]

Hon. D. McRae: I hope I understand the question. Assuming it's government dollars being put into the industry, it is about $300,000, which basically talks about supporting the programs I mentioned earlier, the full-time program manager and the eight part-time auxiliary staff who assist the bee industry.

As well, there are other pieces that are harder to measure in terms of…. We talked about promoting domestic markets. Obviously, honey is part of that. So there would be a portion of it.

But I think the member opposite is looking for how many dollars we actually put towards the bee program, which is approximately $300,000.

M. Sather: I wanted to ask the minister a few questions about fisheries, which is another very important part of his ministry. I had written a letter to the minister earlier this year regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, surveillance plan, to which the minister responded, and I thank him for that.

Part of what he said in his letter was that none of the suspect cases, talking about the ISAV virus, were associated with disease. "ISAV was not confirmed in any of the samples tested in the national reference laboratory for ISAV in Moncton, New Brunswick. Therefore, based on no evidence of the disease ISA in B.C., I'm told that the CFIA investigation has been closed."

Can the minister inform me: what does it mean that the investigation has been closed?

Hon. D. McRae: I'll do my best to answer this question. It is mostly to do with the federal government, but it's obviously important to British Columbia.

My understanding is that if there is a lab that feels they have found a case of ISA, they then have to forward their samples to the CFIA. They will be tested again, and if the tests come back positive, then there is a case of ISA.

In the case that we dealt with — I believe it was last fall — there was an issue raised by a lab, I believe, in P.E.I. It was sent forward to the CFI labs. They were not able to replicate the results, and as such, it did not meet international protocols which allow for an organization like the CFIA to claim there is ISA in an area.

However, for the member opposite, the one positive, I think, that came out of it, as well, is that the federal government did commit to enhancing its surveillance for disease on the coast. We are working with the federal government as it comes forward on that surveillance program, because there is value, and we want to make sure that our domestic stocks are protected.

[1650]

M. Sather: Yes, I understand that the ministry is working with the federal government on the surveillance plan.

In the minister's letter to me he said: "Therefore, based on no evidence of the disease ISA in B.C…."

I would think, perhaps, the minister is aware of the good work that Dr. Kristi Miller at the DFO has done on the salmon issue and the whole reason for the calling of the Cohen Commission — the collapse of the sockeye salmon. She determined in her studies that ISA is causing negative health symptoms in B.C. Pacific salmon. So given that from that venerable scientist, how can the minister assert that the virus ISA is not causing any disease in British Columbia?

Hon. D. McRae: Between the federal government and the provincial government, we have tested literally thousands and thousands of fish, and we have yet to be able to confirm a case of ISA in fish in British Columbia.
[ Page 10463 ]

I am glad to see that people are taking an interest on the private side and doing research in labs that are not owned by the CFIA. But again, if it is believed that a lab has found ISA in a sample, the protocols are to forward those samples to the CFIA labs, and they will do the tests.

The tests are very, very — I guess, for lack of a scientific word here — finicky, and false positives are possible. So that's where it's really important to make sure that if you do have what you think is a positive, you use a CFIA lab to make sure that the results can be tested and replicated. If they were to be replicated, that would result in a positive confirmation.

Though it is not a provincial body by any means, the CFIA follows international protocols, like most other countries do in the world, to make sure that disease protocols are followed and adhered to.

M. Sather: The samples in question were tested by Dr. Kibenge at the international organization for animal health lab in Prince Edward Island and by Dr. Are Nylund in Norway, who's also an ISA expert.

The CFIA has said, coming out of that, that the results were negative. I wanted to ask the minister if he agrees with the CFIA that those testing results were negative.

Hon. D. McRae: Dr. Kibenge's lab, I believe, is in P.E.I. The private lab doing the testing is not in the province of British Columbia, under our authority. The CFIA is a federal organization, not under the authority of the province of British Columbia, but my understanding is that the CFIA has gone through the proper protocols, was not able to replicate the tests and, as such, cannot say that ISA has been found in British Columbia.

[1655]

However, I do note that recently there have been cases of ISA found in Atlantic Canada. It has been following these protocols. The federal government, using the CFIA lab, has confirmed that ISA has existed there in Atlantic Canada. So obviously, the protocols do work, and they do follow through on this. However, they've not yet found a positive test confirmed in British Columbia.

M. Sather: Is the minister aware that at the Cohen Commission on December 15 of 2011, Dr. Gagné from the Moncton lab — which is the lab, I think, the minister has referred to — testified that their lab "reported the results of the ISA virus testing on the 48 sockeye as inconclusive based on our policies"? Is the minister aware of that?

Hon. D. McRae: Yes, I am. And I think it's really important that when people are doing research and scientific testing of samples — that obviously is still an issue that is so important — they treat the samples in the best methods possible, knowing that if they were to find a positive result, they will have to forward those results to a CFIA lab for confirmation.

I think most scientists doing research in this area know this, but it is absolutely essential that the samples remain in the best state possible, knowing that the lab tests will have to be replicated.

The Chair: We seem to be straying from the budget debate, but I'll recognize the member.

M. Sather: These are subject matters with which the minister has been deeply involved, has spoken many times on. As the minister has mentioned, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of tests of salmon that are done by his staff. I'm very pleased to see his responses so far.

I do want to ask the minister, certainly, on the question, because this is very important to the stand that the government and this minister are taking — a very strong stand with regard to the presence or lack thereof of the ISA virus in particular in British Columbia. So it's very important and significant to this very important issue to British Columbians.

Before moving on to my next question, I do want to say that clearly, an inconclusive test is different than a negative test.

The minister also said that it's "vitally important that we base our policy decisions on sound science…. Reckless allegations based on incomplete science can be devastating to these communities and unfair to the families that make a living from the sea." What reckless allegations was the minister referring to?

Hon. D. McRae: The world of agripolitics is indeed complex, Member opposite. I'm sure you know that. It is really important, as I'm sure members know, that seafood of British Columbia, be it wild or farmed salmon or any other species, is a huge export opportunity for British Columbia.

It's also very important to realize that we do compete for market share with other countries around the world and also that when we compete with those countries, sometimes we're competing directly with their domestic market.

A prime example, though it's not related to ISA, could be sea cucumbers in China. We want to make sure that our market access remains there so that families — whether they live in a place like, say, Port Hardy or Port McNeill — who are involved in the wild or farmed salmon industry have the opportunity to sell their product both domestically and internationally.

Sadly, history has shown us in the past that sometimes countries will take steps to close their borders and prevent market share going into their nations, which would be a direct harm to the province of British Columbia and the families who work here.

M. Sather: I can certainly understand the minister
[ Page 10464 ]
wanting to protect our reputation and markets worldwide, but that certainly, then, begs the question, though, making it even that much more significant: what reckless allegations was he referring to that then are putting at risk, apparently, our international reputation and our markets? What were the reckless allegations he was referring to?

[1700]

Hon. D. McRae: If we harken back to the fall of 2011 — again, I have sort of canvassed this a little bit — what happened was that when the lab in P.E.I. found the potential ISA virus, their next course of action, according to protocols that all labs should know, was to contact the CFIA and have the test replicated in a federal lab. That did not occur.

What happened was that the test results were forwarded to a university professor, I believe, in British Columbia. Between websites, blogs, questions in the media and, in my opinion, presentations at the Cohen Commission, it was said that basically, ISA was here.

For ISA to be on the west coast of British Columbia, it needs to do two things. It needs to be found first and then replicated in a lab. Then the CFIA and DFO follow the protocols like they do in Canada or other international nations.

M. Sather: What is the line item for fisheries in your budget?

Hon. D. McRae: To add one other point to the previous question, which I forgot to mention as well. My memory of the time when ISA was first talked about from the lab in P.E.I…. There were lawmakers and legislators both in the United States — various states bordering British Columbia — and in Asia who at that time were speculating and pushing for closing our market share.

It just reminds me, as well, that you do not want to give a nation a reason to close a border to a B.C. product without having all the facts. Again, if we had followed the protocols accordingly, I think it would have been more appropriate in terms of making sure we did not threaten our international markets.

As to where the line item for fisheries issues resides in the ministry budget, it is under core business, under the agriculture, science and policy line. But I must tell the member opposite, as I'm sure he knows, that the vast majority of fish issues are dealt with at the federal level. We deal with marketing, some innovation and some inspection levels at the Ministry of Agriculture, but most fishery issues are actually federal in nature. If it comes to fish farm tenure, that is under the FLNRO ministry.

M. Sather: Under the agriculture, science and policy part of his budget I note that the minister is very fond of making statements about fisheries on the west coast. I think that's his purview. I submit through you, hon. Chair, to the minister that if he wants to do that, then he should be willing, in this House, to answer questions about those same matters of which he has spoken personally.

[1705]

With that, I will proceed under the line item referring to the minister's budget. The minister has talked about the testing and the protocols that were followed and by whom they were followed. I know that the minister, as I've referred to, has staff in this field that are under his ministry's budget. Dr. Marty, in particular, we know does a lot of testing for the ministry. He forwards a lot of information, as was revealed in the Cohen Commission, to the federal government.

I do want to briefly mention some of the individuals that are involved in the testing that the minister has referred to. One of them, again, is Dr. Kibenge at the P.E.I. lab. Would the minister say that that Dr. Kibenge is recognized as an expert on the ISA virus?

Hon. D. McRae: Since Dr. Kibenge is not a member of the ministry staff and I do not know him personally nor professionally, I do not want to speak to his scientific credibility or lack thereof in this forum.

M. Sather: To the minister, regarding his budget and the expenditures that come under his budget and the subject at hand, I want to put on the record that Dr. Kibenge is recognized as an expert on the ISA virus. Dr. Nylund from Norway is also an international expert on the ISA virus.

Dr. Gagné, who is the one who has presented from the DFO, with the ministry lawyer there from this government…. I assume her expenditures come somewhere under this budget as well. She was there at the Cohen Commission, legal counsel for the province of British Columbia. Whatever line she comes under, she certainly was representing the government with regard to the Cohen Commission and was there every day.

Now, the Moncton lab that the minister is fond of referring to has not received any international certification to test for ISA virus. The minister said in his letter to me that the province continues to test, and I'm sure this is an expenditure. Dr. Marty is under his ministry, and it would come under this budget.

The minister says: "The province continues to test hundreds of British Columbia farmed salmon every year for various diseases, including ISAV…. All results have been negative — no virus."

I do want to confirm with the minister, though, that these tests were conducted by Dr. Marty, the fish health pathologist for the ministry.

[1710]

Hon. D. McRae: Dr. Marty is a well-known fish path-
[ Page 10465 ]
ologist and is well recognized for his expertise and his credentials.

When it was under the purview of the ministry, Dr. Marty did work on ISA testing. Now that it is under the federal government and that there will be contract work in the lab the Ministry of Agriculture owns, Dr. Marty would be involved in that as well, but under the responsibility of the federal government.

M. Sather: Well, there have been a lot of aspersions cast by this minister and this government on some of the scientists that have done the testing and that have come to a very significant conclusion, apparently, about this virus in British Columbia.

The tests were conducted, as the minister said, by Dr. Marty. This was an in-house test developed by a master's student using different primers than the other experts. It's different from that approved by the international Organisation for Animal Health or the Moncton labs. The primers that Dr. Marty used have not been through the CFIA validation process, nor even a peer-reviewed publication, yet this government calls this a scientifically designed surveillance program.

I mean, who's the expert here, really? Dr. Kibenge said that this test would not be sensitive to finding ISA. So the 4,700 tests that Dr. Marty has done — and he's never found ISA — aren't really reliable, are they?

Hon. D. McRae: I'm not going to get into a battle of my scientists versus other scientists. However, I do think the work of Dr. Marty is solid.

However, we are working with the federal government to make sure that the surveillance program that is underway and being designed is one that will be of the highest standard. We still stand by that the thousands of tests that have been done in regard to ISA presence have come back negative.

As well, if there was a positive, just like the two that were found in eastern Canada, they would follow protocol, and it would have to be confirmed by a CFIA lab. But as of 2012 we have not had a confirmed case of ISA on the west coast of British Columbia.

M. Sather: With regard to the ministry's budget and the minister's budget, this is a very important issue. It's clear, totally clear. I didn't see the minister at the Cohen Commission. I don't know if he was there. I attended many of them.

I can tell you this: the legal counsel for the province of British Columbia was absolutely hostile towards First Nations representation, towards conservationist representation. Clearly, they were there for one thing, and one thing only: to protect the interests of the aquaculture industry. And that's not right.

We have a very important industry, the aquaculture industry. Given that, we also have a commercial fishery that's very, very important. We have a First Nations fishery. We have a very economically important sport fishery. But none of those interests are being protected by the government, and I think that's a real concern.

I want to ask the minister: what confidence do you have that the European ISA virus is not present in B.C. Atlantic salmon farms?

[1715]

Hon. D. McRae: I'm sorry to hear that the member opposite's perception of the provincial lawyer was that the individual was hostile. I have talked to members of the sport fishing alliance, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, commercial fishermen and the salmon farm industry, and they have yet to relay that to me. I'm not saying it's wrong; I'm just saying I'm surprised that I didn't hear that the hostility was there.

Again, though, I will say that the DFO, or the federal fisheries ministry, works very hard. They've tested literally thousands of fish and will continue to test. We'll continue to refine our tests to make sure they are the best quality possible. It is in British Columbia's interest to make sure that our wild stocks and our farmed salmon are of the highest fish health, and this is a benefit both to the domestic and the international markets.

We want to make sure that if there are concerns out there, they are tested and are dealt with, with the proper protocols. If something has arisen, we act accordingly. Regardless, I want to reaffirm that both farmed and wild salmon stocks are absolutely essential to the well-being, the culture of British Columbia and our economy.

M. Sather: Well, I think the minister is more hopeful than certain. We're all very hopeful that there is no ISAV epidemic that happens here, but it is not an unlikely scenario. It has happened in other places. It's happened in Chile. It's happened in Norway. The minister mentioned the east coast of our country. It is not certainly any great stretch of the imagination, given the scientific data that's come forward, that it could happen here.

I wanted to ask the minister: if the European ISA virus is cultured from B.C.'s farmed salmon, what would the minister recommend that the province do? What action would be taken?

The Chair: Member, can I actually ask you to rephrase the question? It calls for a hypothetical, and under our rules hypotheticals are unacceptable. Could you rephrase the question?

M. Sather: Well, hon. Chair, the ruling is that the question is hypothetical. I will accept that. I submit that it is a very real possibility, however. My question is to the minister. Correct me if it's not a proper question, but I would think that we're all very concerned. I think the minister is concerned about the health of salmon in
[ Page 10466 ]
British Columbia.

My question is: what is the plan? What plan does the minister have should we have an outbreak of the ISA virus? What would he do? Of course, the recognized…. The methods used worldwide when it comes to aquaculture are that you have to cull the farm. That's what is done.

I'm asking the minister: if we have suffered the very unfortunate event of an ISA outbreak, is that what he would do, or would he pursue some other course of action?

[1720]

Hon. D. McRae: Again, it's sort of pseudo-hypothetical, but that's okay. I'll answer nonetheless.

If there was a case of ISA found on the coast, it would fall under the DFO and CFIA regulatory means. We would work very closely with them, because the reality is we'd want to control, contain and eradicate such. But depending on where the suspected case of ISA, or the hypothetical case of ISA, was found and its proximity to, perhaps, fish farms or wild salmon rivers, the course of action could be a huge range of actions, I guess, in this case.

I think it would have to basically depend on…. We'll have to work on that issue with CFIA, with DFO if — and hopefully, never — a case of ISA is determined to be in British Columbia.

Atlantic salmon have lived in or been on the coast for a long time. I seem to remember when I was in university, there was a story about the attempt to release 50,000 salmon, Atlantic salmon, into one of the rivers in British Columbia. They weren't able to take then. Hopefully, we don't have this issue come forward. It is important, and we want to make sure that both the wild salmon and the farmed salmon are able to exist on the coast to provide economic benefit and cultural benefit for the province.

M. Sather: I have one final question for the minister. The issue of the testing for ISA virus — and we didn't even have time to get into the other viruses that are out there — is clearly very controversial. There is a significant divergence of opinion about what protocols are trustworthy, what aren't, who's right, who's wrong. This is too important of an issue, I believe, for us not to get together and work out a solution.

So it seems to me that a large segment of British Columbians, including people that are actively involved, have lost trust in the process that the federal government has laid out. It appears to them — and it appears to me, I have to say — that there has been basically an attempt to deny and to cover up, to put it quite frankly.

So I would like…. What would work? I think it would work for the government, too, if we had a group. It could be DFO scientists, CFIA, whomever. If they were working with some independent scientists I think we could come to some kind of agreement on at least the methods and the testing, because we're bogged down there. The minister has referred to this too.

Would the minister encourage the development of a protocol, a testing system that would involve, obviously, government — both provincial, federal — but also some independent scientists so that we could come up with a solution where we're actually making some progress?

[1725]

Hon. D. McRae: ISA is obviously an important issue for a lot of British Columbians. I will pass your suggestions on, if you so desire, to the federal Fisheries Minister, but the reality is that I think the protocols that exist now are strong.

It is also important to know that they have worked in Atlantic Canada. When a case of suspected ISA has shown up in Atlantic Canada, protocols are followed, the confirmation is done and then, from that point on, they act accordingly.

The reality is…. You know what? I have no desire to ever see ISA show up on the coast of British Columbia. It is important that we continue to do testing. The testing that was done in the past has shown there were no positive tests for ISA. For that reason, I am hopeful that we never have a case of ISA on the west coast of British Columbia.

Studies show that sockeye salmon would not get ISA, which is a good sign for that wild stock. However, the world is a changing place, so we'll continue to revise and work with the federal government to make sure the protocols and the tests are of the highest quality and ensure that the wild and farmed salmon stocks of British Columbia are of the highest quality.

C. Trevena: While I have a number of questions I'd like to ask the minister about aquaculture also, I'm aware of limited time. So I'd just like to ask the minister, maybe, a general question touching on what the member for Saanich South was talking about earlier on today.

If a community is looking at food self-sufficiency and moving into more agricultural development — has agricultural land, has not been traditionally a farming community…. I'm talking about communities in my constituency, whether it's Campbell River or Port Hardy or McNeill. They're looking at expanding into agriculture.

What sort of support would they be able to look to from the government to achieve a transition to get increasing agricultural development on agricultural land? I'm not talking about farmers markets. I'm talking about the actual production of food in these communities.

Hon. D. McRae: A prime example is your community. Actually, I was very pleased. I've met many times with the past mayor, Mayor Charlie Cornfield, some of his councillors and staff as well. I know that one of the things that I'm very proud of is that the community came up with its
[ Page 10467 ]
agricultural plan, which I think was well-served.

Campbell River is a prime example of a community that does not have a lot of farms in its immediate vicinity. I think, off the top of my head, it was less than ten. However, they are also surrounded by a huge amount of agricultural land in the ALR.

I know that when Mayor Cornfield came and talked to me about it, there was a hope: how could they grow farming in the area? One area, I think, is having those conversations with the Agricultural Land Commission itself and seeing how they can help promote farming and maybe have some practice there that would assist, especially in the area of primary production.

As well, in my community, in Courtenay, well before my time…. We have some agriculture staff, including Jill Hatfield, who's a district agrologist who works very hard to assist the farming communities in designing good farm practice.

C. Trevena: That would mean, for the Campbell River example, that that might get some assistance from Ministry of Agriculture staff? Is that what the minister is saying, or that we have this plan now and that the community is on its own?

Likewise, for another community that may want to get into it, what direct assistance could they expect from the minister if they wanted to move into food production?

[1730]

Hon. D. McRae: It was really pleasing to see at the last UBCM how well received agriculture was at the conference. A prime example would be on the study tour day, where we went and toured farms in the Fraser Valley area. I think it was three buses or 100-plus elected officials from around the province.

Again, we talk about having an agricultural plan. I think we have 44 agricultural plans either completed or underway in the province of British Columbia. The Investment Agriculture Foundation supports that. There are obviously many more municipalities that may choose to engage in that, and I encourage them to do so.

Having an ag advisory council in your community is always of value. I know I'm very proud that in the Comox Valley we have some very proactive ag advisory individuals, but there are other good groups around the province of British Columbia who advise both elected officials — the provincial officials — and industry how to best practise.

Again, at the UBCM I think, from memory, we met with about 17 communities — maybe a bit more, actually — during the course of that conference, talking about their issues in agriculture. Some just wanted to talk about their community and didn't really have an ask. Others had a very specific ask, and I think from there the Ministry of Agriculture said: "Well, we'll work with our staffers, both regionally and in Victoria or in our major centres, to see what supports we could provide."

But I think many communities, as well, would take advantage of the regional staff, be they based in places like the Peace River, the Okanagan, Prince George or even on Vancouver Island and the Comox Valley.

S. Fraser: Hello to the minister and staff. I've just got a couple of questions.

The ministry budget is $65.771 million, and there's almost no indication as to how much of that budget or full-time-equivalents would be going towards aquaculture. In the supplement to the budget, the estimates, that's where you'd probably expect to find more detail. It doesn't mention aquaculture at all. I note that. Similarly, the ministry's service plan makes almost no specific mention of aquaculture.

A concern of many in the region of Baynes Sound, where the shellfish industry is largely centred in British Columbia, is that there doesn't seem to be any real importance or significance to aquaculture related in the budget.

So I guess the first question to the minister is…. I know there were some changes back in 2010. The federal government took over some of the responsibility. But just what is the role and the budget for addressing aquaculture needs and, if you can be more specific, shellfish needs in the province?

[1735]

Hon. D. McRae: As the member referenced, I'm sure he is very aware of the Hinkson decision, which sort of changed the field of responsibilities for fisheries in Canada on the west coast. The vast majority of the responsibilities now reside within the federal DFO. FLNRO, like I stated earlier, is responsible for granting tenure to, I guess, aquaculture sites.

The Ministry of Agriculture on the other hand — we are responsible for innovation, inspection and marketing as it pertains to aquaculture. We have five FTEs that assist in this area for the province of British Columbia.

S. Fraser: I thank the minister for the answer.

I guess I'll elaborate a little bit more. The livelihood of the Baynes Sound shellfishery is reliant on, as the minister knows, water quality. I know there is mention in the service plan about export, because the minister just clarified that's certainly a key part of the role of the minister and the ministry in dealing with shellfish.

My concern is with the Raven coal mine — I've raised this before — the proposal to bring a coal mine into just above Baynes Sound, the potential for runoff. I don't know if the minister is aware, but you don't need mortality from the runoff in the shellfish industry. You just need to, in a very small way, increase some of the toxins that go into Baynes Sound.

Cadmium is already a fairly high natural element in
[ Page 10468 ]
the marine environment in Baynes Sound. Only a few parts per million raise in that very small amount, in cadmium, would make export impossible to some of the regions that the minister has talked about in his service plan — China, Japan, Hong Kong. We're close to the limits now.

How will the ministry and the minister deal with…? What protections is he doing? Is he working at all through the environmental assessment to make sure that the position of the ministry — to ensure that marketing of shellfish can happen? That'll all be for naught if cadmium levels go up because a coal mine — the Raven coal mine, in this case — leaches toxins into the marine environment.

If the minister has a role in marketing, where is he using that role in protecting the shellfish industry from potential toxins from the Raven coal mine?

[1740]

Hon. D. McRae: As the member opposite knows, Baynes Sound is an area near and dear to my heart because it's actually in the riding I get to represent. It is an important area. The waters are important and, I think, provide great value to the economy of British Columbia. I think the shellfish exports in the area are about $24 million a year.

Just down from Baynes Sound and Deep Bay is, obviously, the Vancouver Island University research station, which I think is an absolutely great investment by a post-secondary institution and the province of British Columbia — I think the feds are in there as well — to actually grow the shellfish market and development in British Columbia.

I know, because I talked to the individuals, both as an organization and as individual growers, that right now are involved in the environmental assessment, or the pre–environmental assessment phase, making sure that their concerns are raised and, as they do the design for the environmental assessment — which is outside my ministry; it is more federal Ministry of the Environment and provincial Ministry of Environment — that their concerns are addressed.

They want to make sure that their industry is viable for years to come, and so do I, obviously. It is sustainable. It is a great export that brings new dollars into the province of British Columbia.

As for the cadmium issue, it is naturally occurring, I understand, in Baynes Sound. It saddens me, but again, it's an example of agripolitics where, while many countries will take our product and enjoy our product with great relish….

It's funny. The Europeans have used cadmium as an opportunity for trade barriers to be set up. While there is no recognized health benefit from our side of the pond, the reality is that the French oysters that are grown off the English Channel, with all of that shipping and all that pollution they have…. They will try to tell you that the French oyster is a much better, more pristine product than what comes out of either Baynes Sound or the east coast of Vancouver Island, which I still think is just an example of how the French have been protecting their markets for generations. They are very good at it.

S. Fraser: I'm not sure. I got some information there, but I'm not sure. I'm not entirely satisfied with the answer I got from the minister.

The fact is that there are international barriers to trade with levels of cadmium and other heavy metals, to be specific. I'll go into cadmium because, as the minister has pointed out, it's already got a natural occurrence in Baynes Sound, so it's already fairly high.

I don't know if the minister knows the numbers here, but we're not far from the export limit. The export limit for a number of…. It varies from country to country, it's true. And for domestic consumption, the levels are somewhat higher. But the fact is that the export role for the ministry….

The minister has pointed out that since the feds have taken over a large part of responsibility for the shellfish industry and aquaculture in general in 2010, one of the few roles the ministry has in dealing with shellfish is the marketing.

So, marketing. If you can't sell the product, then your role as marketing has failed. So what I'm saying is if…. Does the minister or staff know the levels, currently, of cadmium in the shellfish in Baynes Sound? And the minister or staff — can they tell us what the limits are for export to France, to Japan, to China, to Hong Kong? And then with that, will the minister explain what he will do to prevent that export from ceasing, should the Raven coal mine be allowed to go ahead?

Coal mine — one of the products is always heavy metals. Cadmium will be one. Should any of that be released and leach into the environment and raise the levels….

I mean, if the minister is not taking this role seriously, we've got a problem here. And I'm not saying that facetiously.

You're in charge of marketing this. You can't market a product if the cadmium level is too high for export. You've failed then. Surely, there's a role to play to protect the industry right now.

[1745]

I've got a bunch of questions in there: the levels of the cadmium currently, the levels for export and what the restrictions are — just so the public can see how close we are. You don't have to make a toxic soup out of Baynes Sound to stop all export of that product.

Hon. D. McRae: Member opposite, your questions are fair, complex and many. For that reason….

We came prepared to talk about budget estimates 2012-13. Yes, I know there is a relation there, by all means,
[ Page 10469 ]
in regards to export markets. But to have the data in regards to the levels of cadmium and what level is acceptable for various countries and such…. We brought budget binders. We didn't bring the data on the heavy metal content in various bodies of water.

Fair question. If you could submit those, because we don't want to miss your questions, by all means, we'll do our best to get back to you.

As well, too, I am pretty pleased when I've talked to members, like I said, from the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association that they're very aware, and their industry is, obviously, very important to them. They want to make sure that their export and domestic markets are strong, and any closing of access is going to be devastating to them.

They are very aggressive, they're very intelligent, and I'm very impressed with their representatives as they go forward in this process. I'm looking forward that their concerns are addressed in the environmental assessment process. Again, it's not controlled by the Ministry of Agriculture. It's controlled by the environment assessment office at this stage, I guess, indirectly through the Minister of Environment.

But I will find you answers to your questions.

L. Popham: I've just been informed, as the minister has, that the Ministry of Agriculture estimate debates will continue into tomorrow, which is good news. So I'm going to actually revisit an area that I didn't spend enough time on, which is the B.C. honeybee industry.

The reason why I'm coming back to that is it's surprising that the amount we invest in that industry is only $300,000, given the importance of it. I just need to confirm a few things with the minister.

The largest bee area in the province is the Peace River, and the minister referenced that himself. It's my understanding that we don't have an apiary inspector working in the Peace River anymore. Is that correct?

Hon. D. McRae: We're looking for the data. If the member could ask, perhaps, another question, we will do our best to answer before we leave today. If not, we have time tomorrow, I hear, to find you the answer.

L. Popham: Well, I have had my staff make some phone calls and know there is currently not an inspector working in the Peace. There is also not an inspector working in the Central Okanagan, which is really surprising given that it is the home of the fruit tree industry.

I'm worried that the ministry is so arm's length from the control of the honeybee industry in B.C. that the ministry may not know what's actually going on.

[1750]

My concern is from the minister's comment previously around the fact that the traffic and the jobs that would be taken on by the inspectors would slow down over the winter. This is very concerning to me because I have a bee yard at my vineyard, and the activity in the winter continues on. In fact, a lot of that is around disease control and disease inspection.

How many bee inspectors are actually doing winter studies currently in B.C.? Where are those statistics being held? Where are those diseased bees and bee combs being sent, and where can we get that information? It seems to me that this is maybe a neglected part of the Agriculture Ministry.

Hon. D. McRae: Unfortunately, like the previous question, we are working to get the answer for the member opposite. We'll do so, hopefully, in a timely manner. You know, it would be nice to do it in the next 40 minutes, but it all depends on whether we can work with our program manager in this particular case. We'll do our best — if not today, tomorrow — to have the answer.

L. Popham: Is that the answer to all of my questions that I've asked?

Hon. D. McRae: Just the two I've heard recently.

L. Popham: I'm under the impression that there's also not an inspector for the Kootenays, which would be worrisome for me. So if the minister could also check that information, that would be great.

Can the minister tell me why AgriStability funds don't seem to be available for beekeepers in B.C.? It doesn't seem to be designed for them, and they're effectively shut out of the AgriStability program.

Hon. D. McRae: Once again we're joined, to my right, by Grant Parnell, assistant deputy minister of strategic industry partnerships division. Mr. Parnell also works with the AgriStability section in the ministry. He has been in the department for a year and a half now and has yet to be approached by the industry as to if they can be involved or if they should be involved in the AgriStability program.

But because he is not aware of it, I encourage the member opposite…. I will also highlight it next time I talk to people in the bee industry that they should engage with the ministry. If they are not eligible, we can give them the reason why. If they just don't have the culture of applying, that's something we can work with them to see if we can design a program that will work within their needs.

[1755]

L. Popham: That's great. I'll pass on the information. But again, that leads me to believe that the connection to the B.C. beekeeping industry is quite far from the ministry, in a way that the minister may not understand what's going on in there and may not understand the needs of that industry.

The idea that the minister may not know about disease
[ Page 10470 ]
monitoring, especially on Vancouver Island where the quarantine was lifted, is troublesome. As the quarantine was lifted, it would seem that there should have been in place quite stringent disease testing going on.

The concerns from the beekeepers on the Island and off the Island were that some of the diseases from the mainland weren't being profiled on Vancouver Island, although there hadn't been an in-depth study previous to that, so it would be hard to track which diseases were coming onto the Island since the quarantine was being lifted. I'm hoping the minister can get some information on that topic for tomorrow, as well, but given that he may not be prepared for that today, I'll move on to another question.

Going through the B.C. agrifoods strategy for growth plan that was put out…. The announcement of this plan really did catch me by surprise. In fact, I heard it on the news beforehand. I'm quite a champion for agriculture, and it would have been nice to have had a heads-up on that — and also maybe even some collaborative efforts. I could have given feedback for this plan.

This plan…. I'm not sure if you have been talking to stakeholders since it was put out. The stakeholders involved in the consultation…. I've called a lot of them, and most of the feedback I'm getting — maybe the minister has also been getting the same feedback — is that although it's a beautiful publication, the idea that the Ministry of Agriculture is claiming to be everything for everyone without any funding associated with it is discouraging for the agriculture industry.

There have already been many agriculture plans that may not have been fulfilled up until the point of a new plan being presented. I would be curious to know if the minister is getting the same feedback. Like I said, I have done extensive calling to stakeholders.

Hon. D. McRae: I think the agrifoods strategy is actually an excellent document, and I'm very pleased to say that the ministry staff members, who have been in the department far longer than I have been, were integral in its development. I'm also pleased to say that it is basically working with consultation with industry.

Prior to the day before the agrifoods strategy was released, we had the members of industry have a chance to review it and give feedback as to what they thought of it. I believe we had at least 20 major stakeholders on the conference call at that particular time. They did have some concerns in the document — minor ones, though. The reality is that the feedback I received was mostly positive. This is a blueprint about how we're going to work forward.

We had the agrifoods plan — I believe it was 2007, 2008 — that we worked from. Ministry staff is always looking to try to basically work with the sectors to see what we can do to assist them in developing their domestic and international market shares, developing best practice, developing partnerships both with the province and with federal government. I think this is a document that will serve the agriculture industry well into the future.

Yes, you could say that it could use more money to fund it, but so could health care and every other ministry, I would argue, in every other province or country in the world. We could always do more with more. However, I think we can do very well with this document. I look forward to working with industry and watching the agrifoods grow in this province.

L. Popham: All right. Well, then, perhaps the stakeholders were giving different information, but I'll make sure that I collect the information I got from the individual stakeholders and their comments and forward that to the ministry so they can see what they may be telling other people who are doing consulting, such as myself.

[1800]

I will give you an example, though. Within the agrifoods plan, the organics sector support is mentioned. The organics sector represents an important market growth opportunity, where British Columbia has a distinct advantage over its competitors.

Given the minister's statement that the ministry has emerged as a trendsetter in innovation and niche market development, would the minister provide details as to what measures he has in the Vote 14 budget to assist with B.C.'s organics sector? And I'm going to mention the action item from the new plan, which was: "…the province will enhance organic market access by promoting value chain development for the organics sector."

I took it upon myself to call quite a few stakeholders within the organics sector, including COABC, and they all told me that they don't actually know what that means. So the consultation with the organics sector — coming up with this action item when they don't even know how that will be of value to them — is curious.

Hon. D. McRae: You know, I've been very bullish, I guess is a better way to say it, on the organics sector of British Columbia, for lots of reasons. Things that we're doing right now to work with the organics sector: we support organic food production and processing sectors, we provide a vegetable industry specialist — 25 percent of their time is spent on organic food production — and we provide a policy analyst as needed.

We have a staff member acting as an ex officio member at the association's director meetings. We also work with COABC as a liaison in their concerns with the federal government. We know that there is huge growth potential. As 75 percent of the organic market in British Columbia is import product, if we could grow that, it is good for our domestic growers.

We know there is a demand overseas for organics as well. I believe there is a dairy in British Columbia which is exporting to the Asian markets, which absolutely staggers me when you think about putting milk on a plane.
[ Page 10471 ]

But the reality is that for agriculture to be successful, owning much of the value chain in agriculture is hugely important, in any sector. Organics are no different. For example, if you were to raise goats and you were to basically have goat's milk, that is one product. However, taking that goat's milk and turning it into cheese is an example of a value chain where you can get far more return on your dollars. Taking that goat milk cheese and then in turn making sure it goes into restaurants to help promote your organic property, as well, is a further example of how we can grow the value chain for organics.

[1805]

Value chain is not just for organics. It is for all agriculture, and I guess one of the struggles we always have in British Columbia is that we just have so many food sectors — which is a pleasant issue because we have 225 land-based sectors, commodity groups that we support. But in the organics, they could also argue that within that one sector they have, arguably, hundreds of commodities as well. If we can encourage the value chain growth, that gives the producer a better chance of getting more value from their farm production.

L. Popham: But the actual wording is "promoting value chain development." Can the minister tell me what that means?

Hon. D. McRae: Like I said, we want to make sure that the industry or the producers are aware that, yes, you can be a primary producer. That is value unto itself. We need primary producers, by all means, but we also want to make them aware that perhaps there is some potential in taking a primary product and, again, owning the value chain.

Owning the value chain is making sure that if it's going to be a product that's going to be turned into a value-added product, if they can control that, they can get it farther along the line. There are more dollars to be made, more return on the value.

Organic industry is a…. I'm very pleased to say that the COABC organization has been to the ministry office several times. I believe I have a decent or a good relationship with the head of COABC. I'm more than willing to see her. I saw her in the Comox Valley just recently. I saw her at the agrifoods strategy unveiling just 11 days ago in Abbotsford. I think there is definitely an opportunity there and a line of communication which is very strong.

L. Popham: I think the organic industry knows very well what value-added means. But I'm asking: what is the ministry doing to promote it? Exactly what does that mean?

I hear that the minister is going to tell them that if they have goat's milk and they make cheese, that's going to be better for their industry. I don't think they need to know that. I think they already know that.

So as far as dollar amounts and commitment to the organic industry, tell me exactly what the ministry will be doing.

[1810]

Hon. D. McRae: One of the things I'm pleased to say is that, I believe, under my watch I have seen COABC play a more prominent role in the agricultural community of British Columbia.

I make sure they are invited to major stakeholder meetings. That's why I was very pleased to see and receive their input based on the agrifoods strategy and not only their particular piece of it, but as it relates to agriculture as a whole. I was pleased to get their feedback. I want to make sure they're invited to stakeholder meetings, like trade advisory meetings, and they provide good feedback there.

I want to make sure that they can work with the Food Innovation Centre to see if there are opportunities that can be explored for the sector and exploited to their advantage. As well, having a staff member who is attending the director meetings ensures that if there is a question that the Ministry of Agriculture can assist with, they have easy access to someone who has a direct conduit into the Ministry of Agriculture. I think it has been a very enjoyable relationship that we have had with COABC, and I'm looking forward to seeing the sector grow in the future.

L. Popham: It's my understanding that there is a quarter-time FTE that's dedicated to the organic industry as far as extension. That's not field extension; that's someone on the phone who's also dealing three-quarters with another part of the sector. The organic industry had a field extension officer, and that was dropped from the ministry because that was not a priority.

We may have canvassed this last year, but the industry is still calling for that. COABC still wants that back.

I'm very close to the organic industry myself. How can the minister say there is support for the organic sector when the one thing that they need — a field extension officer — is not coming back into the budget? And the minister has still yet to explain what the province will do to enhance organic market access by promoting value chain — promoting it where?

Hon. D. McRae: Again, we canvassed this question last year in regards to the extension officer. I know the member opposite knows it was a three-year temporary position with the understanding by the industry that after three years the position was to become self-sustaining. For lots of factors, it was not able to be self-sustaining, so the position did not exist.

There are, like I said earlier, 225 land-based commodities in British Columbia, and many of them would like to have their own individual extension officer as well. However, with the extension officers we have available
[ Page 10472 ]
to us, the 25 percent FTE is what we're able to work with the organization for.

If the industry does have a concern about the value chain and how it applies to the organic sector, the nice thing is — thank you for raising that concern or awareness — I do talk with COABC on a fairly regular basis. I know they're not shy about contacting our office. I have told them that if they have concerns over any issue, to make sure that they have the understanding that the office is always willing to listen. That's one of the reasons why we have a staff person at their directors meeting.

[1815]

So if they need some more clarity, by all means I encourage you to pass on, through your contacts, for more information from the ministry. If they wish to have a direct meeting with myself, I'm more than willing to meet with COABC.

L. Popham: Well, I'll do that. I suppose they're probably watching this afternoon. But the minister has still failed to explain it to me. Is this a financial commitment that the minister is making to promote organics? What is the commitment here?

I don't think I'm dense. When I'm reading this, I honestly still cannot figure out what the minister is going to be doing for the organic sector except for continuing to provide something that was very necessary, but only 25 percent of it, and tell the organic industry how to do value-added. Is that what the minister is committing to? I honestly don't understand.

Hon. D. McRae: The key thing is that if there are value chain opportunities that exist, we want to make sure that the COABC or other people in the organic industry know who and how to access information and contacts that the ministry has. For that reason, we're very pleased that we actually are part of their director meetings.

When they come forward with a good idea and they need some assistance, just like the member opposite for North Island was asking about an individual community…. When there is a question, oftentimes there are people who are there to help. You have got to make sure you ask the question to the people who are most closely associated with this.

Having a staff member from the Ministry of Agriculture within easy access — also having easy access for COABC to the minister's office, by all means — is an opportunity to grow a relationship there which is going to be, in my opinion, beneficial for the organic sector. When they come forward with a good idea, if they need some assistance, we can help guide them on that.

I move that the committee rise, report progress of the Ministry of Agriculture and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:19 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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada