2013 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 43, Number 7

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

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2013

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm proud to announce today, first of all, that the member for Chilliwack has not had another grandchild.

However, in the press gallery Jonathan Fowlie and his wife, Jaime Matten, had a nine-pound boy on Monday named Lucas Cohen Matten-Fowlie. I'd like the House to make Lucas welcome.

J. Horgan: The opposition would like to join with the government. I guess we've noticed over the past number of days that the Vancouver Sun hasn't been as interesting, and that's because Jonathan has been busy with his fathering responsibilities. Jaime Matten, the proud mother, was, of course, a significant part of the official opposition and now is a pillar in the mayor's office here in Victoria.

Certainly, on behalf of the opposition, we wish Jaime and Jonathan and Lucas Cohen Matten-Fowlie the best of luck in this year and every year that follows.

R. Howard: Joining us in the House today is a very distinguished Canadian, Mr. Ferry de Kerckhove. Ferry is the former Ambassador of Canada to Indonesia, Egypt, and former high commissioner to Pakistan. He's also Canada's former chief air negotiator. Would the House please make him welcome.

C. James: I know our time is short, so I will not introduce the 20 women who are here with Bridges for Women Society — staff, board members and volunteers. But I would like to introduce some of the graduates from the program, if I may: Donna Bilsborough; Eileen Henry, who is Coast Salish; Rose Henry, Sliammon Nation; Colleen Kerr; Hilary Marks; Nancy Murphy; Deanna Pulido; Tara Timmers; and Jodi Williams. Would the House please make all of our guests very welcome.

D. Barnett: I would like the House to help me welcome two special guests from the pine beetle coalitions, who were here this morning with a group meeting with members of cabinet. With us are Kerry Cook, mayor of Williams Lake and chair of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition; and Dave Majcher, the manager. Please welcome them to the House.

D. Donaldson: I would like to have the House to make welcome Scott Ellis and Mark Werner from the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C., who are joining us in the precinct and perhaps in the gallery today with other members of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. We had a wonderful breakfast meeting with them this morning. They're valuable small business people to rural communities and stewards of the land. I'd like to ask the House to please make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I had the pleasure today to join at lunch with a group of B.C. Young Liberals. These are young people who are very interested in politics and, in some cases, in political science. They are here to learn of that great, dignified and refined exchange of perspectives that we call question period.

Among them are Nicole Paul, Allie Valiente, Eric Servais, Sebastian Zein, Clark Assenheimer, Simrath Grewal, Conner McConkey, Andrew Reeve, Carly Aasen, Brody McDonald, Scott Jaroszuk, Zoe Ferry, Blake Hodson and JJ MacLean. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a former constituent. Actually, to be truthful, she was a former constituent of my husband, but she's since moved to the Cowichan Valley. She's here with her husband — Sandra and Rene Goth. Sandra works for the B.C. Association of Community Response Networks, and it was great to see her today. Could the House please join me in making her welcome.

[1340]

Hon. M. Polak: We are visited today by a grade 11 civics class from the King's School in Langley, led by their teacher, Laurena Hensel. I want to introduce the students. I'm going to apologize ahead of time, because I'm sure I'm going to mess up some names: Saria Ashfield, Tia Beard, Chloe Heuchert, Dahae Kim, Nahae Kim, Naeun Kim, Jesse Land, Dean Li, Adrene Linton, Trisha Reid and Isaiah Wooding. Would this House please make them welcome.

N. Macdonald: Just to add to the introductions from the beetle action coalition by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, we also have with us Rhona Martin, Grace McGregor, Chief Judy Wilson, Gerry Thiessen, Don Bassermann and Sharon Tower as well as the guests that were already introduced. The House could join us in welcoming all the members of the beetle action coalitions that are here.

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'm delighted to see in the gallery my constituency assistants Matt Dolmage and Julia Keifer. They are here to watch question period.

I want to just say that Matt, who works in my office,
[ Page 13332 ]
has been with me for almost five years. Not only is he an exceptional constituency assistant; he excels in carpentry. I've seen him build his own guitar. He is a gifted musician. One day I know he's going to be an outstanding lawyer.

Julia, who I have only recently been acquainted with, is new to my office and has joined us. She is as delightful as she is intelligent. I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

R. Fleming: I see in the gallery a couple of constituents of mine who are with the Bridges for Women group here today, and I wanted to recognize them. One of them is Colleen Kasting, who is just a tremendous resource for the housing community in my constituency, helping both tenants and landlords and the housing providers in the capital region do a better job. Colleen, it's great to have you here.

I want to recognize Hilary Marks as well, who brings a tremendous passion to social work and will have many accomplishments to come as a social worker here in the capital region.

Hon. S. Thomson: I'd also like to join the member for Stikine in welcoming the representatives from the Guide Outfitters Association here today. Mark Werner and Scott Ellis have been introduced, but also joining them are David Beranek, director from Cranbrook; Michael Young, a director from Smithers; Marc Hubbard, a regional president from Penticton, and his wife, Marcella Hubbard; Joyce Sword from Cranbrook; and Jeana Schuurman, their director of policy and communications assistant with the Guide Outfitters.

As was mentioned, they do a great job in representing families and businesses all across British Columbia. But probably the most important person that's along with them today is Reid Werner, who is the son of Mark Werner. He's a grade 5 student at Beaverly Elementary School in Prince George, studying B.C. politics in class right now, so he's here to watch question period — a future guide-outfitter in British Columbia.

H. Lali: We have three people visiting us here in the galleries today. One is Valerie Adrian, who is a director on the B.C. School Trustees Association and from Gold Trail school district number 74; Sherri Moore-Arbour, who is a communications director for the B.C. School Trustees Association; and Gordon Swan, from my hometown of Merritt, who is a director of the B.C. School Trustees Association, from the Nicola-Similkameen school district. Would the House please make all of my guests welcome.

R. Cantelon: Joining us in the precinct today for an important announcement on the prevention of elder abuse were Joe Scaletta, a board member with the B.C. Association of Community Response Networks; Martha Jane Lewis, executive director of the B.C. Centre for Elder Advocacy; and Susan Brice, representative for the Victoria Silver Threads and a district councillor for the Saanich municipality. Would the House please make them all welcome.

M. Elmore: I'd like to welcome students and teachers from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington. They're here — a number of social studies classes. They're accompanied by their vice-principal, Jim Rutley; social studies teachers Autumn Lum and Bonnie Burnell; and also volunteers Dan Kramer, Leyla O'Shea, Christina O'Neil, Katherine Olson; and a student teacher, Adam Melnyk. I would ask everyone to please make them welcome.

[1345]

Hon. P. Bell: A couple of misses in the gallery still. From the Guide Outfitters Association, I should say Mark Werner is a constituent of mine in Prince George. It's an honour. I have three constituents in the precincts today. In addition, Michael Schneider has not yet been introduced. Michael is from Prince George, a constituent and a member of the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C.

Also joining us earlier on today from the BACs, but missed in the earlier introductions, is Her Worship Mayor Stephanie Killam from the district of Mackenzie. Would the House please make all of those folks very welcome.

J. Horgan: Also joining us in the gallery today is the former chair of the school district 63 board of education — MaryLynne Rimer. She's a good friend of mine, and I know she's going to enjoy question period today.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have a delegation of six leaders from China's Hubei province, the federation of overseas Chinese, led by Lepei Li Pung and Lau Lin Yun. They are accompanied by David Choi, national chair of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians. Mr. Li is a former Hubei province CPPCC member and director of its external affairs.

Hubei is a province of national strategic importance in central China with a population of 61 million. Its GDP is increasing from $250 billion in 2011 to a target of $400 billion in 2015. Hubei is experiencing over 10 percent annual economic growth. Like B.C., it's strategic in the intermodal transportation hub and an ever-rising regional economic force. Hubei also marked the start of Dr. Sun Yat-sen's national revolution.

Would the House please join me in giving the delegates a warm welcome over there.
[ Page 13333 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS
IN CARIBOO AREA

D. Barnett: Today I am paying tribute to the volunteer firefighters in my riding. There are 18 fire departments in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, two of which have full-time paid chiefs. Most of the others are volunteers. These men and women are professionals in other fields, who work steady. Most have families and give their time helping others, whether a fire, a rescue, a community parade or raising funds to buy equipment for their departments.

Emergency events do not distinguish between career or volunteer responders, and training for both is very similar. Firefighting can be a very dangerous occupation, whether as a volunteer or a professional. Firefighters take a major risk every time they enter a burning building or other dangerous situations where they are needed.

Sometimes their willingness to put themselves on the line in order to help others can even cost them their lives. It takes a very special person to do this. In my riding, since 1999, there have been three fallen firefighters in the line of duty. To all the volunteer firefighters and their families: thank you.

BRIDGES FOR WOMEN SOCIETY

C. James: The five mothers who founded Bridges for Women Society 25 years ago were determined to create an environment where women felt safe enough to take on the challenges of changing their lives, realizing their dreams and claiming their rightful places in society. Their foresight and courage built the foundation into a place of transformation, healing and love. The society's employment training and support programs help women impacted by violence, abuse, trauma and neglect to reclaim their lives.

Each year Bridges for Women provides services to more than 500 women through classroom programs, counselling and coaching sessions and its innovative on-line programs for women. Today the legacy of their work runs deep through our community, in the lives of women and families who have been profoundly touched and changed.

[1350]

These amazing women have rediscovered their self-worth and value, and they are living healthier, safer and more fulfilling days. All are leaders themselves now, paying forward with gratitude all that was given to them. In the words of one Bridges graduate: "I learned I did deserve an education, a good job and mutually respectful relationships." Another said: "The spectrum of experiences I have learned began with trauma and ended with self-definition of being an educated woman."

I'd like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Bridges for Women Society on its 25th anniversary. As we mark International Women's Day this Friday, it's a particularly fitting time to acknowledge the exceptional contributions of the inspiring women at the society. I'm so grateful for their years of service and dedication to our community and for making such a difference in the lives of so many women and so many families. On behalf of all of us, I offer them congratulations on their 25th anniversary.

AGING AND SOCIETY

G. Hogg: Statisticians now tell us that our life expectancy is rising by about five hours per day or nearly three months each year — not for all of us. This is a startling statistic and one that is set to transform everything from employment to welfare and the norms of family life. Our traditional assumptions about aging and getting older are fundamentally flawed. Moving beyond chronology as a way of understanding age will be a key shift as we move to an older society, and we need to innovate to enable us to adapt to the aging population, including re-creating our social institutions and creating new ways for us to care for each other, to help each other, to harness the opportunities of an aging society and enable us all to age better.

We are all aging, but not in the same way. Our socioeconomic status is a stronger determinant of how we age than our chronological age, and understanding the diversity and dynamics of aging is vital to the innovation needed to successfully transition to an older society.

There is a gap between our current approaches to aging and what people say they want. Research in what older people want and the factors contributing to their lives suggest a vision that includes having a purpose, having a sense of well-being and feeling at home and connected with others — not a surprise, and not at variance with what most people want throughout their whole life.

Our life expectancy is rising by five hours today. May we use some of those to focus on the factors and needs of our future — a future of an aging society that requires new perspectives, new thinking and new approaches.

CENTENNIAL OF PORT COQUITLAM

M. Farnworth: It's with great pride that I rise in the House today to speak about an event of great significance to me in the community where I live and grew up. That is, tomorrow will be the centennial of the city of Port Coquitlam in British Columbia. The land where Port Coquitlam now sits was the traditional territory and still is the traditional territory of the Kwikwetlem Nation, which has been there since time immemorial. In the mid-1800s, with the coming of settlements on the coast of British Columbia, it was explored by Colonel Moody and was, for a brief time, considered to be almost a good location for the first capital of British Columbia. Oh, what
[ Page 13334 ]
might have been.

But with the coming of the CPR and the creation of the spur line to New Westminster, a community called Westminster Junction grew up, and industrial activity took place. In 1913 the community separated at that time from the district of Coquitlam, with the reeve of Coquitlam becoming the first mayor of Port Coquitlam — one James Mars.

Since that time, Port Coquitlam has grown from an agricultural-industrial community of around 1,200 people to the community of some 55,000 today. The railway is still an important part of that, as are many of the families that helped to found Port Coquitlam — names like Gillespies and Wingroves and, in fact, Routleys, one of whose descendants sits in this House today.

Some interesting facts about Port Coquitlam. The first woman alderman in British Columbia to be elected to local government was from Port Coquitlam, in 1934. Her name was Jane Kilmer. She served for 34 years. We're the hometown of Terry Fox, Canada's greatest hero. We're also the home where the first NDP Premier of British Columbia, Dave Barrett, resided — not East Vancouver, but Port Coquitlam.

Some other interesting facts. What community in the Lower Mainland has the greatest park space of anywhere in Metro? Port Coquitlam. Join me in wishing Port Coquitlam a happy centennial.

[1355]

WORK AND PHILANTHROPY OF BUSINESS
LEADERS JOE SEGAL AND PETER LEGGE

H. Bloy: It is my pleasure to pay tribute today to two successful British Columbians who work tirelessly to give back to their community.

Joe Segal. Joe is a legend in British Columbia, known for his real estate ventures and sole ownership of such stores as Fields, Zellers and the Bay. Joe has built a far-reaching empire. His generosity is well known. Many organizations have benefited from his guidance and his ability as a leader and a fundraiser. At 87, Joe still goes to work every day with a smile on his face.

Peter Legge is co-founder of Canada Wide Media, the largest privately owned magazine publishing company in western Canada. He is internationally renowned as a motivational speaker and a best-selling author whose success is matched only by his philanthropy. Peter has served as co-host of the Variety Club telethon, the children's charity, for the past 30 years. In that time he has helped to raise more than $150 million towards the cause. But what sets these two men apart is not their success but that they have used their success to give back.

In 2002 Peter suffered a stroke during a speech to the American Mental Health Association. His experience led him to volunteer even more time with the Heart and Stroke Foundation, encouraging men to take control of their health and pay attention to the warning signs.

The same with Joe. He suffered a stroke in 2009. In 2010 he and his wife, Rosalie, donated $12 million to Vancouver General Hospital and the UBC Hospital Foundation — one of the biggest personal donations ever in the history of British Columbia.

These two men measure success not by wealth but by the ability to inspire, encourage and help others. I ask the House to join me in thanking them for everything they've done for British Columbia.

SEABIRD COLLEGE

G. O'Mahony: British Columbia is facing a skills shortage. Roughly 80 percent of all jobs in the next five to ten years will require some form of post-secondary education. Seabird College is an example of how one creative First Nations community in the Chilliwack-Hope riding is preparing to meet the challenge of skills training and literacy by offering the B.C. adult Dogwood along with trade or vocational training.

It began first as a vision. In 1971 Chief Archie Charles envisioned local education, from kindergarten to college, available right within the community of Seabird Island. These houses of learning would be a place where students could receive their education, taught from a Stó:lô value perspective. It was an ambitious dream, but in 2009, under the leadership of Chief Clem Seymour, Seabird College officially opened. It was considered the greatest goal of band manager Daryl McNeil and council.

Today there are roughly 198 full-time students enrolled in 16 different programs. I had the honour of attending the graduation ceremony class of 2012, and I'll never forget the testimony of one young man who completed his grade 12 in a pipe-laying program. He recalled how he felt going into the program, racked with a sense of dread that he would not be able to complete the course work, especially the math.

This young man was jubilant as he recalled, with genuine gratitude, how with the assistance of his instructors and support staff he was able to attain his goal. In fact, he was guaranteed employment even before completing his course work. Seabird College had given him the tools to do just that. But his story and the countless others were more than simple acceptance speeches. What is happening at Seabird College is a life-transforming experience.

I raise my hands to Chief Clem Seymour; the leadership of Diane Janzen, Diane Parkinson and Daryl McNeil; the council; the education and college committee; the instructors; and the students.
[ Page 13335 ]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS
REGARDING WOOD INNOVATION CENTRE
BIDDING PROCESS

N. Macdonald: Last week the opposition raised questions in the House related to a complaint by two Prince George business owners about the actions of two ministers in the assembly of property for the wood innovation and design centre. Now, the government asserted at the time that the fairness adviser had exonerated the two ministers of any wrongdoing, but British Columbians are going to need proof to back up that assertion.

[1400]

The question for the Justice Minister is this. Will she release today the full report of the fairness adviser, including all records and correspondence between the government, the complainants and all other interested parties?

Hon. P. Bell: I was clear about this answer last week. I'll repeat it for the member opposite. All documents will be released when the contract is awarded. I'm led to believe by the project board that that will be in the next week or two.

I do have a letter from the fairness adviser that articulates, I think, the answer to the member opposite's question. The fairness adviser refers to the letter to her regarding the procurement process for the wood innovation and design centre, including the allegations that there were promises made. In the letter it says: "I reviewed the matter and subsequently reported to the project board that I was satisfied the evaluation process had not been compromised and that the WIDC procurement had been handled appropriately to date."

The remainder of the materials, of course, will be released, as I said, when the contract's awarded.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Clearly, selectively reading elements out of the report is not going to be satisfactory in any way. The allegations are incredibly serious.

I'll just read what one of the local business people said, and this is on the record. It's a direct quote here, speaking about the Jobs Minister. "The Jobs Minister committed to me that if I would do that, purchase the land off Dan McLaren, that he would make sure we got shortlisted, and then you could have what they call an alternative method in the bid. He absolutely promised me that he would get me shortlisted."

There have been eight days since the allegations were published in the media. What steps has the Justice Minister taken to investigate what are very serious charges?

Hon. P. Bell: Again, I answered that question last week. Those allegations are false. If the member would like to repeat those allegations outside of this House, I would encourage him to do so.

D. Donaldson: These are serious allegations, and they're public allegations. They are, in fact, the allegations of a longtime B.C. Liberal donor and well-established northern business owner. This business owner said the Jobs Minister was eventually….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: This business owner said the Jobs Minister was eventually apologetic but that he would continue to try to make the deal work in his donor's favour. "He tried to amend Partnerships B.C. proposal structure, for sure," the business owner alleges. Another quote: "He had his fingers way too close into it." It's simply not good enough for the Liberal government to ignore these very serious allegations.

Again, to the Justice Minister, what steps has she taken to address the allegations of impropriety by the Jobs Minister?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm certain that the member opposite will have an opportunity to answer this question in his supplemental. I would just ask the member opposite if he would confirm whether or not Mr. Fehr, who is the individual that he's referring to, has made a significant donation to the NDP in the last 12 or 13 months through either himself or one of his companies.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: While this is question period, we're asking the questions. If the minister waits long enough, he'll get his chance on this side to ask questions.

Last week the Jobs Minister claimed that he was….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: Last week the Jobs Minister claimed that he was completely hands-off from the decision-making and the land deal at the heart of these allegations. Yet the public record showed something different.

[1405]

A briefing note for decision prepared by the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, Janine North,
[ Page 13336 ]
says that both the Jobs Minister and the Justice Minister were part of discussions about the location of the wood innovation and design centre.

Ms. North said: "I have had discussions during September 2009 with the Minister of Forests and Range, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and the vice-chair of the Treasury Board, who have all clearly articulated the strong interest of having UNBC's wood innovation and design centre located in downtown Prince George." She then adds: "The government is aware of the land assembly opportunity."

Now, given the discrepancy between what the Jobs Minister says and what is on the public record from the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, what is the Justice Minister doing to investigate these ongoing allegations?

Hon. P. Bell: I challenged the member opposite to disclose whether or not Mr. Fehr, through any of his companies, had made a significant donation to the NDP.

Perhaps the member doesn't know that last February, February of 2012, Mr. Fehr, through one of his companies, wrote a cheque to the NDP for $50,000. Perhaps the member opposite doesn't know that Mr. Fehr had one of his employees go and pick up the Leader of the Opposition, show him around Prince George for a day and helped to start organize the NDP campaign in Prince George. Perhaps the member opposite doesn't know that this is the same Mr. Fehr that has been attending and helped organize different events for the NDP throughout Prince George and in the forestry industry.

This member refuses to repeat the allegations outside the chamber that he has raised inside the chamber. I'd encourage him, if he has the conviction of his beliefs, to do that outside.

M. Karagianis: These are very serious allegations against a minister of the Crown.

That briefing note for decision was a well-considered document drafted by the CEO of a trust that is now under the purview of that minister. It was presented to the board of the Northern Development Initiative Trust by Ms. North, the CEO.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat.

Continue, Member.

M. Karagianis: The note was presented to the board of the Northern Development Initiative Trust by Ms. North, the CEO. Her purpose was to convince the board to lend a considerable amount of money to Commonwealth Campus for a public project.

After clearly saying that the Jobs Minister and the Justice Minister had thrown their political weight behind a specific purchase of land, she made the recommendation that "a term sheet be developed to enable Northern Initiative Development Trust to provide a secured loan to the Commonwealth Campus Corp." The term sheet would be subject to a Treasury Board decision which approved sufficient capital budget for the construction of the wood innovation centre.

Again, to the Justice Minister. This contradicts what the Jobs Minister has been saying and supports the allegations made by two Prince George developers. So what steps is the Justice Minister taking to get to the bottom of these allegations?

Hon. P. Bell: It's interesting to me that one of the individuals that's making the allegations has donated a significant amount of money to the NDP about a year ago. Of course, we don't have any more current records than that, so it would be interesting to see what additional donations have been made by these parties to the opposition during that point in time. It certainly brings into question, for me, what is going on here.

I know that research doesn't fall in the long suit of the opposition, but I would like to raise something for the member opposite that would be readily available, actually, on the racks over in the corner. It's the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act that was passed in this House. I actually think members on both sides supported it when it went through.

[1410]

If the members check section 2, they will note that the responsibility of the Northern Development Initiative Trust is to establish regional advisory committees. Who sits on those regional advisory committees? All of the mayors of each of the municipalities within the region that have a population greater than 500; the chairs of the regional district that is, in part or in whole, within the region; and Members of the Legislative Assembly.

It is our responsibility to advise Northern Development Initiative Trust, not to make the decisions — to advise. That's exactly what that note says. Of course we would be advocating for projects in our community. That's our responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Earlier this week we learned that the Jobs Minister and the former Finance Minister met with the mayor of Prince George and the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust in the spring of 2012. They met to discuss the wood innovation centre.

But the mayor of Prince George, Shari Green, is on the record as saying that the Jobs Minister, after all of the encouragement to assemble this land and encouragement for these developers to make their submission, suggested that the Northern Development Initiative Trust, after
[ Page 13337 ]
having loaned them the money, foreclose on the loan to Mr. McLaren — a loan assured by the lands involved in the wood innovation centre.

Six months later, and quite suddenly, the trust did exactly that. Now these two business owners are out hundreds of thousands of dollars and are alleging impropriety at the hands of the Jobs Minister.

So to the Justice Minister: these are very serious allegations — not to be taken lightly, not to be brushed off by the Jobs Minister. What is the Justice Minister doing to get to the bottom of these allegations?

Hon. P. Bell: If the member opposite were to read the entire clip that she just referred to, she would note that the mayor of Prince George noted that she thought I was speaking in jest and that I was not serious when I suggested that. That's actually what the full clip says.

But I would point out to the member opposite — and again, I'm happy to provide a copy of the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act for her if she is unable to source that document — that subsection 5(3) of the act says: "The Northern Development Initiative Trust is not an agent of the government."

Decisions are made by the board. It is the responsibility of local MLAs, local mayors and local regional district chairs to advise the board on good projects. We do exactly that. I'm sure the member opposite would do that if she had that opportunity as well.

CORRESPONDENCE FROM NORTHERN
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE TRUST
TO JOBS MINISTER

J. Horgan: Will the Jobs Minister advise this House if he received correspondence in March of 2010 from the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't know what correspondence the member is referring to. I'll take that question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental, but different.

JOBS MINISTER'S INTERACTION
WITH NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
INITIATIVE TRUST

J. Horgan: The minister was referring to sections of the act whereby the advisory committees offer advice. I have a document signed by Janine North, the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, that says as follows: "We have acted as the lender, financing 75 percent of the property acquisition costs of the following lots at the request of the two local ministers of the Crown and the interest expressed by the mayor and council of the city of Prince George."

My question is to the minister. When does requesting by the person who appoints the CEO or person who appoints the board…? When does that request become coercion? Will he answer that question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite usually comes better prepared for question period than he has today, clearly. I think that he has just crossed a line, and that is an interesting comment would it be made outside the House.

Clearly, the member opposite just read something, and I don't have a copy of that document in front of me. I don't know what he's referring to. But I recall him saying in his words that the mayor and council of Prince George were also involved in that.

[1415]

Northern Development Initiative Trust is an independent body. The province of British Columbia appoints five of 13 members to that board. The board is controlled by mayors throughout the Northern Development Initiative Trust area, not by this provincial government. That's the way it was set up in the first place. The Auditor General has continued to confirm that this is an arm's-length organization. They make decisions on their own. The member opposite should do his homework.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO
WOOD INNOVATION CENTRE
BIDDING PROCESS

J. Horgan: Now, serious allegations have been swirling around the wood innovation and design centre in Prince George — serious allegations. The document prepared by the CEO of the Northern Trust says that moneys were lent — public moneys were lent — to private individuals to assemble land at the request of the Minister of Jobs and the Attorney General.

Clearly, the Attorney General can't investigate herself. My question is to the Premier. Isn't it past time that an independent body is appointed to investigate the scandal swirling around the wood innovation and design centre? Isn't it about time?

Hon. P. Bell: You know, in about 14 or so minutes, maybe 15, that member opposite is going to have a chance to walk through those doors and make that same statement outside. That would be outside the protection that is offered to that member when he's inside this House.

You know what? There was actually an interesting interview by a gentleman who is a reporter in Prince George to-
[ Page 13338 ]
day, who has actually been on this file since last November. The member opposite should read the transcript. You know what it says, Mr. Speaker? They've dug as deep as they can on this, and there's nothing there. It's that simple. If the member opposite has any evidence, any evidence to the contrary, I'd encourage him to step outside and provide that evidence publicly.

L. Krog: It's most interesting. Now the standard of public inquiry in this province has devolved down to investigative reporters being relied on to give proof of allegations to the people of British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, these allegations are not allegations made by the opposition pulled out of thin air. These are serious allegations made in written submissions to the fairness adviser and corroborated by statements on the public record and written documents by public officials. When such serious allegations are made, and when they're levied against cabinet ministers, it's vital — I would trust and hope — and clear to all that the public interest be protected. That requires that the Attorney General get to the bottom of it.

Will the Attorney General, in her role today, commit to a thorough independent investigation to get to the bottom of the allegations around the wood innovation and design centre and land assembly?

Hon. P. Bell: I find it a little tough to take from a member from Nanaimo, the only party in this House that actually has had an organized kickback scheme from charities to help fund their political party — to make such accusations, particularly for the member for Nanaimo to raise that.

Ms. Shackell has thoroughly reviewed this matter. She'll be releasing her full report. I've already read into the record the key comments she's made to the board that is carrying this project forward. The decisions are being made independently at arm's length from me. It's going to be a great project. It's going to advance wood technologies in British Columbia. It's a long time coming, and it's going to really yield benefits for British Columbians well into the future.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: If the minister has any allegations to make about my association, or lack thereof, with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, let him take it outside.

We've heard denials from ministers of the Crown, but they fly in the face of what's on the public record. Ms. Shackell herself indicated she had no jurisdiction to investigate. The minister is suggesting an investigative reporter has some jurisdiction to investigate.

[1420]

So the issue becomes very much one of public trust. The only way you can ensure that trust is if there's an investigation.

I would remind the Attorney General that she sits at a cabinet table enjoying a very important role, a dual role. She is not just a member of cabinet. She is the Attorney General. It's a tough call for her to make, but I'm suggesting to her today what the appropriate thing to do is: to advise the House that she's going to order an independent investigation into this matter and clear the air once and for all. If this government has nothing to hide, then let it be investigated appropriately.

Hon. P. Bell: You know, it's interesting to me that that member would ask this question for a couple of reasons. One is that he's from Nanaimo, but the other is that he actually sits on one of the advisory boards, for the Island Coastal Economic Trust. I bet that he has gone and advocated for projects to that particular trust in his community. I am almost certain of that. Perhaps the member opposite could tell us what projects he has been advocating for in his community.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat, Member.

Burnaby–Deer Lake.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CLOSING OF
KITSILANO COAST GUARD STATION

K. Corrigan: This morning we woke up to news of a near tragedy in the waters off Point Grey. At 5:15 a.m. a mayday call came in from a fishing boat, and two men were rescued. This is just days after another near miss when a sailboat ran aground off Jericho Beach with two people on board.

When the Kitsilano Coast Guard station was suddenly closed just over two weeks ago, the Premier told us that she would fight to save it. On February 20 she told media: "If you think the fight is over, it ain't over." Well, the Coast Guard signs are now gone, and the dock has been hauled away.

We know that the Premier intended to press the federal government on this issue. We heard that the Attorney General would write a strongly worded letter and that the Premier intended to make phone calls. Will the Premier tell us: what were the results of this action?

Hon. S. Bond: Thankfully, today there was a fortunate response. In fact, the two individuals that were potentially at risk were actually rescued, and I'm grateful to the men and women who helped participate in that.

Both the Premier and I have been very clear about the role that we've taken. Not only have we written specific letters about this issue over the past number of months, but in fact in the last week or so I spoke directly with Minister Ashfield and laid out very clearly British Columbia's concerns. The Premier has also had contact
[ Page 13339 ]
directly with the federal government. We've been clear about this, along with the non-partisan reaction that has taken place across British Columbia. It is unacceptable. This is a matter of public safety, and we continue to urge the federal government to change their position.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Last May this government turned down an offer from the official opposition leader to protest the federal government's Coast Guard cuts through a unified strategy between our parties. We proposed a motion of support, a joint committee and a trip to Ottawa presenting a united front. This government turned us down flat.

When a strong bipartisan action was required, this government played politics. Will the Premier please tell us why she turned down an offer of support from other elected representatives on an issue that is so vitally important to British Columbians?

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: Perhaps the member opposite hasn't heard my clips in the media. In every single interview that I do, I point out that this is not a partisan issue. So while the member opposite may want to be hung up on the fact that she wasn't invited to go to Ottawa, I went to Ottawa on more than one occasion, spoke directly to the Minister of Public Safety and Minister Ashfield. The Premier of British Columbia has actually had meetings and phone calls. In every one of those discussions I pointed out that, in fact, this was a non-partisan issue, that we've had politicians of virtually every political stripe, including mayors and MLAs and others, stand up and say: "Not acceptable."

We actually understand the importance of making very difficult budget decisions. We've just gone through a process. But we've made it clear that when it's a matter of public safety, that's not acceptable, and we have asked the federal government to change their position.

M. Farnworth: Well, the minister actually made a very interesting point, and that was budget decisions. The federal government said that they are closing the Coast Guard station for budgetary reasons, to "save money."

Well, since that decision, we have now learned that the oil spill response boat that was based at the Kits Coast Guard station, which fitted at the Kits Coast Guard station, will not fit at the new Sea Island base where it's supposed to be based. The federal government says, "Oh, we're doing it to save money," but now we find out that the boat won't fit at the Sea Island base, so they're going to have to spend money to extend the dock so that the oil spill response boat can fit there.

What kind of budgetary saving is that? They're closing it down to save money, and they're going to have to spend more money to make the boat fit. Never mind, never mind….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I find it really interesting that I'm not criticizing the minister, yet they want to heckle because I'm pointing out the stupidity of the federal government's decision.

So, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat for a second, Member.

Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: The member says: "Calm down." Well, this kind of waste does make people's blood boil. It certainly got the public of British Columbia upset, and it should get every member of this chamber upset.

Given that it does not make sense to shut the Coast Guard station down to "save money" and then have to spend money to renovate the Sea Island base, will the minister not recognize that now, more than ever, is the time to put together a bipartisan approach to let Ottawa know, in no uncertain terms, how their decision to cut the Coast Guard station, to close it, does not make sense, budgetary or otherwise?

Hon. S. Bond: It's rare that we have heated agreement in this Legislature. I think that's exactly what we have.

We have made it clear and, as I've said in my previous answers, at no time did I stand or discuss with ministers this issue without reflecting the fact that it is a non-partisan issue — that leaders across this province have said clearly that it is unacceptable — and that we need to urge the federal government today to consider looking at this decision.

The only thing that I'm worried about is the fact that that sounded like a question that would be far better asked in the federal parliament. I'm wondering if the member opposite has other career aspirations he hasn't let his colleagues know about.

[1430]

[End of question period.]

K. Conroy: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

K. Conroy: I have a petition from over 2,000 residents requesting the House pass legislation that mandates seniors in care facilities in the province must be checked on and accounted for on a daily basis.
[ Page 13340 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the following reports: the Crown Proceeding Act report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012; the Public Guardian and Trustee of B.C. Annual Report 2011-2012; the B.C. Utilities Commission 2011-2012 Annual Report; and the annual report of the Environmental Appeal Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 13, to be followed in due course by committee stage on Bill 5.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2013

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 13 be read a second time now.

Existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31 of 2013. Bill 13 will provide interim supply until the completion of the 2013 election and the formation of a post-election government.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations is based on the voted expenses as presented in the 2013-14 estimates. The interim supply period for these appropriations has been set at six months. This will ensure the continuation of government services until after the election and gives the government the full range of time contemplated in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act for preparation and tabling of a post-election budget.

Interim supply for financing transaction requirements is based on two-thirds of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the 2013-14 estimates. These disbursements are not evenly distributed throughout the year. Additional appropriation is required to accommodate project timing.

Schedule E of the 2013-14 estimates outlines the revenue collected for and transferred to other entities. As there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt resulting from schedule E financing transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought in this supply bill.

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities outlined in the 2013-14 estimates. They are not outside the scrutiny of Committee of Supply. The final supply bill for 2013-14 to be passed by the next Legislature will incorporate these amounts to ensure the estimates reflect the total voted appropriation to be given to the government in 2013-14.

Those are my remarks at this stage.

B. Ralston: I rise briefly to speak to the bill, to just make the following comments. Section 1 authorizes the expenditure of six-twelfths of the total amount of the main estimates, which, by my rough calculation, takes the expenditure to the last week of September 2013. That is in accordance with the practice that has evolved here in the previous elections in 2005 and 2009.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules says: "Interim supply provides the government with money to meet its obligations during the time before the main estimates are approved." It's also clear in parliamentary practice that "approval of interim supply does not authorize spending by the government on new programs. It only authorizes spending in accordance with the main estimates."

[1435]

Perhaps the only further point I would note is that the minister has made reference, quite properly, to section 2. It refers to capital expenditures. He referred, perhaps somewhat obliquely, to timing. This authorizes two-thirds of the total voted amounts, and that is to accommodate construction. Typically, construction in British Columbia would begin in the late spring and be going full tilt in the summer and perhaps being completed in the fall. But relatively few construction projects would be initiated in the winter. So that's designed to accommodate the construction schedule of capital projects that the government intends to proceed with.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Just for those members of the public who may be concerned, our support for this bill does not mean that in any way we support the budget. This is simply the legislative and statutory mechanism to continue government spending until the Legislature has an opportunity to consider the estimates in their entirety. Given the election timing, that will only take place after the election takes place and a new Legislature is contemplated.

With those brief remarks, I would conclude my comments.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister….

B. Simpson: No, I'm going to speak.

My humble apologies to the Speaker. I was on a teleconference with a silviculture conference in Kamloops, and we were watching to see when this debate would come up. I thank you for your indulgence.

I want to thank the government that we have a six-month interim supply. I know that there was some debate as to whether that would be three months, four months, five months or six months. It is six months, as it ought to be.
[ Page 13341 ]

For people who aren't aware of what that means, it means that after the election whoever forms government gets a six-month period of time to revisit the budget, to allow MLAs to settle in — we're going to have a lot of new faces and a lot of new people in this chamber — and to allow ministers to get their heads around their portfolios.

The idea of going to three months' interim supply didn't even advantage the government, because they might even actually have half of their cabinet who were new who would have to defend service plans that they'd just got dumped on their desks. Having three-month interim supply would also have meant that if there is a change in government there would have had to be special warrants, which would have got that government off on the wrong foot.

After the 2005 election the government reconvened September 12, and I would imagine that's around the time that we're going to do that now. In 2005 it was a six-month interim supply. In 2009 the government reconvened the Legislature August 29, so again, it does give that time.

I believe that what interim supply in this case means is that we need to understand clearly the problems associated with a fixed spring election date. I want to take some time here — to give notice to the Speaker — to talk about why we need to change that date. It's because with interim supply we trigger two things: No. 1, the budget triggers cynicism, and No. 2, the interim supply triggers uncertainty in government.

That uncertainty in government is patently unfair to the ministries that depend on government for a budget and for a budget cycle that occurs every four years the same way, that gives the government — government ministries, agencies that depend on government financing — a budget, gives them what they need in the way of certainty of their operating. If we continue on this vein, if we continue to have these fixed election dates in the spring, it means every four years we build in this uncertainty to the provincial government functions. We build in this uncertainty to the workings of not-for-profit organizations and trust funds, etc. that depend on government for their base funding.

[1440]

We also create, if you will, a hiatus in government. And in this case, that hiatus is fundamentally different than what the government has experienced before.

I would argue that in 2005 we had a situation where the government was expected to be the same governing party. In 2009 the expected government, the most likely outcome, was the same governing party. So at a minimum, governing agencies could determine what their budgets might be based on the budget that was tabled prior to the election.

In this case, that's simply not the case. The government agencies and dependent organizations don't have a clue what the budget is going to be. As of the end of the fiscal year, March 31, there will be no sense on the part of ministries what their go-forward budget is, other than the minimum operating that they've got, which this bill allows us to do.

It allows us to keep the minimum operations of government going. It allows us to give them the ability to pay their employees. It allows them to do things that they've committed to do. But what it doesn't allow are those entities to understand what any of the strategic initiatives might be, where there's strategic funding.

As a classic example, the Minister of FLNRO has indicated a certain amount of money is going to be put to inventory work. That's a laudable promise. But in this budget will that inventory work actually commence or not, because now we're just going to be living on interim finance for six months?

What is it, if we are going to change government, that the NDP would do with that file? Would they dramatically change that? Would they increase it? Would they decline it? We need inventory work done now, so we need a budget passed now — not having to have government live on interim supply.

Every year that we have a budget we get interim supply. I want the audience or whoever is reading this to understand that interim supply is a normal function of government.

When you get a non–election year budget, the government introduces a three-month interim supply. That three-month interim supply allows us to operate past March 31 — for April, May and June. The reason for that is that this Legislature is sitting, this Legislature is debating the budget, and this Legislature acts on the basis that the budget tabled will in fact be passed. That's fundamentally different than what's happening now.

When we have a normal budget cycle, we are in a situation where the signals have already been given. The work of Treasury Board, the work with all of those ministries is all incorporated into the budget. The leaders of those various ministries — the deputy ministers, the assistant deputy ministers — can signal to their employees out in the field and in their various offices what it's going to look like.

In this case, they can't do that. At the end of the budget cycle in a normal budget year, when we pass the budget at the end of May, there's a period of time when we operate under interim finance, and then letters go out. Spending authority letters go out to the various ministries, and the various initiatives and the promises made in the budget start to get action.

In a fixed–election year budget — so this year — that doesn't happen. For six months now post–March 31, from April through until September, government agencies are going to be in the unenviable position of not knowing what it is they're supposed to be doing other than deliver basic government services.

I've heard field officers, conservation officers, told
[ Page 13342 ]
to stay in their office and Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations compliance and enforcement officers, "Stay in your office," because they don't know what the budgets are. They don't know what it is they're going to do.

What you get into is a cost management. You start reducing the costs of all of those operations in order to wait it out, if you will.

This year we're going to wait it out, and we have an untenable situation in which the opposition party hasn't even tabled what their intentions are. This interim finance bill gets passed, as it should — and, correctly, for six months. But at the end of passing the bill at the end of this session, we are then going to institute six months of uncertainty — deep, deep uncertainty.

[1445]

What we have indicated as independents, as part of a six-point democratic reform agenda that we have put forward, is that we have a unique opportunity right now. It is very unique.

We have a government that proved it could not, even by spending $25,000 of taxpayer money to get an independent economic assessment of their budget, move the public cynicism of that budget forward at all. They couldn't do it. It didn't move the dial. People don't believe this is a real budget. We're compounding that now with the uncertainty in government.

We think we have an ideal opportunity. If we change the election date now…. We could do it in five minutes if the government was so inclined and if MLAs were so inclined. Today we sent out a challenge to MLAs, asking them to work within their caucuses to make this change now.

What would happen is we would bring a bill into this House — the government can bring that bill in — introduce it, and by leave of this House we can do all three readings in one time. In five minutes we could make the next election date….

I want to clarify this. My staff are having angst right now, because we get hit in Twitter that I want to give the current government a few more months at the helm. That's not the case. This election would still occur on May 14. But the next election would occur the first week of October in 2017. We would fix the problem.

Yes, that means if the current opposition forms government, as some government MLAs have told me, that "the socialist hordes would get an extra eight months of government." But we felt it was fairest, recognizing the tradition in British Columbia of a five-year mandate — up until such time as it was a fixed election, government could sit for a full five years and govern for a full five years — to pull it back to 4½ years, not 3½. We didn't feel that 3½ years was fair if the government does changes hands.

You still end up in a situation where that fourth budget cannot be a pre-election budget. It can't be a budget that doesn't have credibility. It can't be a fake budget, if you will, a promissory note to British Columbians that "If you elect us, you will get this" — which they don't buy.

What it would be is a budget that gets scrutinized, gets passed, gets verified and looked at by two independent officers of the Legislature. Then both parties would go to the election in the fall of 2017 on the basis of that budget. It would stop all of this uncertainty. It would stop feeding this cynicism. Together with the other independent MLAs, we're asking MLAs to assert themselves in their caucuses and ask for the change to be done.

I can pretty much guarantee you that if we don't do it now, the likelihood of it getting done is very diminished post-election. The government party in power will not pass legislation that will appear to be self-serving. Quite frankly, they wouldn't mind going into an election with a pre-election budget in the same circumstances, where they can put forward a promissory note and go to the electorate.

I thank the government that this is a six-month interim supply bill. That's the right thing to do. But let's not have to do this in another election year. Let's allow government to operate every year on a passed budget, on the government actually funding the operations of government more fully.

With that, I thank you again for your indulgence in letting me start today.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the members who contributed to the debate. I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 2013, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Bill 5 committee stage debate, Protected Areas of B.C. Amendment Act.

[1450]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; L. Reid in the chair.
[ Page 13343 ]

The committee met at 2:51 p.m.

D. Donaldson: Hon. Chair, if the committee would indulge me, I'm required elsewhere about the time when section 6 may be considered. So I'd like to move that sections 3 to 5 be stood down to accommodate me in order to enter the debate on the aforementioned section.

If I could move we could stand down on sections 4 and 5 so I can enter the debate on section 6. Then we'll return to section 4 after that.

The Chair: Hon. Members, section 3 carried yesterday.

D. Donaldson: What I'm asking is, if you would indulge me…. I'm required elsewhere when section 6 is coming up. I have asked that we may consider that section now. So I would move that sections 4 and 5 be stood down to accommodate me, and then I'll enter the debate on section 6. Then we'll return to 4 and 5 after that.

The Chair: Is it the wish of the House to move to section 6 for consideration and then return to 4 and 5?

Sections 4 and 5 stood down.

On section 6.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for the indulgence of the House and the members on the other side and the independents. I requested this because section 6 deals with the Hanna-Tintina conservancy, which is entirely within the constituency of Stikine. So I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address this conservancy at this time. This conservancy is 23,702 hectares.

I would like to start by congratulating not only the Ministry of Environment but the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and the Gitanyow, because this conservancy is an integral part of the Gitanyow Huwlip recognition and reconciliation agreement as well as the Nass River south resource management plan. So congratulations to those involved in this conservancy.

I would like to describe one concern, though. The Highway 37 corridor bisects the Hanna-Tintina, and the Gitanyow are very concerned about the potential for wildlife fatalities along that corridor due to the increased industrial traffic along Highway 37. This area was set aside not only due to high salmon values but also high grizzly bear values. There are moose crossing that corridor as well.

[1455]

I note in the budget, under the B.C. Parks section, stewardship activities and compliance and enforcement activities are part of the responsibility here. My question around this particular section is whether there would be…. The budget is flatlined on that part of the responsibilities. I'm wondering if there would be additional resources to ensure that the concerns of the Gitanyow are alleviated around the corridor and the potential for wildlife fatalities.

Hon. T. Lake: The highway itself is not in the park, although it bisects the park, essentially. So the establishment of the park really has no bearing on the road and its industrial use. In other words, if the park wasn't there, that road would still be used and would still run the risk of increased wildlife fatalities due to the increased use due to industrial activity.

However, of course, we will certainly work with the Gitanyow and with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to look at strategies if, in fact, wildlife fatalities do pose a risk. Anywhere in the province where this occurs, and certainly in my part of the province, this is a concern in certain corridors. And there are strategies that are employed by the Ministry of Transportation — reflectors and, at times, fencing.

But you know, we would have to look at those strategies if, in fact, that turned out to be a concern. I'm certainly willing to work with the Gitanyow to address those concerns should they be realized.

D. Donaldson: Thanks for that answer. My other question is in regards to this particular conservancy. This particular section outlines five mineral claims that are excluded from the conservancy. Could the minister inform the House where…? I've looked at the maps a few times. I had them spread out on the floor of the Clerk's office, and they were quite accommodating for that. It wasn't apparent where the mineral claims are in the conservancy. So if the minister could explain where these five mineral claims are and what the nature of the claims are.

The Chair: The member for Surrey-Tynehead seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 50 grade five students visiting from my constituency, from a school, the Surrey Christian Middle School. It is one of the best schools in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They are joined here by their three teachers — Mr. Eric Fernhout, Miss Karina Wiebenga and Ms. Kathleen Janzen — and 20 parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany the students.

Some of these students maybe plan to run for MLA or Member of Parliament or be a Premier or a Prime Minister or a mayor or councillor. Would the House please make them very welcome to learn about the government.
[ Page 13344 ]

Debate Continued

Hon. T. Lake: The mineral tenures in the Hanna-Tintina conservancy are actually not in the conservancy. They've been excluded, so they are on the periphery of the conservancy. In the Ne’āh' conservancy there are five placer claims that will be expropriated. But in the Hanna-Tintina conservancy these existing claims are not included in the boundary of the conservancy.

Section 6 approved on division.

The Chair: Returning to consideration of section 4.

On section 4 (continued).

[1500]

B. Simpson: I want to thank the minister's staff for both the briefing note and them taking some time with me the other morning to walk me through the maps associated with some parks that are going to be new parks, for Cariboo North particularly.

However, as the minister knows, that dialogue wasn't on the public record. There are some things I want to put on the public record. Hence, I will ask some of those questions now.

I guess the struggle that I have is a struggle of communication. It's going to be very interesting when the press release goes out into the Cariboo-Chilcotin — if this bill passes — that 17 new parks are going to be formed and five new class A parks are going to be expanded, when the Timber Supply Committee has just been through the area.

One of the questions that was in that dialogue was: can we lift constraints from the land base? Can we make more of the land base available for timber that is currently constrained? Of course, there was a debate within that committee at one point about whether existing parks would be on the table or not. That had to be clarified. There was some discussion about the possibility of Tweedsmuir being encroached upon in order to get access to more timber.

I wonder if the minister, just at a macro level, could answer the question of why now when we have a lot of issues spinning out there about cumulative impact. We have a lot of issues spinning about the future of the timber supply, the future of the land base. Why now? Why, in the 11th hour of this government, in a short five-week session, are we getting this act and going to be having new parks established in the Quesnel area and throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin — 17 new class A parks and five additions to existing class A parks?

Maybe the minister could just give us a context for why this should be done now when all those questions are out there.

Hon. T. Lake: I want to assure the member that it's not the 11th hour of this government. This is maybe hour 3 of this government.

The Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan was approved in October of 1994. Direction was provided. The goal 2 areas would be identified through further planning at the local level. So this process has been going on for a very long time. Of course, the mandate of the Ministry of Environment and B.C. Parks is to look for opportunities to provide conservation and recreational opportunities throughout British Columbia. That's why these land use management plans are created and, generally speaking, I would say, widely accepted.

In this case, extensive consultation…. First of all, identification of proposed areas was done by the general public, by stakeholder groups and by the ministry. We had evaluations by local, regional protected area teams to determine the regional significance of the natural, cultural or recreational values present, and extensive consultation with First Nations, stakeholder groups and local government.

Establishing these goal 2 areas is integral to maintaining the balance of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan objectives and meeting the expectations of First Nations in treaty negotiations and, of course, speaks to the Auditor General and his recommendations around conservation values through B.C. Parks.

While I appreciate the member's point about the timber supply and the concern with mountain pine beetle and the mid-term timber supply challenges that we face, I would say that we have looked at these areas and made determinations based on recreational values, conservation values. My understanding from talking to staff is that there are not high timber values in the areas that are designated.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments about timber values. As I looked at the area and once I saw the maps…. I know where those areas are. But I think there is a position. I take the minister's point. It's a little presumptive of me about the outcome of the election. Who knows who will form government — whether there will be a fundamental change in circumstances, just now?

[1505]

I think the point that remains is that the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin was very much vested in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use planning process. To say that that was a hot environment is an understatement. I was involved on the periphery, because I was a founding member of the Fraser Basin Management Council and was asked to sit in on a number of the meetings that took place leading up to the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan.

At that time, the mountain pine beetle wasn't on the horizon. At that time, we didn't have the kind of understanding of climate change implications that we have now. At that time, we hadn't experienced some of the catas-
[ Page 13345 ]
trophic fire events that we have now.

And at that time, there was a concern that there was an encroachment on the land base, a significant encroachment on the land base, that would exclude a whole bunch of other values, to the point that I was actually hired as a result of the burning in effigy of Stephen Owen in Williams Lake, when he attempted to present the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan in Williams Lake. I was asked to facilitate the Quesnel version of that and found myself squarely in the hot seat as an independent, neutral facilitator trying to get Mr. Owen his voice to speak to that plan.

Nevertheless, I would argue that plan has taken root. Again, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin can speak to it herself, but it has taken root. There is some ownership of that plan.

But what was uncovered during the timber supply review process — and I'm sure the Minister of FLNRO could speak to this himself — is that people weren't sure what the status of that plan was. So while we have a piece of legislation in front of us just now that is going to attempt to finish that plan off, if you will, to add the additional park areas, there are questions out there about whether the other values, the other protections, the other set-aside areas, the viewscapes, the mineral reserves…. There's a huge issue in the Horsefly area, whether mineral reserve areas are actually open for mineral extraction.

What the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry articulated to the government in advance of the Timber Supply Committee work was that they needed the capacity to go back and visit the plan writ large. Not just the parks, but the entire plan.

Where are we at on actually achieving visual qualities, actually achieving habitat restrictions, actually achieving mineral reserves? Where are we at with all of the values that are there, including the old-growth management zones, some of which are by regulation and some of which the FLNRO staff are free to move.

My question to the minister is…. This is almost 20 years. It's 20 years in the making. It is very close to an election. We didn't have a fall session, so this couldn't be done in the fall session, but we've had a long period of time.

I see nothing in the briefing document that gives me indication that there was something imminent or recent to catalyze this into having to happen now — within the context of not understanding what's happening with the whole Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan writ large.

So my question to the minister is this. Has there been a comprehensive assessment of the status of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan that has been done as a context for completing the parks section of the plan? Do we know what's happened with the rest of the areas that are in that plan? Has it been updated? And does a status report exist in his ministry or in FLNRO about the status of CCLUP?

[1510]

Hon. T. Lake: As the member knows, the Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Ministry is responsible for the land use plans. These goal 2 areas were a recommendation from the land use plan, which the member described and I also described in terms of the extensive consultation that is carried out. The land use plan tries to balance the needs of the area in terms of conservation values, forestry values and mining values. That lens is put on it.

What the member, I think, is getting at is that the plan has taken a long time to get to this stage. The member is, I guess, recommending that we not go forward with this important step of the plan because things have changed in that time — things related to the mountain pine beetle, which can be correlated to climate change. I guess I would say, from a ministry point of view, that to me it's more important than ever that we consider ecological integrity and climate change mitigation when we are looking at land use planning and the way we use the land base across British Columbia.

Rather than start at the beginning again and 20 years later wonder if we're still going to get these parks put in to complete the land use plan — I think that would be seen as a bit frustrating for many people in that area. I guess the member is advocating that we start from square one, and I would argue that the importance of establishing certainty on the land base and providing for the ecological integrity of the area is more important than ever.

B. Simpson: Just as the minister indicated that maybe I was being presumptive of the election outcome, I think the minister is being presumptive of what it is I'm trying to do here. The question I asked the minister is: was he given an update on the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan writ large?

I'm not saying that we go back and start a brand-new table and start a brand-new process. Okay? That's not what I'm saying. But there are lots of questions out there, and they were asked through FLNRO staff. The minister is not wrong about that, but surely we can end this. It's not my responsibility — finger-pointing. That's under FLNRO. It's not me.

If we're going to add parks that are part of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, it seems prudent to me that the question is asked by the minister of a fellow colleague in cabinet: what's the status of the plan writ large? If the minister is arguing that biodiversity protection and certainty on the land base — all of the things that that plan was supposed to achieve — are still important today, I would think that you would want an answer to the question of where we're at with the rest of the plan.

As the briefing document I was provided with…. And as the minister is correctly stating, this is 0.25 percent of the planning land base. It's a small sliver. I've looked at the maps. They aren't major timber-harvesting areas. That's not the issue, and I'll get into some of the questions.
[ Page 13346 ]

The question is, though, that that whole area has massive questions about the status of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan writ large. To make an announcement at this juncture with those questions spinning, with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations managers trying to get resources to revisit the plan writ large and with the Timber Supply Committee having just been through that area saying, "Can we unencumber the land base?" — that's where the struggle will come from. There's a communications part of this.

My question straight-up to the minister was: is he aware — yes or no — of whether we have actually revisited and updated the status of the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan whole?

Hon. T. Lake: As the member acknowledged, this is a very small part of the land base, 0.25 percent, so we're not talking about sterilizing large areas of economic activity — quite the contrary. The member seems to imply that there has been no consultation or no discussion about this process for a long time, when in fact extensive consultation with local communities, stakeholders and First Nations occurred from 2000 right through until 2012, which is fairly recent.

[1515]

Stakeholder consultations occurred on the goal 2 candidate areas through the subregional sustainable resource management plans and through communications at the Cariboo Chilcotin Regional Resource Committee. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations chairs the environment and land use committee, of which I am the vice-chair, and these goal 2 additions were fully discussed at the environment and land use committee, so they've been fully canvassed with the ministry he is referring to.

B. Simpson: I'll answer my own question that I asked the minister. The answer to the question is: no, there hasn't been an update in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan. Quite frankly, that work needs to get done. There has not been that work done.

Let's come to this extensive consultation. The minister is indicating in the briefing, and the briefing note indicates, extensive consultations up through 2012. Have there been any public meetings at all with the maps for these areas?

For example, one of the proposed areas is a bunch of foreshore areas in Quesnel Lake. Has the community of Likely been given that map, has the community of Likely been invited to a town hall meeting to look at those foreshore areas, and has the community of Likely had any input into whether those are the right areas, implications for those areas, whatever? Has there been a meeting in Likely with that map put up on a wall, inviting feedback from the people of Likely?

Hon. T. Lake: The opportunity for the public to provide comment was through local newspaper advertisements in January of 2011. Notices were placed in newspapers — 100 Mile House, Williams Lake and Quesnel. Public comment period was 30 days from the date of publication, until March 14. Maps were available for all those members of the public that wanted to view them — in fact, were mailed out to people who requested.

I can't say whether there was a town hall meeting, if that's what the member is asking, in the town of Likely, but the media in these centres, I believe, cover that region. So the public were notified, and if they wanted more information, including the maps, those were made available.

B. Simpson: This is the same kind of public consultation that's proposed in Bill 8. It's called passive public consultation. Maps are made available. In the case of what we're going to see later on, you don't even have to advertise that it's out there.

One of the things I noted and raised with the minister's staff is that the reference point in the briefing note to where these parks are is all Quesnel and Williams Lake. Yet there are distinct communities where these parks are going to be.

As I noted to staff in the case of Titetown park, which is one of the proposed parks — which we'll get to in a minute because, of course, the Nazko First Nation have questions about that park — there's actually a Cariboo regional district subdivision in the middle of nowhere, Titetown, that I informed your staff is the subdivision that would not evacuate a couple of years ago when there was a fire encroaching on them. The park that is being proposed is directly across from them, and the community of Nazko is right in that area.

I think this has been, even in my riding, a kind of an urban-centric notification-advertisement process that didn't engage the communities at all. I would look forward to working with whoever is in government next to make sure the maps and that are brought out to the appropriate communities — Likely, Beaver Valley, Big Lake, the Nazko, etc. — to show them what the maps are of these new parks, because it will impact all of those communities. I think they also have input — and I'll get into this in a minute — as to the best utilization of that.

So the extensive consultation, as I see it, in the briefing note and in the minister's words, is predominantly either in-house consultation with government staff or some of the sub-regional planning consultation that is going on.

[1520]

There wasn't really the community consultation where these pieces of land are going to be turned into parks, and I think that's a shortcoming of the process. It doesn't mean it can't be fixed and can't be rectified, but it is a shortcoming in the process.

For clarification — and I did go into this with staff —
[ Page 13347 ]
why introduce it in a bill? The government could do this by order-in-council. It could do class A parks by order-in-council. Why introduce it as a bill? What is the twist, if you will — for the public record — that introducing it as a schedule D addition, I believe it is, gets us in the Cariboo a freedom that we wouldn't get otherwise?

Hon. T. Lake: Staff has generously provided me with an explanation of the Byzantine workings of government. There are two ways to establish class A parks. One is through placing the park in a schedule to the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act, and one, as the member mentioned, is by order-in-council under the Park Act.

We are going through the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act in the legislative process here. The reason for that is that the majority of the sites being established in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan's goal 2 process have grazing activity. They're being placed in schedule D of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act so that the enabling provisions of section 30 of the act apply, to allow continuation of those grazing activities. If we were to use the OIC process, those grazing activities would not be allowed to continue.

B. Simpson: I was deliberate in asking the question that way. The same explanation was given to me by staff of why not by order-in-council, why we're doing it this way. Again, just by way of free advice to the minister, the reason I raised it is because I know the biggest push-back we will get in those areas is on whether or not grazing leases have been extinguished.

It would be good if part of the communication really highlights that, because it will save the government a lot of grief in having to deal with questions about whether grazing has been extinguished or not. That's the reason for raising that and getting it on the public record.

The other area…. The minister was asked some questions around mineral claims here. Of course, the Cariboo-Chilcotin region, the Cariboo in particular, has the highest concentration of placer mining in British Columbia. I've already asked some questions in question period about some issues around Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Energy and Mines and the application of the law relative to placer. But my understanding is that in the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan there were areas that were for free mining and that were open for placer along streams, etc.

For the minister: I want to come down to Cariboo North in a minute here, but are any of the parks in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area — any of those 17 new parks and the extension of the five — going to extinguish any mineral claims, or do they encumber or preclude any placer activities that currently are allowed?

Hon. T. Lake: The short answer is no. There are no mineral tenures that are within the boundaries. We've excluded existing mineral tenures from the boundaries of the protected areas. Now, when mineral tenures cease to exist under the Mineral Tenure Act, the province may look to include that land within the boundaries. But at this time if there's an existing tenure, they are not included in the boundaries of the parks. And all of the sites have no-registration reserves under the Mineral Tenure Act in place to prevent additional staking.

[1525]

B. Simpson: Again, this is an area, I think, of communications to that area so that there isn't a big backlash. As the minister is probably well aware, there's hypersensitivity about small claims mining, placer mining in that area. The communications around the establishment of these parks should address that.

With that in mind, I want to be crystal-clear. Again, because I use the public record, I know there was a bit of back-and-forth there between the ministers about me asking questions I already know the answers to — or think I do. It's because I can use the minister's statements to then communicate back to the Cariboo Mining Association or the Cattlemen's Association what they're already going to ask me.

With that in mind, I do need a clarification on placer specifically. Will this encumber or restrict placer over and above any of the freedoms that they have just now? Will it add another portion of the land base that they're restricted from that they might otherwise be able to get to if these parks did not exist?

Hon. T. Lake: I do appreciate, actually, the member's questions and getting it on the record. I also thank him for his advice in terms of counteracting some of the concerns that are unnecessarily raised when something like this occurs. Staff will be certain to include that in our communications around what we're doing here.

To the member's question, the only restriction is that there will be no new staking allowed in the boundaries of the park, but in terms of the existing claims that are on the peripheries of the park, those will be unaffected.

B. Simpson: Just finishing these general questions, has staff or the minister's office had any direct communications with the Cariboo Mining Association or any of the cattlemen's associations in the area where these parks will be established?

Hon. T. Lake: Through the land use planning process, the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations was in contact with organizations representing grazing interests and mining interests. I'm sorry I can't answer whether or not those specific organizations were part of those consultations, but I'm told that organizations representing grazing interests and mining interests were part of the planning process through Forests,
[ Page 13348 ]
Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

B. Simpson: Again, if the minister wants to take us up on it, we have a pretty extensive stakeholders list, so we could help with some of the communications to the smaller organizations.

Often in that area there's a disconnect between the kind of umbrella organizations and the splinter organizations in the South Cariboo area. For example, there's the Cariboo Cattlemen's Association, but there's the Rose Lake Livestock Association, and there's the Horsefly livestock association, etc. Sometimes the communication isn't that clean, so I'd be happy to help with any of the communications forward on this to clarify those two particular points.

By way of a general question, what resources come with class A park designation? The minister knows there are questions out there about whether or not we're putting adequate resources into the existing parks system.

I will say, and for the public record, when I paddled the Bowron Lake this fall on my annual paddle around there with my buddies, I was thrilled to see the new shelters that went in there. They are brilliant; they're gorgeous.

[1530]

I know that that was a significant capital investment in the park and is much appreciated. But I think the minister would also say that things are tight, so I think it's important — for me, at least — to be able to communicate to people what it means when we designate these parks. The general answer to that question is important when we get to things like the new Quesnel Lake park or the Dragon Mountain park. I will have specific questions about that.

Will the class A park designation come with some resources to do some tourism or recreational development on the physical land that's designated as a park?

Hon. T. Lake: I appreciate the member's willingness to assist in communicating with constituents about how the actions of government may affect them. Thank you for that.

As the member mentioned, we've made some tremendous investments in parks throughout British Columbia. The capital program actually received a 27 percent increase in the budget this prior year. That will continue on for future years. The Bowron Lake investment is a good example of that.

I just want to take the opportunity to remind the member that of all the parks and protected areas we have, only 2 percent of those areas actually have a human footprint on them. While we're adding large areas, the actual use on a regular basis by visitors is fairly small.

Having said that, for a class A park, before infrastructure is put into the park there would be a management plan, consulting with the local communities. I believe that around Quesnel Lake area there are five different areas.

There would be consultations to look at what would make sense for high-value recreation areas — where a boat launch may be feasible, where camping sites may be located — versus other areas that would be left for a more conservation-minded approach to the park. That's done through the management plans, which are very much a public process, and we look forward to conducting those for these parks that we're adding.

B. Simpson: Hopefully, in that level of consultation — and I raised this with the staff — the local communities are actually not Quesnel and Williams Lake; they're the local communities, because they're the ones that will give you the best insight.

With that in mind, I'd like to deal with some questions around the specific parks. There are five new parks in the Cariboo North riding. The first one I want to deal with — and I guess I'm dealing with them in alphabetical order, as staff had presented them to me — is the Beaver Valley park. That's a small area that's in what is a chain of streams and lakes.

I just want to be clear, again on the public record, that the Beaver Valley park is not in the proposed Williams Lake and Williams Lake Indian Band community forest that is currently working its way through the process. I see the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations smile with me as we try and stickhandle that thing.

Is that park in the boundaries of the proposed Williams Lake and Williams Lake Indian Band community forest — yes or no?

Hon. T. Lake: No.

B. Simpson: Let's go to the Dragon Mountain park, again for clarification. I had indicated to your staff — and for the minister's edification — that Dragon Mountain is in the viewscape of most of the upper subdivisions in the Quesnel area. It has long been an area of concern for residents.

I was actually involved back in '92-93, I think, as a facilitator for a potential community forest over that area. The dispute around that, even in the preliminary stages, was so hot that we were having a meeting at the local high school and I had so many phone calls going into the meeting that I went into their theatre room and got a World War II flak jacket and helmet to come out and facilitate the meeting.

[1535]

That's just to give you context. That is in everybody's viewscape, and it is a hot area for people's concern. I think the designation of that area is the right area in terms of where that's situated, from looking at the map. The back side of the mountain, I think, is going to be asked for, for a community forest by the city of Quesnel. That's in due process just now. Where it is located, there's not high
[ Page 13349 ]
timber value, and it is the lion's share of the viewscape.

The thing I want to raise for the minister, though, in that case — and I want it on the record — is that that is also a heavy-use mountain bike area already. The road is used to go up to the repeat towers, the cell towers, as the mountain bikers go up there. Previously, they used to go down the back side, so it wouldn't be in the park. But now what they've developed are trails off that road. I'd let the minister speak to the status of the road in the park. That should be clarified on the public record.

And then, what would happen to the trails that are there once this gets a park designation? There is a pretty sophisticated network of mountain bike trails already developed in there. What would happen to those? The minister should know that there's sensitivity in that area because of a situation that occurred in Williams Lake where FLNRO decommissioned a lot of mountain bike trails that a lot of time and energy and community effort had been put into. It caused a huge uproar.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I would hate to see a similar situation occur just because of a park designation here. So could the minister clarify the status of the road and what might happen to those trails once the park designation occurs?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm very well aware of the type of issue the member describes, coming from the mountain-biking capital of the world — Kamloops, British Columbia — where we experience similar clashes between mountain bike use and other use. It can be controversial, for sure.

Just to clarify about the road, the road is not in the park. It's excluded from the park.

In terms of existing trails and how the park would be used, that's where the park management planning process comes in. We would consult with the local community. Of course, mountain biking is a very popular recreational activity that brings a lot of people into parks. Kenna Cartwright Park in Kamloops is one that I'm very familiar with and, I think, in many ways resembles Dragon Mountain park in its use and its viewscapes.

There would be a planning process to look at what activities would be appropriate for the park. High recreational values like mountain biking would be taken into account in that planning process. I'm hopeful that the community would come together with Parks to decide on how those existing trails would be used, if there are other opportunities for mountain biking or if there are areas that should be off-limits to mountain biking to preserve other qualities. But that's very much a consultative process through the planning of the park management plan.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that. I think the minister is right. There is a similarity to the park in the Kamloops area — both viewscape and heavy use. Of course, we know from experience that if mountain bike trails are not done well, they can cause significant erosion. The nature of that land base lends itself to that, so it is absolutely appropriate that planning be done and that some constraints be put on where those trails are built and to what standards.

That's great, but it raises a question. The minister has indicated, twice now, a planning process. What does the minister see as the time frame for when this next level of planning would occur? In the case of Dragon Mountain park, for example, the community would be engaged in the planning for that park. I'm assuming designation occurs after this act becomes law — in which case, then, when do we actually get into some kind of planning process?

[1540]

Hon. T. Lake: There will be sort of a priority to the process of conducting the management plan. Those parks that are closer to population centres, that have a higher use, that have a history, as the member has indicated, of conflict of use, those that may require more capital investment in terms of infrastructure would be higher up the list to get to the management plans earlier. That should be about a six- to 12-month process, starting in early summer.

B. Simpson: For what it's worth, my pitch on the five that we've got in the Quesnel area would be Dragon Mountain and Quesnel Lake — those two. And we'll talk about Quesnel Lake in a minute. The others, I think, would not have the same kind of focus those two would have.

Let's move on to Long Creek park. Staff clarified for me, because that's in the middle of nowhere…. I think it's off a road we call Ditch Road that connects Horsefly and Likely together. My understanding is that it's got a caribou habitat saltlick in that area that I wasn't aware of. So it's kind of interesting that there's a protection there for that.

Let's go to Quesnel Lake park. In both the case of Long Creek park and Quesnel Lake park there are the explicit exclusions of existing mineral titles, and the maps are drawn around that. I think that's going to be helpful to explain that to people. With respect to Quesnel Lake park, as I indicated to staff during the briefing, Quesnel Lake has become a hypersensitive area. That, I think, is important for the minister to understand.

Above Quesnel Lake is the proposed Spanish Mountain Gold. There are a couple of small lakes up there that are potential targets for the tailings ponds, but there is concern about the leachate and the drawdown into Quesnel Lake. Mount Polley has an amendment to their effluent permit that would see some overflow go into a creek that goes into Quesnel Lake.

There is a proposal by an IPP to put forward…. I don't
[ Page 13350 ]
understand what they are talking about, but they would draw out of Quesnel Lake, put water up into the higher lakes and then run it down a tube back through a turbine, back into Quesnel Lake.

As a consequence of all of that activity, there is a hypersensitivity around Quesnel Lake, and I do think the community of Likely needs to be consulted about this as quickly as possible.

There's another reason for that, and that is that Likely is trying to expand its opportunities for tourism. The minister may know there's a class C park — Cedar Creek park — in Likely that is actually managed by the community. So that community has a very good track record of managing a class C park. They know how to do it. They know both how to manage it and make money off of it.

Where the foreshore parts of this are, it looks to me, are strategic areas that would allow that community to develop a kayaking and canoeing adventure circuit. The lake is a Y-shape. As it stands just now, most people go to a small lake that is at the split. They camp there, and then they daytrip out of there, up the two arms. The way that these parks are designated, it actually looks like you could create a circuit around the whole lake if it's developed well.

[1545]

My only comment on this — I know it's a long-winded one — to the minister on the public record is: I think there is a great partnership there with the community of Likely. They can use their community forest money — and they do — for co-development projects. They have an annual festival now that has really grown — a canoe and kayak festival in September. I think it would be an ideal opportunity for another area of our province with small parcels of land as are in this park to develop a lot of economic activity.

If I could, on the record, just have the minister indicate that he'd be willing to have staff go to that community on a priority basis and have a conversation with them about the options.

Hon. T. Lake: The member is quite right to point out the strategic locations of the foreshore areas of these five parcels on Quesnel Lake. I think it's a testament to the planning process that has been taking quite a while, but now we're finally at the culmination here today.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the volunteer members of the management board of Cedar Creek park and the residents of the Likely area, because it really is volunteers that make B.C. parks what they are. We have volunteers across the province that do an endless amount of work protecting the ecosystems and working on trails. We've just developed a volunteer strategy to support those volunteers.

Yes, in fact, the member is quite correct. This could be a Bowron Lake kind of adventure, where you could do a canoe expedition and touch on all the five areas of the different parks in the Quesnel Lake area. As mentioned, this would be one of our higher-priority parks in terms of getting to the management plan earlier rather than later.

B. Simpson: The last park, I think, is the most difficult one of the ones that are in Cariboo North. I think the park is in an interesting spot. As I told staff, as an avid kayaker, I wasn't aware that that lake actually did what it did in terms of going into streams and bigger openings, etc. I got chastised by one of your staff for being presumptive that my wife and I would do a trip there this summer, but I think we will.

The problem, of course, with Titetown is the Nazko First Nations have expressed concerns about the positioning of that park. I'd like, again on the public record, the minister to speak to the nature of the consultations that the government has had with Nazko, the status of those consultations and what further communications are going to occur with Nazko about their expressed concerns.

Hon. T. Lake: Between May of 2010 and March of 2011 eight letters or e-mails requesting input or providing information regarding the Titetown proposal were sent to the Nazko First Nation. Also an invitation was sent to Nazko representatives for a site visit to the Titetown area with B.C. Parks staff. At that time, there was limited response but no opposition to the area moving forward as a park.

We have received a letter of concern from Nazko. I understand they have a new chief and council. We are very interested in working with the Nazko First Nations to develop a collaborative management approach to the park. So certainly interested and have shared interests with the Nazko on this park and would be more than willing to sit down with the First Nation on a collaborative management strategy.

[1550]

B. Simpson: The minister sort of alluded to it, but during the recent time that this communication has occurred, as the minister has already indicated, there was some pretty significant restructuring going on within the Nazko Band and council — a change in the chief administrative officer and various other things. They've also got a lot on the go because they're heavy into the treaty process. In fact, I was just talking to the Minister of MARR about waiting for a Treasury Board completion of an offer of land and cash to them to advance that to an AIP.

I would hate to see anything with this small parcel of land interfere with the progress that we're making with Nazko. You know, we can't take it out of the bill. I don't want to put forward an amendment saying that this one may have to sort of be put aside for a little bit. But I'm heartened by the minister's comments, and I think it is important to communicate with the Nazko over that.
[ Page 13351 ]

The other thing, of course, as I indicated to staff, is that there is a small subdivision there with people who face directly to that park. My office would be happy to help to communicate to that group of individuals, because we didn't know a subdivision existed there until the fire happened. We can communicate there.

With that, Madam Speaker, my last question to the minister. Is the Titetown area that's proposed…? Is the minister aware of whether or not that's in the land proposal area that's before MARR and, supposedly, going to Treasury Board? Are the two of them the same?

Hon. T. Lake: Although I'm not part of that process, my understanding is that it has been raised as an area of interest. It's not unusual, actually, when we do incremental treaty agreements involving land, that there would be some parks or conservancies that formed part of that package. Certainly, it could be an opportunity, but I don't know if this particular park has been involved in those discussions. Certainly, there is that potential.

[1555-1600]

Section 4 approved on the following division:

On section 5.

C. Trevena: It's always good to see a new park established. I would like to ask the minister a few questions about the Denman Island park being established, obviously, on Denman Island, which is just south of the islands that I represent.

[1605]

I wondered if the minister could explain a little just on how this park was put together. I understand that it was a result of private land acquisition and land transfers.

I was very interested to hear from the minister how the process went. As the minister knows — not just for this park, but for other parks that we're trying to establish in the province, including on Quadra Island — we're looking at land acquisition and just seeing how it has worked for Denman Island.

Hon. T. Lake: To the member, she and I have discussed this before, because I know the member is keenly interested in this, as well as other park initiatives in her constituency.

This was a very interesting assembly and process that we went through to establish this park. In fact, it was the recipient of the Premier's Innovation Award in 2011, with parks staff working with private landowners, with conservation organizations and, also, carbon offset companies like ERA and the Forest Carbon Group.

So the 552 hectares were assembled through a public-private partnership that did involve land donations, Crown land transfers and the transfer of local development rights, as well as, as I mentioned, carbon sequestration.

So 492 hectares of private land was acquired. Four hundred hectares are included in the new park, and 152 hectares of Crown land will also be included in the park. The remaining 92 hectares of private lands were acquired, and they're proposed to be established as a protected area under the Environment and Land Use Act. Associated with this land assembly initiative, the administration of 52 hectares of Crown land has been transferred to B.C. Parks to be added, also, to Boyle Point Park.

This was, I think, one of these interesting, innovative mechanisms of bringing people together that have shared interests, where we can see the new, emerging market of the value of carbon sequestration, adding value to allow us to establish a park for conservation purposes. As I mentioned, it was recognized with the Premier's award in 2011.

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the minister a little bit more about the carbon offset program — how that actually worked. I know it's quite a new idea for establishing parks. It seems a very sensible idea for establishing parks — that you can put companies' carbon offsets against the parks that then are going to be protected. It has worked here; it isn't working in other areas.

I'd just like to know how the minister made sure it
[ Page 13352 ]
could work here, when we are having trouble in other areas — specifically, as I understand it, the Small Inlet–Waiatt Bay park up on Quadra.

Hon. T. Lake: The use of carbon offsets is relatively new, as the member knows, through our carbon-neutral government initiative. The Pacific Carbon Trust is in the business of purchasing offsets for the amount of greenhouse gases that are left at the end of efforts to reduce GHGs in the public sector. There are different means of acquiring those offsets, one of which is through carbon sequestration through forestry initiatives. In other words, instead of removing forest timber, we can preserve it. Then the carbon that is incrementally sequestered by that initiative is counted against the carbon offset.

[1610]

So in this case we relied on ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd. and the Forest Carbon Group to verify that this met the criteria of additionality that is required for the carbon offset program. So these are third-party verifiers that look at the plan and assess whether or not this meets the test of additionality. Then that money can be put towards the purchase of the land, which occurred in this case.

The member mentioned Waiatt Bay and Small Inlet Park on Quadra. That certainly is in discussion as part of the piece of the puzzle for putting that land assembly together as well. It is a relatively small portion, as the member probably appreciates. At probably an average price of $10 to $12 a tonne over a 100-year period, it will not create, on a small tract of land, a large enough amount of money to make that purchase easily accomplished at this time.

We are continuing with that initiative, looking for partners, using carbon offsets as a small piece of the puzzle of assembly of that land as well.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for this. This is obviously…. The Denman Island park was the first time that the carbon offsets have been used for the acquisition of a park. No, the minister is shaking his head.

What I'm wondering is if there is now a sort of structure in place that can be used for the possibility of other parks, other conservation areas — for how the ministry would like to proceed using carbon offsets.

Hon. T. Lake: Well, it is, I think, a tool that we have in our toolbox. The member may be aware of the Darkwoods initiative, which essentially was private land in the Kootenays that was preserved from forestry operations through the use of carbon offsets. The coastal First Nations certainly have been looking at initiatives around carbon offsets and the Great Bear rainforest. We've heard a lot about that, and that represents, I think, a large opportunity around carbon offsets through changing forest practices.

So yes, it is, I think, an emerging way of financing preservation of the ecological base in British Columbia either through private lands that are managed by trusts, by public land that is either in conservancies or even in parks.

C. Trevena: Part of the parcel of the land was Crown land and land transfers. I wonder if the minister could say…. I think he mentioned 152 hectares of Crown land. I just wanted confirmation on that. When we're doing Crown land transfers — was the ministry looking at acre for acre or the equivalent values in the different areas of forest?

Hon. T. Lake: Just to clarify. This isn't a Crown land transfer. It simply is moving Crown land into the park, so there's no exchange of values. It's essentially moving from the purview of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations into our ministry through inclusion in the park.

C. Trevena: So there has been no exchange of private lands for Crown lands elsewhere. It's just the transfer of Crown lands into the park. Again, I'm just using the example of trying to put together a little piece of the puzzle that we're seeing up on Quadra, where we're trying to do a bit of a land exchange with private lands and with Crown land — getting that involved as well. So I just wanted to see the comparison and where that land is coming from.

[1615]

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, in this situation there was no transfer of land from the Crown to private land holder in exchange. However, that is a tool that can be used and, in fact, in the case of Quadra Island, one that is being looked at. If a private land owner donates or exchanges land that can be put into a park, then other pieces of Crown land elsewhere that may be of value to that private land owner would be considered as part of the exchange. That is a mechanism that can be used and will be looked at in the Quadra Island situation.

C. Trevena: I wondered if the minister could give me a sense of how long it took to get together the pieces of land for the park. Obviously it is quite complex, and there are lots of different aspects of bringing in different people and different players, so just how long it has taken to get from idea to completion?

Hon. T. Lake: I believe the process in this case started around 2007. The land was acquired in 2010, and here we are today, 2013, culminating with the inclusion in the park. I think the point the member is perhaps trying to make is that it can take a long time to get some of these deals done. The more complicated they are, and the less resources available to government, sometimes the longer the journey is.
[ Page 13353 ]

In the case of Quadra, it has been, I understand, the better part of a decade or more. It is a little bit more complicated. Again, with the resources of government challenged in the particular fiscal period we find ourselves, it does make it more of a challenge, because then you have to look for those other opportunities involving things like Crown land transfers, which are always a lot more complicated than outright purchases.

C. Trevena: I think the people on the island can read into it that it has taken six years for this one to come from start to finish, and it's at least 16 years for the Small Inlet–Waiatt Bay one. We're still working on it.

One of the questions I have for the minister is what the cost of putting together this park was. How much is it?

Hon. T. Lake: As part of this package, we were looking at the Cariboo-Chilcotin land use plan, which was almost 20 years in the making. It sometimes does take a while to get these complicated land use plans finished.

The purchase price of the private lands was $6.7 million. The private land owner donated $1.4 million worth of land. The provincial government made a $232,000 cash contribution and transferred land development rights on parcels of Crown land, and those were valued at $3.9 million, to the company for future residential development elsewhere. And $1.2 million was provided to North Denman Lands Inc. through a third-party carbon offsets agreement, as I mentioned, with ERA Carbon Offsets and the Forest Carbon Group. The total price was $6.7 million.

[1620]

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the minister: what proportion of that came from local fundraising?

Hon. T. Lake: In this particular instance, the private landowner donated $1.4 million worth of land, but there was no sort of community-organized contribution raising money. The member knows that on Quadra Island there has been considerable community effort to raise money in that effort. That certainly is very helpful.

As is often the case in any type of land purchase or infrastructure contribution, if the local community is very invested, government always is more interested in making that happen, because it meets the needs of the local community. We certainly thank the people that have been contributing to the Quadra Island effort.

C. Trevena: I mean, the people of Quadra have managed to raise an extraordinary $200,000 for the park. It's not out of the desire, so much, to help add to the coffers of the provincial government and carry on assisting by — as well as paying their now-increased ferry fares and their increased MSP and everything else — then volunteering money up to help fund a park. They were asked to raise the money. They were told that they couldn't get the park without making substantial contributions.

I'd like to ask the minister: how come the people of Denman Island weren't asked, similarly, to make a similar contribution? Or could the minister conceive of looking at the money from Quadra as…? Basically, why did one have to donate and the other didn't have to donate?

Hon. T. Lake: Each land acquisition is different. There's not a one-size-fits-all approach. In this particular instance, the provincial government cash donation was $232,000 — I would say a very, very good deal for the taxpayer. There was a private landowner that donated $1.4 million. That's a significant contribution by any measure. When these projects are examined, certainly, if there is a contribution, either through an individual or a community group, it helps the process — particularly at times when the government is challenged in terms of the revenues that the taxpayers send to it.

I don't think there's any hard and fast rule about who pays what. It's a matter of local interest and the contribution that the taxpayers can afford to make on behalf of government. In this case we had a significant single contribution, and in the case of Quadra, a significant community contribution. Both are important.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver Island North.

C. Trevena: Almost, Madam Chair. That's federal, but that's okay. Your former colleague Catherine.

The Chair: Sorry, Member.

C. Trevena: I know we're talking about the Denman park, but there are similarities. It's the parallels that I'm interested in. I've got to say that I'm very proud of the people of Quadra Island — to have raised that amount of money in such a short time. They're very determined to make sure this park works.

Partly, it is now in memory of the woman who started getting the parks moving on Quadra Island, Judy Leicester, who, very sadly, died very suddenly last year. There has been a lot of emotion and a lot of sense that we're going to get it done for her. She got the other parks going with a couple of other people, and we're going to get this one done because of Judy. That's one of the reasons, I think, that we were actually able to get that final push on money.

[1625]

But I did want to ask one last thing on the $232,000 provincial contribution to this park. I wondered if the minister could tell me what portion that is of the parks-acquisition budget for the year.

Hon. T. Lake: As the member well knows, the area of parks and protected areas in the province of British
[ Page 13354 ]
Columbia exceeds 14½ percent of the total area of British Columbia — far in excess of the United Nations recommended levels of conservation. As the member also knows, there is some discussion around the balance that we strike between the formation of more parks and protected areas versus the development of the land base for economic purposes.

We don't have an ongoing land acquisition budget. We've met the targets in terms of the amount of land that we want to have in parks and protected areas, but we always look for opportunities as they present themselves through treaty discussions, other private land acquisitions. When necessary, we can use our parks capital budget to help us out with land acquisition as well.

The parks capital budget was increased 27 percent last year and will continue year after year at that level. So we certainly have a few more resources available to us.

But as the member and her colleagues have noted, it's important to make sure that the existing parks that we have are well serviced, that the infrastructure is replaced. We heard earlier today about the new infrastructure at Bowron Lake as an example of the many investments that we're making in parks across British Columbia with this increased capital budget.

C. Trevena: This is actually my last question. Just to confirm from the minister, then: there is no budget line within the Ministry of Environment parks section for land acquisitions for existing or new parks?

Hon. T. Lake: That is correct.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, Denman Island is a little bit of a distance from Vancouver–West End, but it's a place….

An Hon. Member: Denman Street.

S. Chandra Herbert: We have Denman Street; my office is on Denman Street. I thank you, hon. Member.

It's a place that I certainly spent a lot of time at in my childhood — fabulous parks there, fabulous places — and a tourism destination.

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Sorry, I missed the hon. minister's remark, but maybe he'll share it again later. I'm sure it was witty. Maybe it was something about ugly sweaters. I'm not sure.

Anyway, I just was curious. I have a few questions about the park. It's a park I've actually swum in before, in the lake there. I went swimming.

I'm curious. I seem to recall a couple of properties very close to the Chickadee Lake, to Chickadee Lake watershed. I'm curious how they will be affected by this park acquisition.

Hon. T. Lake: To the member: when you were recounting your childhood, I said I thought the members on that side of the House didn't like to talk about the '90s anymore.

Anyway, in the Chickadee Lake area there are some properties that have water access, in terms of obtaining water, and those licences will be unaffected.

[1630]

S. Chandra Herbert: No, the '90s were a great time. I had a lot of great times in the '90s. Yeah, I had a lot of good times in the '90s. I had slightly more hair than I do now — certainly, more than the hon. minister, who's just leaving. Sorry. I can't say who it is.

Anyway, I guess the question, as well, is I'm wondering…. It's called Denman Island park. Was that a local name that they chose? How did the ministry decide that that would be the name of the park?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm feeling a little sheepish that I don't know my British Columbia history, and I have a sneaky feeling that the member opposite does.

I'm told that the parks staff consulted with the local community and that name was chosen by the local community.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, it was Rear-Admiral Denman who Denman Island would have been named after. Unfortunately — and I think it speaks to the colonial history of British Columbia — Rear-Admiral Denman was not exactly well-regarded by First Nations communities. There was actually an attack on a village, led by Rear-Admiral Denman, which I think is why he was noted at the time as being a hero. Of course, today we look back on that and have great concerns about some of that history. Anyway, I was just curious, because we have Boyle Point Park, Fillongley Park, Sandy Island Marine Park on Denman Island — interesting to note that this came from the community.

Now, I know it's coastal Douglas fir — one of the 1 percent, I understand, left of coastal Douglas fir biogeoclimatic areas. I seem to recall — and looking at the map, some of that area has been logged. I'm just curious what proportion — or if it's all natural and has not been touched before.

Hon. T. Lake: As the member noted, the lands are within the coastal Douglas fir biogeoclimatic zone. There has been some logging. I can't tell the member exactly the percentage of land that was logged, but I'm told that because of that disturbed area, we have the Taylor's Checkerspot butterfly, which is a species at risk that likes to take advantage of that former activity.
[ Page 13355 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just curious. Some of the area I recall as being fairly well maintained, some of it in terms of road access for swimming and other things like that. Is the provincial government considering making any steps to improve access to…? There were also a number of potholes and muddy areas that I seem to recall you could get caught in, and access to the lake was not always easy. Are there any plans to improve the park for Denman Island residents and potential visitors?

Hon. T. Lake: The member may not have been able to participate in the earlier discussion over management plans. But when we create a class A park, then a management planning exercise is done with the local residents and parks staff. What they would do is look at the sort of high recreational values of the area and determine what infrastructure would be appropriate and what areas are best set aside for conservation and less of a human footprint. So that planning process will be undertaken.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, I missed that part of the discussion as I was arriving in the House, so thank you to the minister for sharing that.

[1635]

Just a final question. Maybe it's already been answered. Should a user of the water, somebody who uses it for their home or their cabin or whatever, need to upgrade their system for one reason or another, which could include access to the park to get at how they access their water, that kind of thing…? Does this change how they might do that? Maybe they have to alter a piece of the land to get at piping, for example.

Hon. T. Lake: I appreciate the member's concern for existing rights that are there now, making sure that they are not impacted by the action that government is taking.

When we put parks into the system through schedule D, which is what we're doing in this case, it allows for existing authorizations to continue. Now, if someone were to do a very significant upgrade of their water system that had impacts on the park, well, we'd like to have a discussion about that. But certainly we don't want to prevent them from doing maintenance on their systems, upgrading their systems. Again, there would be discussion with park staff to ensure that the ecological values were not impacted.

Section 5 approved.

The Chair: Section 6 passed earlier.

On section 7.

M. Sather: Section 7 refers to the Ne'āh' conservancy, and that alone is the subject of section 7. This is a large conservancy in the very northern part of our province. It stretches from west of the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, which Dease Lake is situated on, all the way over to include part of the Alaska Highway in the Liard region.

I'm pleased to ask the minister some comments about this area, as I've had the pleasure of working in some of that area and also being there in a leisure capacity. I've done wildlife work in the Spatsizi Park, on Mount Edziza, Tatlatui and the Cody plateau areas on the western part. Back in the '70s I was working on the then proposed Alaska pipeline, which would have come down through Dawson Creek. It would have intersected British Columbia in the Alaska Highway–Liard area. So I'm somewhat familiar with that part of the world as well.

It's an agreement that the province has come to with the Kaska Dena First Nation and with input, also, from the Tahltan First Nation on the western side of this conservancy.

The whole conservancy is 233,304 hectares, and the Dease-Liard sustainable management plan of 2012 and the accompanying strategic land use planning agreement between the province and the Kaska establish 231,300 hectares of protected area. So that's some 2,000 less than is listed in the bill. Then that will be closed to all industrial exploration and development, it says.

[1640]

I just want to ask the minister: first of all, is the discrepancy of the 233,304 hectares in the bill and the 231,300 in the planning document a measurement difference as per discussion of a previous section? Or is there some other reason for the differences?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is correct in that better techniques of mapping and technology allow us to be a little more precise in measurements. But also, through this process, what happens is that in the planning document you look at it from a high level. Then, as you get down, there are finer measurements made, adjustments made to the boundary based on discussions with the Kaska Dena, in this case, and the other natural resource ministries as those boundaries are adjusted — you know, sort of fine-tuned. So it's probably a combination of both that fine-tuning process that occurs from the planning document to the implementation as well as better techniques of measuring.

M. Sather: Continuing on from the 2012 planning document, it says that the Dease-Liard area has some of the highest mineral potential in the province. It goes on to say that these resources are not likely to be developed in the near future. So I'm wondering if the minister can give me some information, then. If it's not likely to be developed in the near future, when does the government anticipate that these mining resources are likely to be developed?

Hon. T. Lake: This is back to the discussion of the
[ Page 13356 ]
balance between economic development and conservation values. In this case there are five placer mine claims that will be expropriated as part of this park or conservancy. When we are looking at these areas for conservancies, we consider the potential for economic development. Of course, with First Nations, that's an important discussion, because in many instances there are economic development agreements that are entered into — revenue-sharing agreements that are entered into with First Nations.

So, certainly, the opportunity to take advantage of sustainable natural resource development for the benefit of the province and the First Nations involved is considered, but in terms of when those opportunities come forward, as the member knows, the market will be the thing that dictates. Government doesn't plan when that development will occur but essentially responds to the marketplace when those opportunities present themselves and then, of course, goes through an extensive and rigorous environmental assessment process.

M. Sather: So with regard to the five properties that the minister alluded to, are these, then, properties that are not under development at all, or are they under development already?

[1645]

Hon. T. Lake: The five placer claims are owned by one individual. We understand there has been some minor activity, but as the member knows, placer mining is quite different than open-pit mining or underground mining — so relatively minor disturbances over those five claims.

M. Sather: Well, I think it's instructive for the public to understand that 85 percent of the province is in the mineral zone designation and is open to exploration.

They seem like conflicting statements. On the one hand, we have the statement that the conservancy is closed to all industrial exploration and development, but 85 percent of the province is part of the mineral zone and open to exploration. Can the minister clarify that discrepancy for me so that we can have a clearer idea?

As the minister is aware, there has been quite a bit of mineral development in the north — some of it of considerable proportions. Can the minister give myself and the public a better understanding of how we have a huge area that's closed to exploration and development, but 85 percent of the whole province is in the mineral exploration development area — so that I can get a better sense of just what level of protection there actually is under this conservancy?

Hon. T. Lake: It's not really pertinent to the bill in front of us. However, as mentioned, 100 percent of this conservancy is protected from industrial development.

I mentioned earlier that 14.5 percent of the British Columbia area is in parks and protected areas. That leaves about 85 percent not in parks or protected areas, and those would be potentially open for mineral development.

M. Sather: The minister will have to explain to me how on earth the discussion of mining in this conservancy is not relevant to the bill. I just don't get that. Can he explain?

Hon. T. Lake: As I've told the member, there is no mining in this conservancy. This is in the bill. The land outside the conservancy around the province is not in the bill. We're talking about the land that's in the bill. This conservancy has no mining opportunities.

M. Sather: I accept the minister's statement that there is not at this time any mining within the conservancy, but there seems to be every indication — I think the minister would agree — that there will be mining development within this conservancy.

Hon. T. Lake: Perhaps I'm not being clear, and I apologize for that. A park use permit, which is what would be issued for activities within a conservancy such as this, must not be issued to authorize the following activities in a conservancy: commercial logging; mining; hydroelectric power generation, other than local run-of-river projects; any other activities that would not be in accordance with this section.

M. Sather: So for the government to permit, let's say, mining within the conservancy, they would have to do an amendment to the conservancy boundaries. Would that be correct?

Hon. T. Lake: The member is correct. If any government were to consider that kind of activity, they would have to go through a legislative process to remove the land from the conservancy.

M. Sather: Of course, that's exactly what the government did in the Klinaklini River in the last sitting of the Legislature, I believe it was. That was in an area that was supposed to have the highest level of protection, the Great Bear rainforest, in the province.

[1650]

So how can the people of British Columbia have any comfort in the minister's words when, in fact, if somebody wants to put in a mine, the government can very easily, and I submit most likely would, do a change to the boundary of the conservancy — and it might be in the middle of the conservancy; not necessarily at the edges — to allow that development to take place? Is that not likely what would happen?
[ Page 13357 ]

Hon. T. Lake: This is a democracy, and when a government is elected by the people of the province of British Columbia and puts an act in front of the Legislature, it gets debated, as we are doing today, and the people's representatives have the right to vote on that.

It is not our intention as a government to allow mining activity to occur in this conservancy or any other conservancy or park. We would have to do that in public view in the Legislature and go through an act of the Legislature to make that happen. That's the essence of democracy. I'm pretty happy with it.

M. Sather: Well, I think we just need to be clear on the reality. I mean, it's great to have the conservancy, because, you know, it's hopefully going to provide some protections. I read in the plan that the Kaska First Nation have concerns about some of the development that's taken place in their territory and do want to see improvements upon it.

The reality is that 85 percent of the province is in the mineral development zone. We know that there's been lots of development in the north already. It just kind of defies logic to suggest that there's really much measure of protection with regard, at least, to the issue of mining. I think I'll leave it go at that on that part, but certainly, I think we need to be aware of what the reality is with regard to development.

Now, there's another statement in that planning document that I found rather astounding — but not surprising, at the same time. It says: "All mining and mine-related activities are carried out in ways that minimize impact on their surroundings, and B.C.'s standards for environmental protection are amongst the highest in the world."

I know this is the fantasy that this government clings to, but how in good faith can the minister have that in their planning document? We know that the Environment Ministry, his ministry, has been gutted. We know that on the ground, staff have been eliminated in large measure. We know that we don't have the capacity to know what's happening on the land. We don't have proper planning procedures, as a result.

How can the minister in good faith…? I know they've been saying this for years, but I ask the minister again: how in good faith he can or his government can make this statement that B.C.'s standards for environmental protection are amongst the highest in the world?

I'm talking to the minister about a quote that's in his planning document for this conservancy. Now, if the minister doesn't want to respond to that uncomfortable nature of it, so be it. But this is about the planning document that supports this conservancy. So how can the minister suggest that that's not relevant?

Hon. T. Lake: I can only speculate that the statement comes from the Dease-Liard land use management plan. The fact is that the legislation is clear: no mining activity shall occur in this conservancy.

[1655]

Now, I can't guarantee what future governments will do. I can't guarantee that future governments won't raise taxes 300 percent. I can't guarantee that future governments won't privatize B.C. Hydro. I can't guarantee any of those things.

We as governments have to make decisions, and we go through an act of the Legislature, in this case, to change if we want to do that. That's a very public process. But if the member is looking for lifetime ironclad guarantees that I can hold future governments to, I'm afraid that's a little beyond the powers of my ministry.

M. Sather: Yes, I made it clear that I was referring to the ministry's 2012 Dease-Liard sustainable resource management plan.

Moving on to another area, this refers to the earlier edition of the same Dease-Liard sustainable resource management plan. This is the 2004 edition that the government had. This is with regard to caribou management.

There's a section in that 2004 document about caribou management. There are two caribou herds of note in this area, the Little Rancheria caribou herd and the Horseranch caribou herd — substantial natural resources. The Little Rancheria herd and the Horseranch herd have distinct seasonal alpine ranges but overlap on winter ranges. "Caribou management," this document said, "has been identified as the most sensitive issue within the plan area due to the overlap between the best caribou winter habitat and timber that is the most suitable for harvesting."

In 1997 the province of British Columbia, represented by the Premier and the Yukon government, signed an agreement called the B.C.-Yukon intergovernmental relations accord, because these herds cross the boundary into the Yukon as well. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the government ministry in British Columbia and the department of the Yukon.

Now, the thing that jumped out at me is that in the updated version, the 2012 version, there's virtually no mention, of any substance whatsoever, of caribou. I want to ask the minister why that is. What happened to the part of the document in 2004 that discussed these two very significant caribou herds?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I need to draw the member's attention to the process here. The sustainable land resource management plan is a document created by Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, working with the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. The result of that plan is a recommendation to create the conservancy. That's what we are doing here today, creating the conservancy that is a result of that land use planning process.

I was not a part of that process. Our ministry was
[ Page 13358 ]
given the plan in order to create the park. We're creating the park. As the member understands, some of the high-value habitat is for woodland caribou, for moose, for Stone's sheep, mountain goats and bears, as well as migrating neotropical songbirds and waterfowl. So all of the values that the member is discussing that were included in the SRMP are accepted, which is why we are creating this conservancy to meet and preserve those values identified in the plan.

M. Sather: We know that the government made a decision to remove from the Ministry of Environment many of the functions that the ministry has had historically and up to very recent years. However, the minister, I would hope…. I guess I should ask the question, because I'm making an assumption. So I will ask the question.

[1700]

The minister has alluded to the fact that his colleague in the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations has been responsible for the creation of the wildlife management park, or the lack thereof, but did the minister have discussions with his colleague about those resources with regard to this conservancy?

Hon. T. Lake: Perhaps the member was not participating earlier when we discussed the process by which these decisions are made. All of the land-based planning regimes come up through the environment and land use committee, which is chaired by the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. I serve as the vice-chair of that board, and that committee is comprised of all of the natural resource ministries as well as the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation.

All of these plans that you see coming forward in legislation are discussed and approved at that level, which includes all of the natural resource ministries.

M. Sather: Well, I would like to ask the minister: does he think that these caribou herds are important, and if so, why are they not mentioned at all in this document?

Hon. T. Lake: I am an animal lover of all types. I do not discriminate against caribou, for sure. As I indicated to the member in my previous answer, this area has high-value habitat for woodland caribou, which we know is a species at risk that we are taking extraordinary efforts across the province to protect.

I'm not sure why the member thinks that somehow we have excluded caribou and the values that are important to caribou in this conservancy. In fact, one of the reasons the conservancy was created was to provide that habitat for a species which is important for British Columbia and is at risk.

M. Sather: Well, it makes it difficult for this side of the House, I think, and for the public to take the document seriously. The minister says that they're protecting the habitat and that they have the interests of this important species at heart. He loves animals, and that's great. But in fact, it appears to have been completely diminished in terms of importance. It's not that it wasn't the same document. It was the same plan, the Dease-Liard sustainable resource management plan — just two iterations of it. One of them talks about the caribou; the other really doesn't.

The other thing that was brought up in that 2004 document was the concern that there's this overlap between the best caribou winter habitat and timber that's the most suitable for harvesting. Has the minister had any discussions with his colleague on that factor? In fact, is it a concern, and what is the level…? Well, I'll just ask him, first of all, if he's had that discussion with his colleague.

Hon. T. Lake: Not specifically. As mentioned, the woodland caribou is an important species. The planning process identified that. The conservancy was created to allow preservation of habitat. I'm not sure if the member is upset that the word "caribou" was left out of one document. Certainly, there was no effort made to exclude caribou habitat from the conservancy as outlined in the bill. It includes important habitat for woodland caribou.

I'm not sure if the member is just upset that one word was left out of a document or he's upset that the park somehow excludes caribou habitat. It certainly does not.

[1705]

M. Sather: Of course I'm upset that "caribou" was left out of the document. But I do want to address the substantive issue that is put here about the conflict between caribou winter habitat and timber that is the most suitable for harvesting.

Can the minister advise: has there been timber harvesting within this conservancy?

Hon. T. Lake: In 2004, as part of the Dease-Liard sustainable resource management plan, the horse ranch zone was created to conserve cultural and historical values, not allowing timber harvesting within the zone. As mentioned, the conservancy will not allow timber harvesting to occur in the future.

The conservancy includes about 4.7 percent of the annual allowable cut in the Cassiar TSA. There's a small amount of the AAC that falls within the conservancy that will not be accessed due to the inability for forestry activities to occur in the conservancy.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. T. Lake: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
[ Page 13359 ]

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:08 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Bill 5, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2013, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call committee debate on Bill 6, intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 6; D. Black in the chair.

The committee met at 5:10 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

H. Lali: Section 2 allows for the municipality to e-mail property tax notices upon request of a resident. I just want the minister to put on the record that this is voluntary for those folks who request the property notice to be sent electronically — what is allowed here — and that people still have a choice, especially folks that are elderly or who don't have computers or who are not very well-versed electronically, to receive their notices by the regular mail.

Hon. B. Bennett: Before I answer the question, I would like to introduce, to my right, Meagan Gergley, the director of legislation for the ministry; Michelle Dann, to my left, the director of local government advisory services; and hidden away in the Cedar Room is Talitha Soldera, director of local government finance.

To the member's question, we did consider making it mandatory in Merritt, but on the whole, we decided that we would make it voluntary for the whole province, or for the city of Vancouver.

H. Lali: I thank the minister for that explanation, the clearance. I want to also ask the minister that even though the choice is there for folks who want to receive their notices electronically….

Let's say, for instance, that some individuals have requested it electronically, and they change their mind after a year or a couple of years and realize they actually want it in the hard copy form in the mail. Is the process fairly simple, that they make a request to the municipality that they want to go back to the old system, rather than having to go through some lengthy process of having to reverse all that?

Hon. B. Bennett: It would be very simple for a taxpayer to do that. Just a notice in writing to the municipality is all it would take.

S. Chandra Herbert: It's an interesting bill. Certainly, it's one I would have thought might end up in a miscellaneous bill, but it's here nonetheless. I would like to thank the minister for bringing this forward. Certainly, Vancouver city council has made this request before.

I wanted to ask the minister: when did Vancouver city council request this change?

Hon. B. Bennett: The city of Vancouver requested the changes to allow for electronic notice in 2012.

S. Chandra Herbert: It's good to see that on this one, at least, the government has moved a little bit more quickly than they have around the local elections act, which I know has been requested many times over.

A question I had is: what happens if somebody provides an e-mail address…? You know how e-mails sometimes change, or sometimes e-mail services no longer exist as the Internet evolves. What would happen in a case like that?

Hon. B. Bennett: If an e-mail address changed, the property owner, taxpayer, would be under the same obligation they're under today to advise the local government that their address had changed. Nothing really has changed with regard to this particular question.

[1715]

If somebody moved, or if somebody changed their address, they'd also be required to notify the local government of that change.

S. Chandra Herbert: Does the minister know how often this option has been used elsewhere in the province, or is this a Vancouver-only change?

Hon. B. Bennett: If I understood the question, this is brand-new for all local governments — Vancouver and the rest of the province — so we have no experience yet.
[ Page 13360 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, of course. It's the Community Charter, not just Vancouver. Vancouver can be accused of being Vancouver-centric sometimes. That was not my intention.

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: Never, says the member from the Kootenays. Never, says the member from the Thompson-Nicola area.

One last question. What's the experience across government in doing this kind of work — you know, with Hydro and ICBC, potentially, and other Crowns or other areas in government?

Hon. B. Bennett: I don't think that I'm qualified to answer that question — how something is working broadly across government. I just don't know.

H. Lali: A couple of questions just arose after my colleague asked a couple of questions.

In what other provinces have this electronic e-mailing of property tax notices been implemented, and what are their experiences?

Hon. B. Bennett: We don't know. We were asked to do this by Vancouver and by many local governments in British Columbia because they wanted to, so we're responding to their requests. We're not really sure how much it's used across the country.

H. Lali: My colleague just previously asked a question about e-mails changing. This is not a question about e-mails changing, but sometimes servers are down, and sometimes service providers go out of business as well.

Often the individual might not immediately know that they are not receiving e-mails. For instance, if a tax notice has been sent by e-mail, and it doesn't go through, often you'll get the bounce-back that says the e-mail didn't go through.

Has the minister or municipalities that requested this contemplated that in such an event, if there's a bounce-back a few times, perhaps they would send the notice by regular mail because repeated attempts to send it by electronic mail have not been successful?

Hon. B. Bennett: Two parts to the answer. First of all, it is, once again, optional for the property owner, the taxpayer. They choose whether or not they want to receive tax notices electronically or not. The second and more germane response, I suppose, is that one would assume that all local governments are utilizing best practices and that if a notice bounced back several times, that local government would send it by mail or contact the property owner in some fashion.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

[1720]

H. Lali: I think my colleague from Peace River South is a little too eager to pass this section.

Section 5 of the Vancouver Charter "provides the authority for the city to regulate hours of business for licensed establishments generally and for other businesses prescribed by regulation." I sort of have a general idea about our liquor laws in this province, and I was wondering if there was any dialogue by the minister's office or the ministry with the B.C. liquor control board. If there was, then what was their reaction to this?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yes, there was discussion with the provincial liquor regulators. Perhaps to go a little bit further, in case the member still has a question left there, this is intended to allow Vancouver to do what all other municipalities in the province can already do, which, for a change…. Actually, the rest of us can do something they can't do.

Anyhow, we're going to change that and allow the city of Vancouver, if they wish, to pass a bylaw that would make their hours for the service of liquor different than what the provincial permit that the establishment has states — if that's clear.

H. Lali: I thank the minister for the answer. A quick follow-up to that. Is the legislative route here of changing the Vancouver Charter the only way this could have been done? Or does the minister know if the B.C. LCB — the liquor control board — had any kind of authority to be able to regulate this?

Hon. B. Bennett: There's no other way for us to assist the city of Vancouver with this matter. As I said, other communities in the province have the legal authority to supersede the terms of a provincial liquor licence in terms of the hours of service. Vancouver's authority to do that was very much unclear. They wanted it clarified, and that's what this is about.

H. Lali: In terms of clarifying the city's power, is this what this is all about — to be able to clarify the power and authority that they have, or were there any problems that were identified by the city of Vancouver that needed to be fixed? Were there problems that perhaps the hours were too long, or they wanted to regulate it backwards to shorten them, or was it to allow them the flexibility to actually lengthen the hours of service?

Hon. B. Bennett: There was a real, specific problem that the city of Vancouver identified and asked the province for help on. That problem was that there are some
[ Page 13361 ]
establishments, liquor establishments or establishments that serve liquor in Vancouver, that had provincial permits that allowed them to serve liquor later than what the city bylaw allowed.

It was unclear as to whether the city of Vancouver had the authority under their bylaw to tell those establishments that they must stop serving liquor in accordance with the city bylaw, as opposed to what it stated on their provincial permit. This amendment makes it clear that the city of Vancouver's bylaw has the authority to supersede the terms of hours of service on the provincial permit.

H. Lali: Another question that just comes to mind…. Any of these requests from Vancouver — did it have anything to do with, perhaps, any negative aspects of the Stanley Cup riots that have taken place in the past?

[1725]

Hon. B. Bennett: The city of Vancouver hasn't indicated that to me or to my staff.

S. Chandra Herbert: I understand that this is one change around liquor regulation that Vancouver has requested to bring them up to the level of other cities, municipalities, towns across the province. I'm curious. Is this the only change around liquor policy that Vancouver has requested?

Hon. B. Bennett: This is the only change requested by the city of Vancouver dealing with liquor.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

H. Lali: The minister's press release of February 13 on this bill says that, under this section, it provides the option of being able to pay for parking with a credit card or phone and not just cash. This is for the Vancouver Charter. I was wondering if the minister could tell me if there is still a choice available for folks to be able to pay with coins or even machines that take dollar bills, for instance.

Hon. B. Bennett: This will not prevent those who want to park on the street in the city of Vancouver from paying cash. It just allows the city to accept payment in other forms.

H. Lali: I've talked to a number of people, and people have complained about a lot of these machines that they put out there. I mean, in the good old days, I guess you put your coins in, you push that little lever in, you pulled it out, and there's your ticket that came out.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Slot machines were like that, the hon. minister says. That's certainly true as well.

With more and more advances in technology and also parking meters and parking machines that dispense tickets…. I know that I've had personal experiences where most of that technology, in many instances, doesn't work. People are constantly putting in their credit card and pulling it back out, and it says to please try again. It gets frustrating for people over and over again to be able to do that.

I'm wondering if the minister could comment on that. These changes, which I'm not against, and neither is the caucus on our side — was there any kind of feedback that had come in from Vancouver with people complaining to the city? I know that the option to pay for street parking by credit card or phone has actually been available in Vancouver since 2006 for the credit card and 2010 for the phone, respectively. But this legislation now allows the city to be able to do further — like also collect fees directly, rather than through a third party, as they currently do.

Was there any kind of feedback that came in as a result of your consultation that highlighted the problem that folks may have complained to city hall about — machines not working, or even paying by telephone? I've done it myself, where you keep trying the same procedures. The directions are pretty clear. You keep trying over and over again, and it doesn't work. Of course, that leads to a lot of frustration for some folks that may want to be able to do this.

I wonder if the minister could tell me if that kind of discussion had taken place, where the complaints have already come in over these two systems to the city of Vancouver.

Hon. B. Bennett: The ministry has no recollection of ever having heard from the city of Vancouver that they were experiencing complaints about this process. This is more a matter of this old legislation needing to be modernized and the situation where the local government, in this case, probably already has the process in place to collect parking fees with credit cards and so forth but didn't, strictly speaking, have the legal authority in this old piece of legislation. So they asked us to modernize this piece.

[1730]

H. Lali: I guess my fear is…. I'm going to give you an example of something similar that has taken place. When you look at the Canadian dollar bills — I guess we don't have dollar bills now; we have five and above — it says there in little print that this note is legal tender. It says that in many currencies around the world as well. Obviously, it is contrary to the constitution to be able to reject cash payment for something, because the note is legal tender.
[ Page 13362 ]

If you look at the airline industry now, with almost everything you've got to pay for, whether you try to get a sandwich or a drink or you're going to buy duty-free goods on airplanes…. You look at the policy of Air Canada, where they don't accept cash anymore. It's all credit card. I'm using this as an analogy here. Basically, what it does is it discriminates against people who don't have credit cards, for whatever reason. I'm talking about the airline industry, and I'm going to use the analogy and how it would apply here.

It discriminates against youths who may not be eligible for getting credit cards because they're too young and they haven't built up credit. It discriminates against folks who are on welfare or people who are working poor or unemployed poor who don't have credit cards or people who, for whatever reason, fall into a bad credit history and have chopped up their credit cards because of some agreement or voluntarily. So they deal only with cash or cheque.

When you look at Air Canada, for instance, they don't accept five bucks for a sandwich. You've got to pull out a credit card to be able to do that. So if you're poor or you're a youth and you don't have a credit card and you haven't eaten…. You get on the airplane, and you're there for five or six hours. You're going to be hungry for that five or six hours unless they keep giving you peanuts to eat. Even then, I think peanuts cost.

Bringing that over to the municipal angle here, my fear is that in the city of Vancouver, even though the minister said the choice is available…. If you still want to put coins into a machine to get your couple of hours or 25 minutes for parking, that's there. But if you want to use a credit card, that's there. If you want to use a phone to phone it in, that's also there as well.

My fear is that eventually the coin machines — or, if there are any, paper bill–operated machines — in parking lots are going to be done away with. It's all going to be just credit card or by phone to be able to then give your PIN number on the credit card or by debit.

Can the minister assure me that this is not the slippery slope that is going to take us the same way as Air Canada has in terms of no cash accepted for a $5 sandwich? Well, I guess it's probably $7.95. But whatever the case may be, this is not going to happen in the future?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Hon. B. Bennett: I would really like to bring peace to the member opposite. He clearly is disturbed about this issue. What I can say to the member is that this legislation certainly leaves it open and available to the city of Vancouver to continue collecting for parking fees in cash. Certainly, if the calamitous eventuality is achieved that the member described, where we're no longer allowed to use cash to pay for parking in Vancouver, that decision would be made by the city of Vancouver and not by the province of British Columbia.

[1735]

H. Lali: I guess that doesn't actually lessen my fears. It actually heightens my fears in that…. If this body had a certain amount of control that you could say to the municipalities: "You can't do that. You can't end cash machines, coin-operated parking meters, etc…." The minister basically said that that decision lies with the city of Vancouver. Well, therein lies my fear.

Has any dialogue taken place between the minister or the ministry with the city of Vancouver or its officials that this ought not to happen? Coin- or bill-operated, paper-operated machines ought not to be done away with because it would bring undue hardship on constituents that we all have in common.

These would be constituents who do not own credit cards, who do not have the credit history to be able to have credit cards. There are many constituents that we all have who don't even have chequing accounts in banks, etc. They can't have the use of a card, a debit card even, as well. So cash is the way that they operate often.

Therein lies my fear that people who are disadvantaged, people who are on the lower rungs of the economic cycle, do not have the ability to have credit cards to be able to pay for parking. They're going to be the ones who are going to be hurt the most and will not be able to have the use of coin-operated or bill-operated parking meters on the street or in parking lots in Vancouver.

Can the minister assure this House that the minister and the ministry will make every effort to pass the message on to the city of Vancouver that coin-operated machines are not to be done away with in terms of parking meters?

Hon. B. Bennett: I certainly respect the member's heartfelt concern for those who like to use cash. However, it would be in excess of my jurisdiction to tell the city of Vancouver to do what he has just suggested.

H. Lali: Just one question before my friend from Vancouver has some follow-up questions.

I apologize if I came across a little bit strong. I in no way am suggesting that the minister or the ministry tell Vancouver what to do. Rather, would the…? Well, I would like to rephrase that. Would the minister and the ministry — perhaps not the minister but the minister's officials; we've got a couple of them sitting beside him — be able to inform that this is a concern which is legitimately being raised by members in this House: that the folks who are least able to access credit cards are going to be hurt if coin-operated or bill-operated parking meters are going to be done away with?

Would the minister be willing to do that — to actually inform the city of Vancouver that we have members who are raising this issue and that they have some legit-
[ Page 13363 ]
imate concerns?

Hon. B. Bennett: The member is insisting on asking this question that really is irrelevant to these proceedings. I will say to the member that when this government was first elected, we were asked by representatives of local government to provide local government with more freedom and independence to make their own decisions about matters like this — about parking, how parking fees should be collected — and a myriad of many, many other things that local government is responsible for.

After much work and much consultation with UBCM and local governments across this province, we eventually passed what's known as the Community Charter. The Community Charter provides governments in this province with that latitude, that freedom that they need.

The Vancouver Charter also provides the city of Vancouver with the same sort of latitude and discretion to act in accordance with what they believe are the best interests of their citizens.

[1740]

So to answer the member one last time on this question, the province of British Columbia…. Neither the minister nor the staff are going to suggest to the city of Vancouver in this case that they should do things differently. That's up to them. They are elected as mayor and council. If the member thinks that they ought to be doing things differently there with respect to parking fees, he ought to go see the mayor, who I understand he has some association with.

S. Chandra Herbert: It's an interesting one. I'm trying to understand — and maybe the minister can clarify it for me a little bit — the question of giving the city the ability — I know it's been talked about — to charge for parking through the phone and other things. Of course, the city of Vancouver has been doing that now for some time.

I'm just curious. Does this bill give the city the ability to, if they wanted, bring it in-house, so to speak — to not have to use a private provider? How is this changing what the city is currently already doing? Certainly, I've paid for a parking fee by cell phone already.

Hon. B. Bennett: This particular amendment that we're discussing is limited to providing the city of Vancouver with the authority to collect parking fees in essentially any form they wish and not be restricted to cash, which is what the current legislation allows.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister help me understand how the city has been charging people for parking by cell phone right now, before this legislation? Was it a special agreement with the minister or with the government that allowed them to do it — temporarily or something like that?

Hon. B. Bennett: We're not aware of the city's current practices for collecting parking fees. We know, from having been told by the city of Vancouver, that they wanted to clarify their authority to collect those parking fees in a form other than cash, so we are responding with that amendment today. I understand that the city of Vancouver is quite pleased about it.

S. Chandra Herbert: I guess this just provides greater clarity for the city in terms of how it collects fees, because it's probably been at least two years that they've been collecting fees via cell phone through parking meters across the city. I would have thought that the ministry would have looked into that if they were being asked to do this amendment.

If the amendment wasn't required because they're already doing it, that would be one thing. But if they weren't allowed to be doing it before, that's another thing.

If the minister could provide just a little bit more clarity on what the request from the city was. Was it to give them permission to do this, or was this just to clarify the legislation to make sure it was explicit that they had the right to do that?

Hon. B. Bennett: It really is more of a clarification. The current legislation authorizes the city of Vancouver to collect fees for parking. It is unclear in the current legislation whether they can do that through cell phones and credit cards and so forth, so the city asked the province to clarify it for them so that it would be clear. That's what this amendment is about.

My staff advise me that they're not aware of any challenges of the practices that the city of Vancouver has been employing up to this point.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

H. Lali: This section, this change, actually gives the city of Vancouver the ability to create its own bylaw for the number of years a property's value can be averaged over. So it goes from three years to a five-year averaging. We don't have a problem with that, but I have a question that I'd like to ask the minister.

[1745]

What if the five-year averaging actually raises the assessment level there? What is the appeal procedure for that? Is there a different appeal process, or is it still the existing appeal process that we have for a B.C. Assessment appeal?

Hon. B. Bennett: The appeal process remains the same. The taxpayer, if unhappy with the assessment, would go to a local city of Vancouver panel. If they were still unhappy with the result from that, they would take their ap-
[ Page 13364 ]
peal to the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just curious if the minister has looked at some of the criticisms of the land-averaging policy put forward by Don Cayo. There's some concern around fairness.

It works well when property values are all climbing at a similar level. His criticism is that at a time when property values are increasing and dropping in different ways, it can distort things and make it so that some properties are kept with greater increases on their bill for longer than they would need to be if it was left at three years or if it was dealt with in a different manner.

I can't claim to be an expert on the land-averaging system, the property valuation system. I just was interested in if the minister has looked at that issue and if he has any concerns around that.

Hon. B. Bennett: Averaging is used by the city of Vancouver. Of course, it's available to other communities in the province as well. To try to address the instability of the real estate market and actually to protect taxpayers from radical changes from year to year is the purpose of averaging.

The city of Vancouver believes that with five-year averaging, they can accomplish that goal — more likely with five years rather than three years. So we agreed to effect this amendment.

With any property tax system, some property owners will end up paying more and some will end up paying less. That's the nature of fair market value.

Ultimately, it's Vancouver city council that must make the choices regarding how taxes will be distributed among the different property classes. Council will continue to determine taxation levels for all property classes. That's what they do. The province doesn't do that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm curious, with this land value taxation — and I could have asked it about the other question, around parking — if any thought had been given to giving this to all communities. Why was this decided just for Vancouver?

Hon. B. Bennett: All communities in the province have the authority to average. Some choose to use it, and some choose not to use it.

S. Chandra Herbert: Vancouver is asking for an extension from three years to five years. Do all municipalities have the ability to do five years?

Hon. B. Bennett: The city of Vancouver, if this legislation is passed, will be able to use five years in its averaging. The Community Charter, which governs all the rest of the communities in the province, allows for three-year averaging.

S. Chandra Herbert: Can the minister share why he believes that this change should only be made for Vancouver?

Hon. B. Bennett: The answer to that question is fairly straightforward. The city of Vancouver is the only local government that uses averaging, and it is the only local government that has asked the province to change the averaging from three years to five years.

[1750]

S. Chandra Herbert: I know Vancouver has a special status with its own charter.

I guess my question…. Maybe it's a broader policy question, but does the minister have some reasons why other municipalities do not use land averaging? If Vancouver is the only one who has ever used land averaging, why is it that others have not decided to do that?

Hon. B. Bennett: It's a fair question. The short answer to the question is that all other communities, other than Vancouver, have just not seen fit to get involved in averaging, because it is a very complex process. It requires more than three years of information to do it. They've just decided they don't need to do it. They don't want to do it.

The city of Vancouver, which, I'm sure everyone would agree, has the most interesting and complex real estate market in the province, has decided that it is in the best interests of their taxpayers to use averaging. We're happy, as a province, to comply with their request to change the averaging from three to five years.

S. Chandra Herbert: Does this change impact how the province does their work around land valuation or any of the provincial necessities or organizations? Does this change any administrative functions or anything within the provincial government, or is this just wholly a city of Vancouver issue and it won't impact the province at all?

Hon. B. Bennett: This is a learning experience for me as well. Apparently, the city of Vancouver actually contracts with B.C. Assessment Authority to do the calculations for the three-year averaging, and now, presumably, it will have to pay B.C. Assessment Authority for the tax rolls for five years to do that averaging. There would be no other change that we can think of that will be created by this change.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

H. Lali: I wonder if the minister can explain what effect section 8 would have in terms of this change, if any.

Hon. B. Bennett: This is entirely housekeeping, clean-
[ Page 13365 ]
ing up the act. There's a reference to the British Columbia Transit Act in the Vancouver Charter, and this act — the British Columbia Transit Act — no longer applies to the city of Vancouver, so we're just removing it.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

H. Lali: I'd like to ask the minister if section 9 here, for the Vancouver Charter…. Does it give the same changes for powers as the previous section, for communities, that we debated about? Is it exactly the same, or are there any changes?

[1755]

Hon. B. Bennett: This change is related to the earlier amendments dealing with the delivery of tax notices by e-mail. All this does is provide a definition of "mail" which now includes e-mail.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

H. Lali: Under this section, it just provides that a person actually may authorize the collector — this is for the Vancouver Charter — to use an e-mail address on the real property tax roll and also that the collector may use that e-mail address "for the purpose of transmitting by electronic means or making accessible by electronic means (i) a notice under section 401A (3)" of the act and the tax statement under section 403 of the act.

I'm just wondering. Will this actually stand up in court if e-mail is not received due to electronic or cybermail malfunction?

Hon. B. Bennett: This section essentially addresses the city of Vancouver's right to send tax notices electronically. I really don't want to provide any sort of conjecture about what would or wouldn't stand the tests in a court of law. So I really can't answer the rest of the member's question.

H. Lali: Just to clarify, the reason I ask this question is, for instance, if the individual claims that they never received their tax notice by e-mail. The city says: "Yes, we sent it out." There's a dispute. Obviously, there's a charge attached to, perhaps, a late payment as a result of not receiving the e-mail on time, and the matter ends up in court for some reason. That's why I asked the question if this would stand the test of the courts if, for some reason, because of electronic or cyberspace malfunction the e-mails were not received.

Hon. B. Bennett: I no longer provide legal opinions. Therefore, I'm sorry. I apologize to the member, but I can't guess what a court of law would do with this legislation. It has been drafted by experts. There's no reason, I would suggest, to think that the circumstances that the member describes, where a taxpayer failed to receive a notice by e-mail…. There's no reason to think that that would be dealt with any differently in a court of law than a situation where a taxpayer failed to receive a tax notice by regular Canada Post mail.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

H. Lali: I guess we're coming to a close here, because in the subsequent sections after that I don't have any questions. So we're going to pass those.

I've got a question on this one, and depending on the answer, I may have another question. Other than that, if there are other members that might want to jump in, that's fine. Otherwise, this will be the final section that I'm going to ask a question on.

Now, under this section 11, on the Vancouver Charter, the wording change is from "sent" to "mailed" to align with allowance for e-mailed property tax notices. Again, I'm just wondering if the minister can clarify for me…. What about for those folks who still want their notices sent via the post, because the reference here says it's for e-mails?

Is there really a need to change this wording in particular, you know, from "sent" to "mailed"? Previously, obviously, a notice was sent by post mail, whether it's home delivery or post office box delivery, where you go to the post office downtown to check, as it is in some areas. What the difference would be…. I mean, that's still mail. The post office is mail, or delivering it through the post office. Home delivery is still mail.

[1800]

Because you have e-mail, which is another form of mail, why would we actually change the wording from "sent" to "mailed"?

Hon. B. Bennett: This is a consequential amendment that makes clear the city of Vancouver will not only be able to send out original tax notices by e-mail if the taxpayer requests that, but the city of Vancouver will also be able to send out additional information on the taxation of that property. If there is a supplementary role or if somebody has appealed successfully and there is a different assessment, they'll then be able to send out other notices dealing with the taxes by e-mail in addition to that first notice.

H. Lali: My question, then, is that…. You know, the section is amended by striking out "has been sent" and substituting "has been mailed." Why not just call it "has been sent or mailed" and have both "sent" and "mailed" in
[ Page 13366 ]
there rather than substituting one for the other?

Hon. B. Bennett: If the member thinks back to an earlier discussion of a few minutes ago, we're adding a definition of "mail" to the Vancouver Charter such that it will include e-mail, and that's why "mail" is being used in this consequential amendment.

Sections 11 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:04 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Bill 6, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. I. Chong: I now call committee stage of Bill 3, intituled Destination BC Corp. Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 3 — DESTINATION BC CORP. ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; H. Bloy in the chair.

The committee met at 6:05 p.m.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm looking forward to the debate on Bill 3. I'm joined by George Farkas, who is the CFO of our organization, and John Blakely, who is the exec director.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm going to go through this bill, not every section, but maybe. We'll see. There are lots of inquiries, and I think there's lots of interest in the tourism community around Destination B.C. and whether or not it fulfils the commitment to be truly industry-led and formula-funded. We'll poke around through here, and I appreciate the minister's answers, and I appreciate the support of staff. Certainly, this has been a long time coming.

[Interruption.]

S. Chandra Herbert: Somebody is singing in the Legislature. Still singing. All right. A moment of harmony in this House.

We'll go to section 2. I appreciated the moment of levity from the member opposite.

I just question around purposes of the corporation, subsection 4(b)(iv).

The Chair: If I can remind the member, we're on section 2.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, sorry. Part 2, Destination BC Corp. Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes, so then it would be 4, underneath there.

The Chair: No, it's section 2.

S. Chandra Herbert: Part 2, Destination…. Oh, I see. It's 2 underneath there. I can say yes, I approve of this section.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

S. Chandra Herbert: I apologize. I'm a little rusty at this place. It's been eight and a half months since we have been here.

Interjections.

S. Chandra Herbert: The members say that I'm whining over here. I guess the member is retiring, and was hoping to retire early, but apparently that's not okay. We have to actually show up here to do our job, so I'm glad we can do that.

Under "Purposes of corporation" it discusses providing support for visitor centres. I'm just curious. Is that thinking capital infrastructure, or is the suggestion marketing support or integration, some funds? What's the thinking behind that?

Hon. P. Bell: The activities that we will be participating in are similar to what took place previously under Tourism B.C., and then when it was within the ministry.
[ Page 13367 ]
They would include operating funding. It's generally minor capital, although I think the province did originally build some of the larger tourism centres as well. Certainly, we have been spoken to about other opportunities for larger tourism centres.

Then residual services, such as brochures and information coordination, those sorts of things. So the services that were provided previously by Tourism B.C., carried into the ministry and now into Destination B.C. would be the same.

S. Chandra Herbert: I see it talks about marketing British Columbia domestically, nationally and internationally as a tourist destination. My understanding was the Gaining the Edge document the ministry created talked about the B.C. government focusing on the international markets, the regional destination marketers focusing on the more regional markets as well as the United States and a couple of other places, and then the community DMOs focusing much more locally.

This talks about doing all three. Is this a change? Is the ministry suggesting we should change from the Gaining the Edge plan? Is that plan out the window now and a new plan will be started, as this is an industry-led organization, as the minister asserts.

If that is in fact the case, then I will likely make an argument that that is a questionable thesis.

[1810]

Hon. P. Bell: Same answer, kind of, in the sense that what behaviour was occurring previously under Tourism B.C. and then came into government and now is moving back out — similar sorts of initiatives.

What I would point to is that, generally, Tourism B.C. or Destination B.C. deals with long-haul markets. So even though Ontario's not international, that's an area of focus for us. Generally speaking, Destination B.C. coordinates the long haul.

The regional DMOs focus their efforts on the shorter haul — so Alberta, Washington — but they may do some marketing internally within British Columbia. Those regional DMOs are funded through Destination B.C., which was the model in the past. That's why you have the multiple layers that are spoken to in this. Then the city DMOs, of course, market as they please, sometimes within British Columbia, sometimes out.

S. Chandra Herbert: Hon. Chair, if I stray too far outside of the ambit of this, please bring me back.

The question, again, I guess is…. Tourism B.C., when it was within government, created the Gaining the Edge strategy. There was a big press conference and a number of promotions around that.

Is the ministry expecting, with the creation of this, that they will follow that plan? Is the minister suggesting that? Or if the new board and staff decide that that plan is not quite what they want to do, will they be creating a new plan? What does the minister expect to happen?

Hon. P. Bell: I've had some good initial discussions with the board chair. Certainly, my view….

There will be one thing absolutely certain. On May 15 there will be a new Minister of Tourism, as I step into whatever future role I do outside the political arena. I'm hoping that the rest of my colleagues will continue to be in the portfolios that they're in.

I've certainly suggested to Andrea that I think they should at least give Gaining the Edge an additional year. I think it's a five-year plan. That was the way we framed it. The government letter of expectation will continue to support Gaining the Edge.

At the same time, if the board in the future feels that there needs to be amendments to Gaining the Edge or if they need to make changes, that's their decision to make, and I think we want to take advantage of the advice that they would provide.

Like most things…. It's probably easier for me to answer some of these questions, since this is my sixth-last day in this House, unless there's an emergency session that I don't know about. If there's something that is near and dear for me, it is that, oftentimes, governments make change for change's sake, and I think that implementation of key strategies at a minimum should be a five-year plan and implementation over that plan.

If different ministers want to rebrand it to meet their own personal needs or purposes, that's fine, but I think it's a shame if we shift gears too frequently. It served us well in other areas, and I think Gaining the Edge will serve us well here. It was a good piece of work, industry-driven, and I think it can provide results and is arguably demonstrating results.

Certainly, the government letter of expectation will indicate that for the first year we'd like to see them stick with it, but it will ultimately be up to the board to make those decisions.

S. Chandra Herbert: Maybe the minister can explain. The letter of expectation in some ways has to be agreed with by the board. Is that correct? If the government says, "You must follow this strategy" in the letter of expectation, does the board have the ability to say no, or is that something — as an expectation — that they actually have to follow?

Hon. P. Bell: All Crown corporations have government letters of expectation, as did the previous Tourism B.C., so there's no change in that area. It is what government expects of that Crown. It's the way that they communicate with the Crown in terms of setting their goals and objectives. When they prepare their service plan, their service plan is compared to the government letter of expectation to ensure that it is fulfilling the mandate.
[ Page 13368 ]

I can tell the member opposite what I do. I can't speak for everyone else, but certainly it's an iterative process for me. I sit down with the board chairs of the Crowns that I have responsibility for. We talk through what we think would be the right business model for the coming year, and then we really jointly prepare the GLE.

[1815]

But that's only me. I can't confirm that that is the case for everyone. However, that's no change from the previous Tourism B.C. model.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm sorry. When the minister says "the former Tourism B.C. model," is he referring to the former model within government or with it before when it was industry-led? My understanding of that model was that the government and the corporation and the former Tourism B.C. when it was outside of government had to come to agreement. Somebody called it a standoff. Neither had more power than the other, and they had to come to some sort of agreement on the letter of expectation for it to actually enter into Tourism B.C.'s planning.

Hon. P. Bell: The member is incorrect. The previous model — and I'm speaking of when Tourism B.C. was a Crown corporation — would receive an annual GLE. I was not the minister at the time that it was there, so I can't speak to whether or not it was an iterative process or not. Certainly, the minister has the authority to write the GLE — that should be clear — or cabinet provides that direction. So no change, but I think it's a best practice for any minister to try and work collaboratively with the board chair.

S. Chandra Herbert: Is that what is referred to, the letter of expectation, under subsection 4(e) where it talks about "administering and performing agreements assigned to it by the minister"? Or are there other things that that could potentially relate to?

Hon. P. Bell: The only agreement that we anticipate is the government letter of expectation — the acronym is GLE.

S. Chandra Herbert: I know the minister is familiar with a number of Crown corporations and with how other entities work within government, as are his staff. What other sorts of agreements could potentially be considered? I know right now that it's the letter of expectation. But given how other corporations work in government, what other kinds of examples might be possible under this section?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm just checking with staff, but of the Crown corporations that we currently have responsibility for and the ones that I've had responsibility for at different times in my career, we don't recall anything other than a GLE, a government letter of expectation.

I think the purpose of having flexibility in the wording is if in some future time government wanted to use a different tool. Rather than calling it a government letter of expectation, they could use some other sort of agreement. We are not aware of any other direction that is used for any other Crown or that has been over the last number of years that I've had responsibility for these.

B. Simpson: Just some questions that are a bit more of a specific nature. With respect to the outline here, "promoting development and growth of the tourism industry," it's explicit that that's at the "regional, sectoral and community tourism marketing" level.

I wonder if the minister could comment on what the relationship will be with heritage sites. As the minister is well aware, in my area we have Barkerville. It's the largest one. They're doing a lot of work in China. Right now, in fact, I think there's a delegation that went over to China very recently.

We have the Cottonwood House Historic Site. We have Quesnel Forks. What would be the relationship between this new iteration called Destination B.C. and heritage sites? How tight would that relationship be?

[1820]

Hon. P. Bell: I was just thinking, as I looked at the critic and the member for Cariboo North, that I'm glad I didn't wear my green suit, or there would have been people getting dizzy. I actually contemplated that this morning, but I thought: "No, today is not the day for a green suit." I'm happy that there's at least some mix. St. Patrick's Day is my birthday — remember? So that's coming up right around the corner here.

The answer to the member's question is…. First of all, I think the member knows that heritage sites are managed through the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, so they actually kind of control those entities. We see them as a client, or at least we did through the period of time that I had Tourism B.C. inside the ministry. I guess we still have it inside the ministry for another three or four weeks or so.

We see them as a client. We helped them with their China trip, as an example, because we thought there was value to that. In return, they help us in marketing British Columbia. But those decisions will be taken at a board level, not forced upon them. So the board will have to balance off all of the different client base that they're dealing with.

Certainly, my advice to them, if they were to ask me, is that I think there is real value. The member opposite knows that we have done quite a bit with Barkerville over the last number of years, as we have with the other heritage sites, including most recently creating an opportunity at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre for them
[ Page 13369 ]
to have a display there throughout the year.

But they are seen as a client, and they would be one of a number of tourism facilities that we would help support around the province.

B. Simpson: The minister is right. I think that there has been a good relationship there since Tourism B.C. came into government. One of the concerns, of course, with the heritage sites is that the operating budgets get stretched thin. It is good to get some help.

Just if the minister could clarify: does he see any kind of difference, for heritage sites in particular, in terms of the level of funding? Because this will now be a stand-alone Crown corporation, will there be any difference in terms of the increased capacity or decreased capacity for Destination B.C. to service its clients in either joint ventures or partnerships? How does he see that playing out? Is it going to be a plus or a minus?

Hon. P. Bell: The funding envelope for Destination B.C. will remain flatlined this year. Then it will increase with activity within the tourism industry or decrease, potentially — the downside, I suppose, of being formula-funded. There will be a measure put in place that will align funding to the amount of activity that's occurring in the industry. But it will always be trade-offs.

Coming from rural B.C., as does the member opposite, I have had a passion for heritage sites for a long time. We did what we could in my two-year tenure to try and support that activity. I know there are many other members in this House that feel the same way.

But I can't — or I shouldn't — prescribe what future ministers or what the board chair would do. Certainly, I would be providing advice that would be encouraging them to continue to support the heritage sites around the province. I think they're a tremendous tourism asset. But that will ultimately be the board's decision, as they decide on their budgets.

B. Simpson: This section also states that Destination B.C. will provide support for visitor centres. As the minister knows, in our smaller rural communities, visitor centres are a hub of activity. They also are a job creation centre, particularly in the summer. We generally get a couple of jobs, additional jobs, in there.

Does the minister see any significant changes in how visitor centres will be aligned or funded or supported by Destination B.C. from what the current practice is?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. P. Bell: Again, this bill by itself does not change the funding that is available to Destination B.C. What it changes is who controls that funding. It's now controlled by the board, which, I would argue, is representative of the industry and of good practice in terms of having people that have a diversity of skills on it. So that decision will have been taken out of the hands of government directly and placed into the hands of the board.

[1825]

Now, I suppose a GLE, if a minister felt compelled, could direct the board to allocate specific amounts of funding. I don't see the GLE working in that way — not to that degree. But certainly, best practice, in my view, is ongoing support for visitor centres around the province.

The first year that I had responsibility for the file we added some money to the visitor centres, and we've continued to try and do that because I, like the member opposite, agree that the visitor centres are often the real gateway to a community — for rubber-tire traffic in particular, which supports many small rural communities.

B. Simpson: The other aspect, of course, as the minister is aware, of visitor centres is that they're often linked with things like museums, a chamber of commerce — you know, front-counter kinds of things. So they are vital.

The other piece that strikes me in this section, section 4, just in terms of the purposes of the corporation, is: does the minister envision a rebranding exercise? In the establishment of a new organization, often one of the first exercises they do is: "Who are we? What are we? What's our logo?" All of that stuff.

What does the minister envision in terms of that? If it is, as the minister has indicated, a flatline budget, how much of that could end up being simply a rebranding exercise that actually detracts from some of the ongoing work that a lot of the regional organizations, visitor centres, heritage sites are already doing? Does the minister envision a significant rebranding exercise being undertaken here in the first year?

Hon. P. Bell: No, I don't anticipate any rebranding. All of the brands were transferred to the new Destination B.C. Crown corporation with — or will be, I should say…. No, I guess they have been already. Yes, they have been transferred already with the assets, or will be on April 1.

We're anticipating that they will continue to use the brands that are in place. But again, if the board believed for some reason that that was important, that they wanted to make a change, as long as it was within the government letter of expectation, they'd be able to do that. I would not anticipate it. The indications, for me, from board members and board chair is that they think we have a great brand. They just want to build on it and make more effective use of the dollars.

S. Chandra Herbert: The minister will know…. Certainly, I've heard at many tourism conferences around the province and with many tourism business owners some concerns about alignment between the community destination marketing organizations, the regions and the provincial and that sometimes they may work at cross-
[ Page 13370 ]
purposes or sometimes we're not getting the most bang out of our buck because we're not bringing a greater harmony between all of the efforts. I know we've discussed this before.

In terms of the purposes of this corporation, I'm curious why the minister or if the minister thinks this corporation will be able to better synthesize the efforts of each level, as there are currently no changes to do that within this bill.

Hon. P. Bell: I would argue that section 24 helps to do that. Section 24 is the section that establishes the marketing committee. The marketing committee, as the member opposite I believe knows, will be made up of 18 individuals — three from each of the six regions across the province.

[1830]

This was a very, in my view, innovative idea that came forward from the Tourism Industry Association task force. Not my idea, but I wholeheartedly endorse it. I think it's a wonderful idea. The principle is: it starts to bring forward the opportunity for greater alignment.

This is kind of getting off topic, so this is kind of for the record and if anyone really cares and reads this stuff somewhere in the future.

An Hon. Member: Some of us do.

Hon. P. Bell: Some people do.

The other thing that I think is worth contemplating…. I believe the Forestry Innovation Investment Crown corporation has a very good model — and I've had a discussion with the chair, Andrea Shaw, of Destination B.C. about this — that they have used to help lever funding from the private sector and really create the alignment that I think the member opposite is asking about. It probably is beyond the debate of today to do that, but I think it's a very interesting model. It targets specific areas of forest industry marketing opportunities, from areas that are new ventures, new markets, new opportunities, new product lines, to ones that you are just trying to sustain.

Then it requires different percentages of funding from the private sector to support each of those activities, ranging from a place where government, or FII, will contribute up to 90 percent of the funding for activities that are considered new ventures and new opportunities, to places where it's 50-50, where they're contributing 50-cent dollars with the private sector on areas that are sustaining activities.

That gets changed every year. The board sits down and reviews that and makes recommendations on how that should look. I think that's a pretty good model, actually, if Destination B.C. wanted to try and create more alignment amongst all of the different destination marketing organizations, the private sector — all of those different organizations. I think that's a model that will be successful — that, in alignment with the tourism marketing committee, which will be the 18 representatives, three from each of the six regional DMOs across the province. Those two things are intended to help support or create that alignment.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm curious. Certainly, I appreciate the discussion. I think there is still a lot more work that needs to be done around alignment. One thing, you want to encourage the private sector to partner with Destination B.C. to do cooperative marketing. That's certainly something that has gone on in our province a long time.

Something I hear when I talk to business folks is that they want the confidence that the money will be used well. And that greater alignment between the communities, the regions and the province is still a strong desire of theirs.

The minister talked about the task force and discussions with the task force. Is this bill…? Is this Crown corporation and how it's set up…? Was this the model that they proposed from the start?

Hon. P. Bell: Just by way of a process explanation…. Of course, bills, because of privilege of all members of this House, are not allowed to be provided to private individuals, so the task force did not see the bill prior to it being tabled. They have obviously seen it now. My understanding is that they all support it and agree that that is where they had landed and that it's reflective of the discussions and the recommendations that they made.

S. Chandra Herbert: I realize I should be more precise in my language. I guess what I meant was: was the idea of a Crown corporation, with things like ministerial directive — with the model that's laid out in the bill, the general broad frame of the bill…. Was this their top choice? Was this the proposal that they came up with first? Or did they have another model that they proposed, and then they settled on or decided to go with this, instead of that original model?

Hon. P. Bell: As the member, I think, knows, it took quite some time to go through the process. So obviously, it was an iterative process over time. It went back and forth, and people in the ministry that had worked in the previous Tourism B.C., as well as individuals that were working in the current ministry, were looking at different ideas that were being brought forward by the task force.

[1835]

We took that and explained: "Well, that makes sense here. If you do that, this might be the outcome of that." So it was definitely an iterative process. It was not like the tourism industry came and said, "Here's our recommendation," then went away and delivered it for you. It took, well, a year, I guess, of going back and forth and really
[ Page 13371 ]
making sure that we could explain what we thought the benefits and the disadvantages were.

One of the elements that I'll be very upfront with the member opposite on is that, of course, they did pursue the notion of formula funding and tying it to activity. I certainly suggested to them that they should think that through, because there is the risk of declining revenues when you tie to activity.

I laid out a couple of other potential models for them that included three-year rolling funding envelopes and that sort of thing, but they were firm in their conviction that they wanted it formula-funded. So that's where we landed.

That's a good example of a place where I certainly suggested to them that they might want to think about the complications of the request that they brought forward. Even though I laid out what I thought was a reasonable argument, they said: "No, we want formula funding. That's what we think we've been told." So that's what we have.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the minister sharing that example. I know there has been a desire amongst some in the tourism industry for a non-profit model. They put forward the argument that it would be better than a Crown corporation because of a number of provisions in how they spend their money year to year, in how they elect boards and those kinds of things.

Can the minister tell this House why he believes a Crown corporation would be a better model than a non-profit model, as some have suggested?

Hon. P. Bell: There were a number of different ideas explored in terms of authorities: not-for-profits, Crowns, left inside the ministry — a wide variety of different options and the pluses and minuses with each one of those.

One of the things that was important to me and that they agreed with right out the gate was that we needed accountability in two different areas. We needed accountability to the taxpayer, because ultimately this is tax money. These are resources that are being taken out of provincial revenue streams and provided to a Crown corporation each year.

So there had to be accountability to the taxpayer for how money is being spent. Is it being spent transparently? Are wages that are set for CEOs appropriate? You know, all of the different elements of public spending.

Then for accountability to the industry, our view and my view and the collective view of the committee was: how do we make sure that there is accountability to the industry for making sure that the money that is spent gets maximum value?

So the two accountabilities are openness and transparency — the things that you would expect with public dollars in how they are spent — to the taxpayer and accountability to the industry to make sure that every dollar that is spent, is spent in the best possible way, encouraging the maximum amount of activity.

When you put those two elements together, the Crown corporation came out as being the most reasonable model to move forward on, on that basis, and the committee agreed with that.

S. Chandra Herbert: I'm just curious. Was a model like…? For example, in 2003, I think, Freshwater Fisheries B.C. was created out of government, as government wanted to move those resources outside and make it independent. I think at the last minute they created a non-profit model with, my understanding is, a contract with government with a set standard of accountability for dollars, openness and that kind of thing, as well as accountability to those that rely on the fish.

Was this model considered at all? And if so, why was it rejected?

Hon. P. Bell: Same answer as to the first question. We did look at a wide variety of models. Nothing was taken off the table. Everything was considered. I mean, I have to go back, but it seems to me that a not-for-profit, actually, was the very first one that was brought forward.

But when we went back to a principal position and said, "Where do we really start from? What's really important?" I think what we all agreed with was that accountability to the taxpayer and to the industry were the two key elements that were really critical.

[1840]

Then when we started building the model around that and providing ideas and suggestions — like I said, it was an iterative process; it went back and forth — the clear winner in that was a Crown corporation. It was the only thing that really could provide accountability back to the taxpayer in terms of openness and transparency for how tax dollars are spent.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thanks to the minister for that. What about…? I know when Tourism B.C. was brought into government, the argument was that it would be more efficient and more accountable to the taxpayer. How is this model, this Crown, different from the former Tourism B.C. model, when it was a Crown, in terms of accountability?

Hon. P. Bell: I was just looking through…. I know I had a slide in one of my presentations that I put up, and it was the last slide, which was what's different between these. I was looking for it quickly. I couldn't find it.

I think, really, there are 2½ pieces that are different, that are important. The first one is that the original board was a stakeholder board in Tourism B.C., and this is a professional board.

Stakeholder boards. Lots of people would argue that there are good reasons for stakeholder boards. They tend to end up — particularly with an industry like tourism, which is so diverse — kind of representing certain sub-
[ Page 13372 ]
sectors of the industry as opposed to the broad sector, or certain regions of the province without representing the entire province. Their responsibilities often are different, because when people get appointed to the board, they feel accountable back to their specific subsector or to their region or something like that.

It was also a much larger board, of course, previously. This is quite a small board, nine people. There's a skills matrix that's made up, so their accountabilities are quite different. That's why we also said that at least five of the members had to be not currently active in the industry. Now, when the member looks, I think, at the resumés, he'll find that they are well qualified to take on the task. They certainly have good experience, and many of them worked in the industry at one point in time or another. I think it's a good group of people.

The second key thing that's a significant difference is the marketing committee, three individuals — I've covered this off already — from each of the six regions of the province.

[1845]

I can tell the member opposite, from the perspective of someone who lives in Prince George, that I never really felt all that connected with Tourism B.C., even though I sat on the board, as the member knows from my resumé, of Tourism Prince George for a number of years. I sat on that board. I really never felt connected. It was this distant group that really didn't care about us and wasn't paying attention to us or our needs.

I think this model will be very successful. Again, it's not my idea — it came from the task force — but, I think, a wonderful idea, because it will create that representation. You have a professional board, and then you have the stakeholder-driven board that then plugs in and helps direct the marketing. Again, you get the two separate lines of accountability.

Then the third thing that's maybe a half-difference is the funding formula. Previously the funding formula was based on hotel tax revenue. We're currently in discussions with the industry to see if that's the best model of capturing true activity in the industry.

I don't know where we're going to land on that. It may default back to hotel tax revenue. That's possible. But the industry certainly has said that that does not represent all of the interests in the industry and may not even accurately represent the activity in the industry at any given point in time. So they've asked us to rethink that, and we're looking at that.

The biggest pieces are a professional board — a small non-stakeholder board — and a marketing committee that provides that input.

S. Chandra Herbert: I appreciate the answer.

In talking to former board members and talking to people who worked with the organization, I understand the former Tourism B.C. also used a skills-based matrix in deciding on who their board members were. I'm sure the minister didn't mean to suggest they didn't do that. My understanding is that the skills matrix was actually very similar to the same skills matrix that Destination B.C. is currently using. If that's not the case, I'd appreciate some clarity.

As well, I guess, the argument — and I'm sure the minister didn't mean it this way — of professional board versus stakeholder board…. Certainly, we had many very good professionals on previous boards as well, from a range of perspectives. Maybe the minister could just clarify what he meant around the skills-based matrix.

Hon. P. Bell: There are a couple of differences. Of course, there was a much larger board. A minimum of ten was the requirement previously. But also, I'll just read from section 2 of the previous act to the member opposite: "At least 10 directors appointed under subsection (1) are to be individuals nominated and recommended by the board to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as representatives of the tourism industry, one of whom may be a representative of the Council of Tourism Associations."

So it actually sets out that individuals must be participants in the industry. In the old Tourism British Columbia Act, there was no skills matrix defined in the act. There may have been some work done by policy, but we don't have that here. I will say that our skills matrix is by policy as well. It is by policy — a couple of differences there.

S. Chandra Herbert: My understanding in that comment from the minister is that the skills-based matrix wasn't in the old act. It's not in this act, either, as a requirement. It's just policy, so it's not really different. What was in the skills-based matrix may have been different, or it may not have been. But both boards did use a skills-based matrix.

[1850]

The difference is, of course, that the old act suggested that they all had to be from the tourism industry, whereas the new act suggests a minority of the board would be from the industry — as is my understanding — with five being from outside the industry. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I just want to make sure that that's clear for me.

While we're just on the general question around the purposes of the corporation, I wondered if the minister had had a chance to review a submission from the Wilderness Tourism Association.

Sorry, was that a head…?

Interjection.

S. Chandra Herbert: Yes.

Just if the minister has any responses…. I could read into the record what their concerns are, but I'll just let the minister respond first, to shorten the time if we can.

Hon. P. Bell: The member, I believe, knows that the
[ Page 13373 ]
Tourism Industry Association is the lead organization in British Columbia for tourism. I made it very clear that that would be the avenue for me to receive input. The WTA had the opportunity to provide input through the Tourism Industry Association.

I have seen the document. I think, to be honest, that should have been provided to the Tourism Industry Association a year ago when the opportunity existed. They, for whatever reason, either chose not to, or they may have and their views may not have been shared by others in the industry.

I accept that they have some concerns, but the body that is representative of the industry that we're dealing with is the Tourism Industry Association, and that's the one, as minister, that I have to use to receive my advice.

S. Chandra Herbert: Thank you to the minister for that.

Certainly, I think, it's always useful when you have some unity amongst people for advice. That doesn't appear to be the case within the tourism industry right now. Some are very supportive, or say they're supportive, and think this is a good first step. Some are of a mixed position on that.

I understand the Tourism Industry Association of B.C. is currently deciding whether or not they want to continue in existence, whether or not they think there's a role for them or how they model what they do, so there's a certain amount of concern right now within the industry around what will happen with that advocacy organization.

Certainly, there is a very good role for a non-partisan advocacy organization, and I think it's very important that they be non-partisan and cooperate with all sides of the House. I think, in terms of the purposes of the corporation, I can finish at this stage and move on to the next subsection.

Hon. P. Bell: We're just kind of getting near to the witching hour here, so I just wanted to take a moment before we pass this section, and then perhaps we'll go to call the Speaker back in. But I just wanted to — given that I only have five days and seven minutes left in this House — maybe share some thoughts or perspectives, on the member's comments, that are intended to be in a non-partisan way, just a factual way.

I have had the honour of having the portfolios and responsibilities, including mining, agriculture and lands, forestry and now the general economic portfolio — as well as, of course, the residual ones that are attached to this portfolio. The one thing that I am absolutely convinced of, having been in cabinet for nine-plus years now, is that when there is a coordinated industry association that speaks with a single voice, government can do wonders to help support their goals and objectives.

When I think back to my time in this House, I think, too, of people like Dan Jepsen, who was the chair or the CEO of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, which is now the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. He coordinated all of the advice that was provided to government from the exploration side of the business, and I would argue we have made tremendous headway with that industry. I would also argue that it's largely because we just have to listen to one person.

When you have fractured industries — when you have industries that have many, many different associations — it becomes extremely difficult. As minister, it doesn't matter how hard we work and how much we listen to the industry. There are not enough hours in the day to really work through the communication that we receive from many different organizations. When that occurs, it forces the minister, ultimately, to make the decision on what the priorities are. I rarely think that's successful. I rarely think that's a successful model.

[1855]

If, in my last five days and five minutes in this House, I could send out one plea to the tourism industry, it's that they should put the effort behind the Tourism Industry Association to make sure that it is a successful organization. Ultimately, that will create a far more effective tourism industry and achieve better results in the future, regardless of who the minister of the day is. I just wanted to put that on the record, because I thought that was particularly important.

Now we can pass this section, and then we'll note the hour.

Section 4 approved.

Hon. P. Bell: Madam Chair, noting the hour, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:57 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 © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada